By A. Scott Walton
No. No! NO!!
Just imagine if the departed pop-soul singer Amy Winehouse actually did have plans to adopt a child from some impoverished, disease-ravaged nation in the mode of Brad and Angelina.
How in the world would that drug-addled and doomed to premature death entertainer have managed to discipline an adopted child on her own?
TMZ has just squashed rampant rumors in the tabloids that the chart-topping singer – who died last week from undetermined causes – was on the verge of revamping her personal life with the addition of a child from St. Lucia into her household.
What kind of Banana Republic official with a shred of integrity, or the fraction of a clue about Winehouse’s background, would have approved her taking custody of an innocent kid?
And, for that matter, what amount of money would it take for a loving parent to even consider such a gambit?
Even if Winehouse had become an adoptive mother, each moment of the endeavor would likely have been fodder for a “Mommie Dearest” remake; in 3-D, no less.
According to TMZ, an unidentified mouthpiece for the deceased Ms. Winehouse has flatly stated, “It’s not true” that the star performer had sealed a deal with the parents of a 10-year-old girl to take guardianship of her.
“I think (Winehouse) may have met her in St. Lucia, but she was in no way about to adopt her.”
Thank goodness.
There couldn’t be a greater trauma visited upon a child than to be separated from one parental relationship, only to be rocked by the sudden unexplained death of another.
This begs a broader question: What provisions are star entertainers making for the kids they adopt in their wills?
No comments:
Post a Comment