Brad & Angelina: Baby on the Way

Just saying–
You must come from a small family or a large one that didn’t get along. Many of us are from large families and we turned out all right and are close to our siblings. What about folks who have twins, triplets, quads and more? Especially those to whom it was a biological fate rather than an engineered one (i.e. invitro or something). They have the resources and the love to have a large family. In fact, didn’t Brad come from one? Four kids? Can’t remember. I think, from what I see in the media and hear from their interviews with regards to their philosophies, that they are doing a wonderful job. Anyone who has the love, patience and resources to adopt a child and love them as your own-kudos to them! I don’t care if they are Meg Ryan, Mia Farrow, etc. I do have doubts about Sharon Stone’s parenting skills, but hey this is a Brad and Angie blog.

111
Rachel Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 11:50 am - flag comment

ur still here? [lmao] I think ur the one who needs a life…

They are really going to have to MAKE time for each other now that they’re going to have four little ones to give all their attention to.

They have already outgrown the Malibu beach house now for sure.

I really think they want to hurry and complete their family soon which means she will be pregnant pretty soon. Brad is in his 40s and wants a gang of kids before 5O.. maybe that is why they’re in a rush?

924
Brangelinafan Says:

March 6th, 2007 at 9:17 pm - flag comment
587
coyote27 Says:
March 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am - flag comment

Lylian: I assume you posted the comments below and I’m going to respond to them one by one as a lawyer who has practised extensively in Asia.

___________

Coyote: That’s right, Jolie probably wouldn’t have known initially but soon found out BECAUSE THERE WAS A SCANDAL ABOUT IT. THEY BLOCKED MADDOXs’ VISA FOR A FEW DAYS/WEEKS because they didn’t know if the adoption was legal. Why is it so difficult for you to just look it up? It’s all there.

Lylian: I did look it up and so I know that angleina was investigated on her adoption of Maddox. that’s how I know that she was not guilty of anything other then using what was then the largest adoption agency in America for adoptions in Cambodia.

Coyote: So, the point is, Jolie was involved with a scandal because she didn’t know - then she turns around and accuses Madonna saying “she should have known” - that’s the point, the hypocricy. Madonna didn’t know and Jolie didn’t know. But Jolie, as usual, engages in the hypocrisy and is so righteous about it when the exact same thing happened to her!!

LYlian: Cambodia was on the list of single parent adoptions back in 2000 and 2001, before the US closed its doors to adoption there because of the dubious activities of the adoption agency.

On the other hand Madonna knew that:

(a) Malawi was NOT ON the List allowing for International adoption

(b) MADONNA HERSELF SAID IN AN INTERVIEW THAT THE LAWS FOR INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION DID NOT EXIST SO SHE AND HER ADOPTION LAWYERS JUST DID WHAT THEY COULD AND MADE IT UP AS THEY WENT A LONG.

(c) the Malawian NGOs challenging madonna’s adoption actually claims the laws have been BREACHED. I believe one of the claims was that there is minimum residency requirement before someone can adopt a malawian child.

If in fact, Malawi had this minimum residency requiremnet and Madonna did not satisfy the law, then her adoption IS ILLEGAL.

If however, it was as Madonna claimed, the laws were simply unclear, then it would be a different matter. If the laws of adoption in malawi were not clear, then Madonna got approvals from various agencies, which is where the allegations of undue influence, preferential treatment to a woman who just donated US$1.0 million to orphanages in Malawi came in. That in itself could be ILLEGAL too, depending on what was given, what was promised, for the approvals to be given. Depending on what you gave, what you promised, you can be guilty of bribery.

So, I follow the Malawian NGO’s case with interest. Are they alleging a straight out illegality or are they alleging improper conduct on the part of Madonna or what? I’m not clear and neither are you.

I will say that what ever the case, I’m happy that little David was adopted, got out of the orphanage and appears to be much loved in the Ritchie home.

As for Angelina’s alleged adoption in Vietnam, Vietnamese law appears to allow single parents to adopt and married couple to adopt. However, the law does not say anything about UNMARRIED COUPLES ADOPTING. You could argue that the law is unclear. Or you could argue that Vietnamese law is very clear: Single People may adopt.

Under US law, Angelina is not married which means, she is a single woman. Under US laws of intestacy, Angelina will NOT BE REGARDED AS BRAD’S WIFE SHOULD BRAD DIE SUDDENLY WITHOUT A WILL. Under US laws, Angelina may not even be entitled to company health benefits which are extended to the legally married spouse because she isn’t legally married. In her position as a partner for a period of 18 months, it is not even clear if the presumption of joint tenancy applies to Angelina and Brad in respect of their family home in NO. If you were legally married and hold the family home in joint names with your husband, the law presumes, at least in my part of the world and probably in the US too, that you and your husband hold the family home as joint tenants and not tenants in common. I won’t explain what that means but trust me, it has significant legal importance.

