More fallout from the Guy Ritchie/Madonna divorce. Us Weekly is reporting that the father of the Malawi boy the couple adopted, David Banda, wants his boy back. As news hit that Ritchie was never supportive of the adoption in the first place, the tabloid claims that David’s father is wondering aloud if his son is going to get caught up in the acrimony.
In light of Madonna’s divorce from Guy Ritchie, David Banda’s biological father is having second thoughts about giving his son up.
“I am still a poor farmer with nothing to offer, but maybe he’d be better off back with us,” he told Britain’s The Sun.
“This woman, Madonna, told me herself that David was beautiful and made her happy and she promised to take care of him,” Yohane Banda added. “Now I see him in a big bewildering crowd in the street with people pushing and shoving, and many cameras around, and without a mother and father to hold his hand. I’m feeling bad for him.”
Since Madonna adopted David in Malawi in 2006, David’s biological dad has moved into a thatched hut with his new wife, their three-year-old daughter and their seven-month-old son.
“I have the joy of a new family and I even have a new son,” he told The Sun. “But now, when I think of David in danger of living outside a family life, I find it unbearable.”
However, an interview with Australian Sun Herald published last Friday reports the contrary. In this interview, David’s father says he hopes Madonna will keep David because she has given him a much better life than he ever could.
THE biological father of the Malawian toddler adopted by US singer Madonna and her British film director Guy Ritchie says he is shocked at news of their divorce but wants her to keep the child.
“I am shocked but not too sad. I only met Madonna and her husband once in court when we were signing the first documents for adoption in 2006,” Yohane Banda said by telephone from his village of Mchinji, 110 kilometres from the capital Lilongwe.
“As I have always said, Madonna loves the child, and I want to encourage her to keep loving the boy despite the divorce,” he said.
“I allowed my son to be adopted in order to escape poverty. If he was still here, he could have probably died,” he said.
[From the Australian Sun Herald]
This rumor about David has been buzzing around since the divorce announcement last week. It’s hard to say how this will play out. Madonna did sidestep some of the adoption procedure to get David, and in this case one of his parents is still alive. But if this second interview is to be believed, David’s father still thinks his son is better off with his adoptive parents, even with the recent divorce situation. Even if it’s true that Guy didn’t support the adoption in the beginning, he does seem to dote on the boy now. He’s been photographed carrying the child around more often than Madonna lately. I think returning David to his father at this point would probably do more harm than good.
David Banda and Madonna are shown outside the Kabbalah Centre on 10/1/08. Credit: Fame Pictures
I don’t want to be judgmental, but it has always bothered me that both Madonna and Angelina Jolie have adopted children that still have living biological parents. Why did they choose these particular children? Why not one of the countless other African children that are true orphans? Or better yet, why not be more creative in their philanthropy and try to improve the structural circumstances in these African communities to help improve the lives of all those there, rather than whisking away the children from their homes and native culture?
As far as I am aware Madonna and Angelina adopted their children from orphanages-where they were living sans parents and in pretty awful conditions. This man gave up the right to be David’s father when he allowed his son to be adopted.
well said, jenn.
This little boy is being treated by the media like some returnable gift and it’s stomach-churning. And I suspect it IS the media instigating this, not David’s father. This child, now, is as much Madonna & Guy’s as Rocco is and stories that treat him like a piece of property with rightful owners are just demeaning and distasteful.
Edit: Cidee, agree with all you say. The child counts, not the country of origin.
I am going to pre-empt the “haters” who bash Madonna and other celebrity adopters by pointing out that the stars, undoubtedly, have done more to highlight the problems in their childrens’ countries of birth than most. And why is it anyone’s business where people adopt from? I doubt any one of the posters here has saved a child from a life of poverty and illness by taking them into their homes.
I don’t hate either celebrity, and in fact applaud them for championing the causes they have brought light to. My husband and I feel strongly about adoption issues (he is adopted and we are in the process of adopting a child locally ourselves; we have several friends who have adopted overseas, etc). The issue I was trying to raise is that both Zahara and David’s adoptions were circumspect in that they both still have living relatives that might have been able to care for these children given better structural situations. While it may seem that both Z and David will have lives of great privilege, money is not the only issue I was thinking about. Again, why these particular children? Were they just the cutest ones?
I dont know what to say. I feel for the father wondering and worrying about his son. Perhaps Madonna could open a line of communication.
Obviously he should remain with his (adoptive) mother and father.
While I believe Jolie adopts children out of love, I have always thought that Madonna’s adoption was just another one of her many well orchestrated publicity whoring activities.
many times i have said that one day zarah might turn around and say, “we have so much, we help so many people. why couldn’t you help my mother instead of taking me away?” david may well say the same thing.
