Catherine and Joan (with a touch of Madeleine)

[seldear]

Catherine was a few hours old when she was abandoned outside a Melbourne hospital on the 13th May - Mother's Day.

"HOW COULD SHE?" screamed the headlines on Monday.

Joan - newborn, with her umbilical cord still attached - was left in a cardboard box across the road from a Sydney church, just this Sunday 10th June.

We haven't had the dramatised headlines yet, but I'm sure they're coming.

For the first week after Catherine's discovery, the news was full of her - and particularly her parentage. How could a mother do such a thing to her child? What kind of a woman would abandon her baby? What was going to happen to her?

Interestingly, there was very little said about the father.

I was instantly reminded of an episode of Joan of Arcadia, in which a baby is left in a sports bag in a dumpster while a girl makes a tearful call to police to pick up the child, and a witchhunt is on for the irresponsible mother who just abandoned her child.

It turns out that the mother is a cheerleader, pregant to a school football player who is also the son of one of the city's officials. In the teaser, the player is shown dumping the baby (a silhouette in shadows and streetlights) and it's implied that the girl was pressured to give up the child by the father. The attempt to charge the mother with neglect is dropped once it comes to light who the father is, and everything is smoothed over...but the girl is transferred to another school.

During the episode, Joan's mother (Mary Steenburgen) tries to bring up the matter of the father, but is dismissed. She is the one who, in the end, explains to her husband why the charges aren't being pressed: the politics of it all.

I have no personal experience of motherhood or pregnancy myself - it's all theory to me. However, I understand that it's not uncommon for women to become depressed after the birth of a child. I know that not all women are instantly maternal - or even maternal at all. And I know that parenting is a tiring and difficult experience - I only have to look at my own mum for proof of that.

And I know that everyone has a bio-mother and a bio-father. (Thank you, Claire Bennett, for introducing me to the term "bioparents" - so apt!)

But only the mother came under fire.

There are similar calls for Joan's mother to step forward, with authorities citing that she won't come under any charges for needing time out from her child.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that either Catherine or Joan need their respective mothers. A mother, certainly. Parents, if at all possible. Family, for sure. But surely it would be better for a child to go to a family that wants it than a reluctant parent? Adopt or foster the child out and give it a chance to grow up in love, without the stain of "what my mother did to me when I was six hours old" shadowing the relationship between parent and child.

Madeleine comes into it where a multimillionaire elderly developer stepped forward to offer a $300,000 home to Catherine and her mother (if her mother would step forward and be identified). A financial reward was offered on the life of a child.

When I was first discussing the search for Madeleine with someone on my f-list, I expressed the question: Why Madeleine?

I'm sure that this makes me a 'bad person' to certain people, and yet the question begs asking: Why Madeleine?

Why, out of the hundreds of children that go missing every year, is Madeleine special? Why advertise Madeleine and not Marie or Drew or Charlie? Why should the recovery of this one child be worth millions of dollars, while other parents - doubtless just as frantic to have their children back, but unwilling to push themselves into the public spotlight as the McCanns have - are stuck trying to communicate with a national police force that might feel they have more productive leads to follow than to hunt down lost children?

The person I was discussing it with said, in the world-weary tones of a cynic, "PR."

Before people crucify me for "omg, not having any sympathy for Madeleine or Catherine", I'd like to point out that I'd feel so much better about these offers of assistance if they were made for someone other than a much-publicised child - or even if the offer was spread around a dozen children lately missing.

Why Madeleine? Because she's cute and has big eyes that stare soulfully out of the picture? Because it assauges a sense of obligation to the things that people don't usually see and generally don't care about until they're brought to notice? Because it's good PR as my cynical friend says?

In regards to Catherine and the $300K house offer, I can think of families struggling to make ends meet, through little fault of their own. Sometimes people lack opportunity or encouragement to go out and do things, and sometimes life, the system, and fate are just against them. Not all the poor are lazy or opportunistic. Some are just poor.

Why Catherine and not them?

