Comments on: Angelina Jolie Prevents Pax’s Natural Mom From Seeing Her Child

By: deedee

deedee — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:36:00 +0000

That’s smart :) u don’t need a flighty woman with drama in your life. Hallmark movies are not real

By: deedee

deedee — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:34:00 +0000

You’re dumb! A child doesn’t need that drama. You are in or out.

By: deedee

deedee — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:33:00 +0000

You need to go on with your life. Stop being over dramatic. If child isn’t wanted, it sucks but hey worse things could happen. I can’t stand whiney people who over dramatize life. You are the only person that stands in your way of happiness. Move on!

By: Debbie Emerald

Debbie Emerald — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:59:00 +0000

OMG. I was given the link to this article on an adoptees’ only forum. That would mean it is BY adoptees …. FOR adoptees. If you are not adopted, close your mouth. What they are doing is disgraceful, but fairly typical of adoptive parents. As for the moron who says that Pax’s mother is “not his mother”, I am guessing that she is an adoptive parent. Or perhaps just a loud-mouthed fool. People like the lovely Brangelina have helped the cause of adoption truth back about 100 years. Being adopted is not what the glossy mags make it out to be. Go on FB and hook into adoptee sites. Do some research. Use your brain. Being adopted is a lifetime sentence of not belonging …… no matter how cashed up your adopter is. Please use this opportunity to find out the truth for yourselves and see why many millions of adopted adults, like myself, use pictures of this woman to paper train our puppies.

By: Reality Bites

Reality Bites — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:14:00 +0000

Pax was left at the orphanage as an newborn. He was named by the orphanage He was never visited by any family members there for three years. Should every child left for dead by a heroin addict be allowed contact with children they left for dead for five years the second they clean up their act? Please give me a break.

By: Mezzie

Mezzie — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:09:00 +0000

I’ve heard that line so many times. Don’t worry, it’s a passing phase, eventually you’ll want to know where you came from.

By: karen M

karen M — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:17:00 +0000

I know about the bond with a biological mother and her child as i have 3 children of my own but my children are with me.but however that bond between biological mother and child is never broken regardless of wether children are adoped or not.Pax has a right to know his roots and were he came from and if Jolie stops contact between them both its posible when older he could resent Jolie for stoping contact children have rights too and unfortunately what the law says is not always right or for the best

By: Jenette Yamamoto

Jenette Yamamoto — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 02:53:00 +0000

Basically it is human trafficking for adoption. Agencies make multi-billion dollars from selling children from ‘poor’ countries to ‘rich’ countries. People pay money for children = Human trafficking. Very simple math. International Adoption is a business, children are the products. If you want to learn about adoption just follow the money. You would not want your child taken away from you even if they went to a ‘rich’ couple or good home. What needs to happen now in modern times is family preservation. Otherwise big so called ‘non-profit’ CEOs make millions while mothers lose out. Governments like Korea (who sent over 200,000 Korean children to America and Europe) save billions of dollars in social welfare by selling single mother’s children to ‘richer’ people and like I said, agencies make the millions. Governments save $$$, agencies make $$$. Mothers and children are separated, all because a piece of paper says the natural mother is not the mother. It’s sick.

By: Jacqui Haycroft

Jacqui Haycroft — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 02:37:00 +0000

Apparently ‘anyone’ cannot make a baby…….. barren, infertile women, women who need to fullfil their own selfish desire to be a mother, women who were not chosen to be a mother, women who can destroy another woman to gain her child for themselves, disgust me. These are the people who have warped the humanity that should be what adoption is all about.

There will always be those who, for whatever reason, do not have the ability to care for their children but they should NEVER be wiped from the lives of their children.
The truth is always better than a lie and if adoptive parents realy care for the children they will be truthful and know their love will keep them in the childs heart.

By: Jacqui Haycroft

Jacqui Haycroft — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 02:27:00 +0000

You sir have no idea of the bond between a mother and the child she bore and gave birth to. Nurture does no overcome or negate nature as seen in the recently tabled senate inquiry into forced adoption in australia. Before you make such radical statements perhaps you should know what you are talking about, your ‘opinion’ is misguided and has no scientific or historical truth to it.