So, for Angelina to apply as a single woman, in Vietnam, is not illegal. it is very clear to me that Angelina is a single woman. She is not Brad’s legally wedded wife and lacks many rights under US law. Why do you think that homosexuals want the right to marry? Aside from the desire to be accepted as a member of society, the law gives different rights to legally married couples, which they don’t to cohabitating couples.

If the Vietnamese authorities elect to treat Angelina as a single woman they certainly are justified doing so. And if Angelina’s did not bribe, did not make promises to donate funds to the country’s orphanages, but applied as any other single parent, the vietnamese authorities can interpret their own laws as they see fit.

Coyote: Regardless if Jolie knew about it, which she didn’t, she was still involved with the scandal and THAT 2002 SCANDAL CAUSED CAMBODIA IS CLOSE IT’S DOORS TO ADOPTION.

Lylian: The scandal of cambodia was not of Angelina’s making. She didn’t cause the adoption agency to do illegal things. The authorities did not investigate the seattle adoption agency because of Angelina’s adoption of Maddox. If you say that Angleina’s adoption caused the scandal, then so did the hundreds, may be thousands of cambodian adoptions which were made through this same agency. Surely, you are not saying that as a celebrity, Angleina should be made responsible for the scandal but not the other adoptees coz they aren’t celebrities.

On the other hand, Madonna’s scandal is ENTIRELY OF HER OWN MAKING. She chose to (in her own words) ” make it up as she went along”. As a lawyer, I can only say, she was badly advised. To risk a matter as important as adoption, regardless of whether you are a celebrity or not, by making up the rules as you go along, is just plain DUMB.

If you have done your homework and read things without the glasses of a bigot, you would see the difference in both cases. But as I’ve said before, you cannot expect a bigot to be fair.

—-

God bless you! Thank you for dealing with this troll in a positive manner. You are so much more better than me. That post is a kepper.

92
+++ Says:

March 7th, 2007 at 11:42 am - flag comment
21
I do care because Jen do like children Says:

March 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am - flag comment
Jennifer chose her life no one make that choice for her, if she wanted Brad, she had to make comprise.
In relationships you don’t suppose to see yourself only, you have to see your husband or partner too. Jennifer is so selfish she refused to have a baby with Brad. Don’t blame Brad or Angie for that. It’s time to move on, let Jolie- Pitt family live their life.

=================
ITA. Maniston underestimate the power of a child in a man’s heart. but the real issue, she never want a kid but keep lying to the public and her husband. after 2 years of separation, Brad gonna have 4 kids, she still zero kid with a biological clock slowly ticking away.

________________

Plus, Aniston is NEVER mother material. Look at her, smoking up the chimney, tanning, plastics etc. She is the me me me child-woman. Brad said, with children, ,”….children are first, and you are second…”.

Jen is better off getting more dogs. Her children will suffer if ever she becomes a mother.

Oh no.. [Not again] just mentioned the [x] again.. Oops, So did I.
When will it end. [Never]

Aniston quit smoking.

132
gitane Says:

March 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pm - flag comment
110 African Girl

my friends don’t call me the “all-knowing gypsy” for nothin’! as for predictions for the fanistons, i’m afraid i can’t help you there. i can only predict the course of people who have brains.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Right, right….No brain, no brainwave to read. Oh all knowing Gypsy lady, you one in a million. Say, with your powers and my voodoo background, I’m sure we can come up with ano alternative for these pesky l’il buggers.

I think people are getting things mixed up or maybe not. It seems like some think that adopting is charity and commend Angelina & Brad for doing so. The thinking seems like if they are “not like them” it has to be charity. How could you possibly love another child from a different race unless it was charity? Some “applaud” them for doing charity work. Adopting, if I’m not mistaken means that you want a child. Does wanting a child make you a humanitarian? Or it it charity only if you adopt from an orphanage? People are confusing the two. It’s simple, they are adopting because they love children and they want another child. They do humanitarian work, because it’s fulfilling and want to make a difference in the world. I just feel uneasy that some actually think the adoptions are just another form of charity.

128
diamondhead Says:

March 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm - flag comment
———
Well why don’t you go start a blog that recognizes these real heroes while we post on a celeb blogs about celebs. I get your point but honestly….this is not the place to discuss that.

To the too soon camp….four kids in two years….yes but all four of the kids are not under the age of two. Z is two, Shi will be one in May and Mad will be six in August(I think). A four year old won’t be that much of an issue for them to handle when he is adopted by the JP’s.