http://www.popeater.com/2009/09/14/elto ... -orphan%2F

ukraine...

evidently barred by two restrictions, one on unmarried people and one on old people.

actually I don't see the problem with those rules, especially the age one (I was raised by my grandparents, who were much younger than EJ, and I'm well aware of the problems age gap causes.) the fact is EJ WILL pass away whilst the child is still at best a young adult, and whilst losing one's parent is never easy at any age, it's worse when you're younger.

the 'married' one in principle is fine as meaning 2 people, but doesn't reflect society anymore.. it should be more a 'in a relationship' (hetero or homo doesn't matter), basically 2 people co-adopting.

But note that the rules are applied specifically to foreigners adopting, implying it might be more flexible for nationals. (there are lots of problems with cross-border adoption in Eastern Europe.. and those rules are meant to curtain abuses).

Now whether these should be guidelines rather than rules can be argued, but right now they're rules and just because he's rich and famous shouldn't make him above the law.

the two people thing is still stupid. i know pieces of shit raised by two parents, and good people raised by one. now, if there are issues with cross border adoptions, then that's another thing and i take back my criticism of that with regards to its applications to foreigners, if the purpose is to stop child prostitution or something like that...

i still don't see why having a parent who will die is worse than having to be shuffled through foster care for years; i can understand, a bit more, the application of a marriage type rule to those over a certain age, so there is support there if a parent dies... not to mention how 45 years is way too young to start barring people from adopting. saying 46 year olds should not adopt those just born; what the hell? are they really that likely to die soon because they're 46?