I'm sure people are saying it speaks nicely of these people to have offered financial help to the parents of Madeleine and Catherine. But a part of me insists that they're not doing this because they're good people: they're doing this because they want to look good. If they were doing this because they were good people, they'd make the same offer to many hundreds of other abandoned babies or the seekers of missing children. No, you can't help them all. But even a $50K offer of assistance to a struggling family, or a $50K reward for information on missing children wouldn't go astray. Philanthropy should never be practised solely when you get PR shots out of it - or else it's not philanthropy.

I do hope they find Madeleine - and the other children missing all around the world. I hope that Catherine and Joan find good homes to go to, and people to love them and bring them up.

I just can't stop asking, Why Madeleine?

Comments

[marag.livejournal.com]

I *am* a mommy and I agree with you. There are thousands and thousands of children who need a roof over their heads and food and love and care, and who aren't getting it. I will say though that it's entirely possible that the people making these offers *aren't* thinking in terms of PR (possible, I said). Sometimes it takes a case like this to get people's attention.

You're spot on when you mention postpartum depression. My daughter is one of the most *wanted* children ever and yet, I can remember moments when I hadn't slept and my whole body was freaking out and I was in pain and I wondered why I'd wanted a child. I can't imagine what that must be like for a woman who doesn't have the loving husband, lovely home, and support system that I have.

I feel sorry for the parents and the children. And I agree that it's sad that people only blame the mother. Grrr.

[eken95.livejournal.com]

"doubtless just as frantic to have their children back, but unwilling to push themselves into the public spotlight as the McCanns have "

Thats up to them.I personally think the McCanns and their family and friends doing a a great job using PR to publisise Maddy's abduction. Her parents and family are bright, educated people and willing to use any means, any strategy and any opportunity they can to get her back. A child abducted here always makes the headlines for weeks until the child and usually the murderer is found. This one is different in that the family were on holiday in a foreign country with little or no language skills. What alternative did the parents have? Go home and wait for news? I'm quite happy to be cynical about the whole 'tragedy sells' thing but if it goes any way to getting her back or at least finding her then who cares.

"trying to communicate with a national police force that has better things than to hunt down lost children"

I can't think of a single one thats more important.

Sometimes abducted children get into national consiousness in this case international consiousness. When Jamie Bulger a two year old was abducted and murdered by two ten year olds some years ago I remember hearing a pshycologist who said that in these cases the child comes to feel like your own child, and for most people they would do anything and everything in their power to get them back. without the use of the media Maddy's abduction would be old news and forgotten within a couple of weeks.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

As I noted in the post, I hope for Madeleine to be found as much as anyone else. And I think the parents have improved their chances of finding their daughter with the publicity.

I'm just not so willing to wholeheartedly swallow the "oh, aren't they nice people" line when it comes to the celebrities offering millions of dollars for the return of this one child but not any other.

Hm. The "better things to do" line was badly worded. Before you get your feathers too ruffled, I apologise for the vagueness. My intention was to point out that when faced with a "missing child" case that has virtually no leads and another case that has somewhere to go, in practical terms, the effort is better spent on the case with somewhere to go.

[beatrice_otter]

Word.

[sesaworuban.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post.

My hubby finds it a little shocking that I can say now, after what we've been through that years ago, when I wasn't ready for a kid, I would have considered abortion had I gotten pregnant. I still feel very strongly that abortion is a very valid option. Dumping your baby in a cardboard box, I find a little tougher to get my head around. But, then again, I personally know several mums who didn't connect with their babies right away and these are sorted, financially secure mums in happy, stable relationships so I can't imagine how difficult it must be for someone in a very difficult position. And that's before you even start talking about the very real illness of post-natal depression.

Right back at the start of the whole Madeline thing, I was shot down for suggesting that if she weren't some cute, white, British kid, the press wouldn't be onto it anywhere near as much as they have been, let alone all the people offering money for her return.

I am reminded of the 'every 3 seconds' campaign where a child dies un-necessarily every 3 seconds due to poverty. But you know, because the mum was probably expecting to lose the child anyway and she's poor and lives in a developing country, that's okay then isn't it?!

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

It's easier for me to accept that someone would put their child up for adoption than dumping in a box - the 'dumped in a box' option has so much uncertainty about it, at least for the child.