The fact your a lawyer says it all, much $$ in the adoption ‘business’ lately?? Maggot!

By: Linda Smith

Linda Smith — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:50:00 +0000

She is just another selfish AP with money. Adoption is nothing more than a money making wheel where children are stolen from their mother and cause harm to the child. When he grows up and finds out the truth, the lies, and goes after his real mom, what then. A child comes from one mother, his or her mother. Adoption is nothing by ownership of property which in this case is an innocent child. She will pay for this in the long run, as many AP’s are. They cannot stop these kids from meeting and being with their real parents forever and thank God for that.

By: Leenparissol

Leenparissol — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:58:00 +0000

Dung wants to see him. Well their is pictures, web chat and other way to see him. If they meet believe it or not it will affect him. And it might affect him in a wrong way.

By: Leenparissol

Leenparissol — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:49:00 +0000

Whatever every mistake has a consequence. So now she has too deal with the choices she’s made. And wait till Pax is old enough to decide if he wants to meet with her.

By: Leenparissol

Leenparissol — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:36:00 +0000

Im totally with the Jolie-Pitts. Pax’s mother should back off now, she made arrangements to give up her son up for adoption, let me guess she is clean from drugs and now she sees an opportunity to possible way to get money by bringing fear to the JoliePitts family. Fungi should be greatfull and thankful that Angelina took over and has taken care of her son Pax. I say that the JoliePitts should keep Pax away from Dung, yet not hide the truth from him and allow him to make the decision when he is consider an adult.

By: Carolinezmasen

Carolinezmasen — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:18:00 +0000

Speaking from a legal point of view, no, Pax has no right to see his “mother” until he turns 18 and can decide on his own what he wants to do. Seeing as it was a closed, legal adoption Angelina is his mother in the eyes of the law (not to speak of the fact that she raised him for the last 5 years), thus the only one who can decide whom Pax can meet and whom not. If she wants to and she thinks it’s what’s best for him, she can allow him to meet his birth mother, however it is completely up to her personal judgement. If she sees fit she can prohibit him from seeing her until he is of legal age. Don’t go around throwing words like “has every right” when refering to 8-year-olds in topics that are of a strictly legal nature as if you know what you are talking about, because you clearly have no idea. I wrote my disseration on this topic, so trust me, when I say that I know what rights each one of the participants has regarding adoptions in third world countries. Society’s and Angelina’s good faith and morals are the only things which could be in favor of Pax’s birth mother, but seeing as she gave him up and signed the adoption papers, in combination with her history of drug addiction, even those two lose any meaning when coming to her. The birthmother herself has no rights whatsoever regarding Pax. In itself, she shouldn’t even have been able to find out who adopted him, not to speak of getting in contact with Pax’s new parents.

By: Crollins

Crollins — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:08:00 +0000

I’m not her biggest fan by my goodness she adopted this boy! That means the biological parent relinquished her right period!
In the article it refered to as “buying children”. Since when do we refer adoption as buying children but it certainly was never ever considered borrowing a child till the biological changes their mind…ridiculous! I would think her attempt to get him back is doing more harm than if she stayed away.

By: yaya

yaya — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:03:00 +0000

wrong… think if it was your child and you made a mistake… you wanted to get your life together for your child and now that you do you want your child back that bond between a mother and child is priceless im sure she missed her child and thought about him everyday angelina may have some sort of right but its not right

By: Cape Town Girl

Cape Town Girl — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:51:00 +0000

I think the last question which the author put forward is critical – how ethical is it to remove children from impoverished countries and force assimilation in a completely different context. Why not build a school, start a fund? Why not adopt a child from your own country.

I know that it is intended as an act of kindness, but in my opinion it is a misguided and shallow attempt.

By: Jen Winter

Jen Winter — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:41:00 +0000

Angelina is a selfish home wrecker in more ways than one obviously!

By: suzanne

suzanne — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:56:00 +0000

Angelina does some pretty strange things herself but her money makes authorities look the other way. There has been countless stories (while she has Paz) attesting to her anorexia, adultry, lesbianism, drugs, cutting, etc. Was the adoption even legal? He has every right to visit hi birth mother.