Elton John, David Furnish, and baby Lev

[LucyDuke]

Elton John and his husband David Furnish want to adopt an HIV+ 14-month-old Ukrainian orphan named Lev. Elton is 62 years old and David is 46 years old. Ukrainian law requires prospective adoptive parents to be no older than 45, and married. Ukraine does not recognize their marriage, and they are both older than 45, so they will not be allowed to adopt this boy.

I first heard this story and thought "well, that's fine, they're pretty old." Of course I have absolutely no problem with gay couples having and adopting children, but I'd question an old husband-and-wife couple adopting a baby, too.

CNN ran a commentary piece by Joy Behar today slamming Ukraine for preventing this adoption, saying the real reason was that they were gay, not old. (She's probably right. I can't imagine a young gay couple having more success there.) But Daddies would be 62 and 79 when Lev turns 18. Imagine being ten years old, with a parent in his seventies! But then Joy Behar put this in proper context.

But you know what does negatively affect children? Growing up with no parents. So now 14-month-old Lev is stuck in some depressing orphanage that makes Guantanamo Bay look like the presidential suite at the Waldorf.

He'll likely end up in foster homes and -- if he lives long enough -- maybe he can turn into a bitter, vodka-swilling drunk. All because the Ukrainian government won't let him be adopted by two loving gay parents who are fabulously rich and want to give him a home with the best healthcare available, dressed in Versace jammies and cashmere Huggies. Not to mention all the play dates with Brangelina's kids.

Now, I don't think Versace jammies are good for a child's development, but they can't be worse than AIDS. I've reservedly changed my mind on this one. It's very unlikely that this child will be adopted by a "better" family. Old parents are not ideal, but they're immeasurably better than no parents.

What do you think?

EDIT:

While I was writing the post, I forgot one of the questions I wanted to ask y'all. I generally disapprove of old(er) people adopting kids. I know a bunch of you disapprove of gay people adopting kids. This is a situation I think it's worth making an exception for. Are there situations where you'd make exceptions?

 

[Rossiya]

Heh, Elton John's pout is well good.

I'm for young Lev coming to Britain, or wherever Elton John lives nowadays.

 

[Gilder]

I don't see why not. They can easily provide for him, and like its been said, the alternative is kinda... not nice.

 

[illram]

No question they should let the adoption go forward. I don't think 46 and 62 are plainly too old, and it's not like the kid will be living homeless on the street begging for food after his parents are gone. Also I doubt there is a line around the block to adopt an HIV + infant, let alone have the resources to care for such a child.

And yes, living in an orphanage in the Ukraine totally sucks, I am guessing.

 

[Ecofarm]

But Daddies would be 62 and 79 when Lev turns 18.

Does Lev have a realistic chance of seeing 18?

The adoption should be allowed. Let the kid have a nice childhood.

 

[scherbchen]

what does age have to do with this (not even going to mention sexuality)? my pa is 70 this year and my half-sis will turn 8 this fall. my half-uncle is 2 weeeks younger than me. we did not need any approval for this weird-ish family and some of us turned out fine(-ish, not me).

kid needs a home give him a home. sheesh.

 

[LucyDuke]

Does Lev have a realistic chance of seeing 18?

Yes. Modern medicine is magic. If he's reasonably healthy now, and if he gets the kind of care that a rock star could pay for, he's more likely than not to see 18. Depending on the treatment at the orphanage, which I'd bet is pretty bare-bones, he's not terribly likely to get that old.

What's especially awful is that if this kid does get left in the orphanage, ten years from now he may lay dying, knowing what his life could've been instead.

 

[Shadylookin]

Well if the rule is no one over 45 then they shouldn't make an exception just because they're rich. It's not like rich people are somehow immune to becoming vodka swilling drunks afterall.

 

[Speedo]

I'm rather on the fence. Don't really care about the gayness, but 62 is damn old to be getting a kid. Still, it's most certainly better than living in an orphanage, especially for this kid.

But Daddies would be 62 and 79 when Lev turns 18. Imagine being ten years old, with a parent in his seventies!

They allow it for straight couples, though. My parents know several couples who adopted toddlers when they were in their late 40s/early 50s.

Does Lev have a realistic chance of seeing 18?