Still, I know of people who would love to adopt a child if they could only find one on whom the parents had relinquished rights (that makes the baby sound like a possession, which I don't intend it to). As it is, I think they're adopting one from China or Asia somewhere.

I certainly think that one of the big reasons for Madeleine's international fame is because she's a cutie. And the family is "just like us" - there's a degree of "It Could Happen To You!" in the reaction.

It's along the same lines that the west went into shock over 9/11 - these weren't people in a far-off-country whose customs and skin colour are different and they've been at war forever anyway - these were people "just like us!"

The saddest thing is that the empathy generated from such situations never seems to extend beyond the specific situation. People will offer rewards for Madeleine, or offer to adopt Catherine or Joan, but would never think of helping another set of parents find their children, or take in another abandoned child.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I have no idea if we have safe haven laws. Ideally, I'd rather people came forward, willing to put their child up for adoption rather than just leave a baby somewhere. It would make it clear that it was a conscious choice and decision (assuming that the parent wasn't pressured into it), rather than the endless wondering of "maybe" - particularly for the child.

[seldearslj.livejournal.com]

Sad, but true about the teenaged mothers with unaccepting parents.

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

And not only unaccepting parents, but sometimes an abusive partner from whom they've managed to keep the pregnancy...a pregnancy, and now child, that could tie them to that person FOREVER.

I have a friend who broke up for the last time (at age 29) with a ne'er-do-well...and then found out she was pregnant. By the time she knew she was pregnant, she did not have time to get access to abortion before she passed the legal limits, and she was strongly considering placing the child for adoption. She kept the pregnancy from everyone until she was 8 1/2 months. Her family refused to allow her to do so without telling the father (said they'd call and tell him if she didn't), and so she informed him that she was planning to arrange an adoption within one of their families for the child. The Ex, who still wanted her back, insisted that HE would keep the child in order to try to pressure my friend into getting back together with him. She never did get back together with him (and he got married last year, finally, like 5 years later), though she has remained involved in the child's life. By the time the child was 2, the Ex was saying, "This didn't work out like I'd planned." From the time he assumed custody, he lived with his parents (who did most of the child-rearing), moved out of state a year ago in the middle of 1st grade without telling my friend, and now this summer the child is staying with the grandparents because the Ex and his wife neither can be bothered to arrange to parent him during summer vacation. It's just....sad and bad for everyone...and one of the reasons that I believe that safe haven laws are valuable--to prevent just such situations like this.

[loriel-eris.livejournal.com]

[I broke the HTML in my first comment.]

Why Madeleine?

I've been following the story only so far as what I see in the headlines or what I see if I actually see the news, ie, I don't know all the ins and outs. However, one thing I did see/hear mentioned was the suggestion that this is such a big case because it's unusual. What I'm about to say is a very cynical viewpoint, but things such as "a child dies un-necessarily every 3 seconds due to poverty" ( quoting sesaworuban) are news for the very reason that they do happen so often. Whereas, a child being kidnapped so close to her parents in a historically very safe area is unusual (never happened before?). The fact that it's so different is what makes it newsworthy. [It may also be that an initial impetus for the news to catch the story was the fact that the Portuguese Police were not doing their job properly/not taking action quickly enough - stuff like that, especially in relation to kids, is an instant hot button.]

As for the money - Madeline, and Catherine, are in their faces, and personal, in a way that the hundred of other kids aren't. It's possible that they don't 'care' (not exactly the sentiment I'm looking for, but I can't think of anything else) enough to go looking for someone(s) to help, but are willing to help when presented with an obvious opportunity to do so. I just assumed that this was the case - the PR aspect of helping didn't even occur to me. Also (and I have no thoughts one way or the other on this), is it possible that these rich people do help/give donations and we just don't hear about it? Just a thought?

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

I wonder EXACTLY THIS every time one of these things goes media-crazy...and I wonder every time why there are so few outlets for effective support for women who can't parent their children...and why they are demonized so much beyond the men who, in almost every case, have run away long before.

Well written, thoughtful post.