@Jenn – Zahara was anything but ‘cute’. She was seriously ill and malnourished when AJ adopted her. That her mother (confirmed dead to the authorities by Z’s grandmother) turned out later not to be dead can’t be laid at AJ’s door. And both Madonna and Jolie have put money, time and effort into trying to improve the lives of other similar children in equally grim circumstances.
When Zahara was adopted, they did not know her mother was still alive, so, I don’t get what the problem is here. Second, if a child is in an orphanage, does that not mean they are they to be abopted? These children were not snatched from their homes the way some of you write.
If parents cannot take care of their children but want time, then, they should not be placed in an institution whose purpose is to find adoptive homes or they should state that they don’t want them to be adopted.
As with Zahara’s “mother”, it was the tabloid press that brought all that up, not her (also, we have not heard from her since, funny if you ask me, that once the press left, the “problem” went away) and with Mr. Banda, it just seems sad and the problems may stem from the fact that Malawi had odd laws that may or may not have been circumvented. But again, it is the press that keeps going back as I don’t think he has a publicist. But it may prove that children should not be brought into “unstable” adoptive homes, even if they are weathly. Not saying that Mr. Ritchie does not love David, I am not sure he was totally on board in the beginning.
The situations between Angie’s adoptions and Madonna’s adoption were completely different. For example, Angie was told that Zahara was an orphan, and the orphanage had the documentation to “prove” it, including a signed legal document from Z’s grandmother. When adopting Z, Angie followed all rules and protocol. It was more than two years after Z’s adoption that Z’s birth mother came forward, and she never claimed to want Z back. Z’s birth grandmother also came out and said that she had lied to the orphanage and falsified the records of her daughter’s death.
Now, Madonna knew at the time that David had a living father. True, David was living in an orphanage, so obviously there was a legit concern about the welfare of the boy, and whether David’s father could ever handle the responsibilities. But what I always found distasteful about David’s adoption was Madonna’s manipulation of the Malawai legal system and her disregard for the existing adoption rules and protocol. Of all the celebrity adoptions that get critisized, it’s David’s that seemed like a “baby hijacking”.
I’m guessing that they chose these children because there was some sort of immediate connection with them, and possibly fell in love with them and wanted to parent them on the spot. Better for them to adopt these children, who had been placed for adoption, than say ‘No I want a proper orphan – meh, you’ll do’
That whole African trip was a bit of a dud – turning up in combats and doing a bit of random dancing which was nothing like what the tribes-people were showing her, etc. etc. But it does seem as if this is a very loved and wanted little boy.
well the way i see it, she basically “bought” that kid. it may sound bad, but she did! he has living parents, of course they are poor, but parents nonetheless.
there are a million ways to bring attention to africa other than adopting a child. 🙄
and from whats being posted about madonnas home environment, i feel bad for all 3 of her kids! no sugar? haha, i wouldnt have made it!
but these people adopt kids, and then parade them around for photographers and drag them all over the world, im sure no kids enjoy that. and its got to be a HARD transition from one life to another. no doubt madonna can provide better for him than his biological father, but “things” arent what lifes always about…
I’m very much with those who are uncomfortable with Madonna and Angelina adopting children with living parents. I worked at an orphanage in Cambodia (it’s actually illegal to adopt a child from Cambodia due to problems in child trafficking, but you can buy your way out of any legal circumstance in that country, as in Angelina’s case), and people don’t realize that parents often bring their children to orphanages when they can’t support them, but still come to visit their children and take their children back once they get back on their feet. It’s quite common, actually, and it seems like exactly the circumstance David Banda was in– although it’s a bid more wonky in Zahara’s case. Orphanages in Cambodia and many other third world countries are not run in the expectation of placing these children in other homes– they’re there simply to feed the children, put a roof over their heads, and educate them. I understand that a foreigner could easily misunderstand the situation and adopt a child thinking their parents gave them up when in actuality the parent meant the situation to be temporary. And because of the corruption in many of these orphanages, foreigners may not get told the child’s parents take an active part in the child’s life. Also, sometimes parents just make the sacrifice when they see someone with all the money in the world taking an interest in their child. More often, however, they’re simply powerless to keep their child no matter how much they want him or her. But I think in Madonna’s, she totally had the resources to investigate the situation and did not, and it really bothers me because it basically means she doesn’t think of the child’s father as human. Having seen the way even middle-class foreigners treat Cambodians like ready-made servants when they’re on vacation, it quite frankly disgusts me.
If they had adopted domestically, isn’t it most likely that the child would have at least one living biological parent? Why is it different in an overseas adoption?
He’s such a cute little boy.
I feel like I’ve seen Guy with him more too, in pictures at least.
I think the worst part about this is that all of these kids are going to have to deal with trans-Atlantic visitation. I got the impression that Lourdes doesn’t see her dad very much until she piped up about it. I don’t know if that’s right, but I imagine it would be a logistical nightmare.