It totally depends on the person's immune system, the particular strain of HIV they have, and their access ($$$) to modern medicines. Some people are able to go about their lives with essentially no ill effects, and I think a few lucky ones can even eventually go off of the drugs.

 

[Speedo]

Well if the rule is no one over 45 then they shouldn't make an exception just because they're rich. It's not like rich people are somehow immune to becoming vodka swilling drunks afterall.

If the kid has to live in an orphanage in Ukraine, he'll probably be dead before he's old enough to have his first drink.

 

[Shadylookin]

If the kid has to live in an orphanage in Ukraine, he'll probably be dead before he's old enough to have his first drink.

Then Elton John should be so gracious as to donate to the orphanage if he cares that much. Or perhaps he could raise awareness and get someone to adopt him who isn't too old. He could request the government change the law to let old people adopt. However I don't really think it's appropriate for people that old to adopt a child unless it's grandparents adopting their grandchild because their parents died.

 

[kulade]

Celebrities adopting a baby from the Ukraine? Well, I guess Eastern Europe is the new Africa.

 

[MobBoss]

Why do we always feel compelled to change the rules simply because someone is a celebrity?

 

[warpus]

Why do we always feel compelled to change the rules simply because someone is a celebrity?

Forget the celebrity - I think the rules should be bent in this case becasue it would mean the difference between a short and depressing life in a hellhole and an amazing adventure full of surprises, for a poor HIV infected kid.

I don't give a damn who is doing the adopting - if they are well off and want to make some poor kid's miserable life into paradise - IMO it's inhumane to stop that from happening..

poor kid bend the law for HIM, not for the celebrity.

 

[mrt144]

Forget the celebrity - I think the rules should be bent in this case becasue it would mean the difference between a short and depressing life in a hellhole and an amazing adventure full of surprises, for a poor HIV infected kid.

I don't give a damn who is doing the adopting - if they are well off and want to make some poor kid's miserable life into paradise - IMO it's inhumane to stop that from happening..

poor kid bend the law for HIM, not for the celebrity.

I wish I had HIV as kid.

 

[MobBoss]

Forget the celebrity - I think the rules should be bent in this case becasue it would mean the difference between a short and depressing life in a hellhole and an amazing adventure full of surprises, for a poor HIV infected kid.

I don't give a damn who is doing the adopting - if they are well off and want to make some poor kid's miserable life into paradise - IMO it's inhumane to stop that from happening..

poor kid bend the law for HIM, not for the celebrity.

Why do you assume he would have a short depressing life in a hellhole? Why do you assume being adopted by Elton John would be an adventure?

Rules exist for a reason. I dont like to see celebrities given preferential treatment simply based upon the fact of their celebrity. Its simply elitism and shouldnt be encouraged.

I wish I had HIV as kid.

Wow.

 

[mrt144]

Wow.

Ryan White was hella cool.

 

[J-man]

But you know what does negatively affect children? Growing up with no parents. So now 14-month-old Lev is stuck in some depressing orphanage that makes Guantanamo Bay look like the presidential suite at the Waldorf.

How does Joy Behar know this for this for sure? (genuine question)

Those rules for not allowed to adopt a child when you're older then 45 make sense. But I guess when there are no other people to adopt him they should be allowed.

 

[bathsheba666]

Let's face it; adoptive parents have to be pretty abusive before life gets worse than in an orphanage.

Then add Ukraine into the mix.

60 years old is pretty old to be a parent, but the first point trumps that.

Then add the fact these guys are rich and the child will probably get a way, way better start than otherwise.

The official position ignores the shortcomings in the official default alternative.
The child is probably better off almost anywhere else than "in care"...

 

[El_Machinae]

The rules are there to protect the infant. If the rules result in a less-optimal outcome for the infant, change the rules. I'm sure that judges in the Ukraine can read into legislation, if the legislation conflicts with their Constitution. And I'm betting that the Ukrainian Constitution presupposes that HIV infected orphans can be given into the protective custody of millionaires.

Hopefully, some judge will just decide that these two will need a less-than-45 Godparent preassigned.
And what's the life-expectancy difference between a 45 year old Ukrainian and whatever Mr. John's spouse is?