So say you're in love with someone. Totally and completely. And not just them, but their kids too. So you want to get married and legally adopt the kids. But there's a problem. Perhaps you're disabled and, if you marry, you'll lose your disability benefits. Or maybe you just don't go for the whole marriage thing. Or maybe you can't get married because the state is more concerned with sex than love and you don't fit their definition of what's acceptable. So you decide to do a "second-parent" adoption where you adopt the kids without terminating the biological parent's rights.

Only, in Kentucky, you can't do that anymore. It seems a couple did that there, but when negotiations over visitation and other issues -- the adoption came after the couple split up -- broke down, the biological mother went to court saying that the adoption should never have happened in the first place. Sadly, the court of appeals agreed in principle, and now the state does not allow adoption unless the adoptive parent is married to the biological parent or the biological parent's rights are terminated.

The net effect of this? Same-sex couples can no longer adopt each other's children because they cannot marry. And the irony of it all -- because the issues were raised more than a year after it took place, the court ruled that the adoption in question is still valid. Hopefully, in time, the court will see the error of its ways and let any loving, caring, able parent adopt, regardless of marital or gender status.

We've often had the conversation here at ParentDish about how many children is enough. The answer? Well, it depends on the family. Desire, money, space, time and energy requirements all make their case in the debate, and it ultimately comes down to how much kid a parent can handle. Several people have said to me, for example, how they really wanted three children until they had two. Some, like me, who came from a small family--I was an only child--want as big a family as possible. Others think one is the magical number.

For Brad Pitt, apparently that magic number hovers somewhere near what it would take to have your own baseball team. The actor, heartthrob and life partner (or whatever you want to call him) of Angelina Jolie, who already has six children, recently admitted he'd like two more. To take matters further, he is quoted (probably WAY out of context) as saying they'll arrive within the next year. That statement, true or not (probably the latter) will do two things:

1. It will give the media, tabloids and gossip hounds even more ammunition that the twins were conceived using fertility treatments, which has been denied by the pretty pair and that they'll use such methods again to get two more children in such a short span of time (unless they adopt, and you know how long that can take, even for a celebrity: just ask Madonna); and

2. It will, indeed, give them almost enough kids for a baseball team. I mean, if Ange and Brad joined in the fun then there'd be ten of them, so you know, you could have reserves and pinch hitters and whatnot.

Safety in numbers, right? And, really, once you have six kids, what's two more? I mean, other than the baseball team thing. Good luck to the happy couple, if indeed what Brad says is true in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

Last thing we heard, Madonna--who, by the way, ya'll, is now officially FIFTY!--was primed and ready to adopt another child. Rumor had it the child would be a little girl from Malawi, from where Madonna adopted her third child, David. As the rumor went, the little girl's name was Mercy, she was two years old and her family didn't want Madge to adopt her.

Now that the rumor mills are in full spin mode--other rumors circulated that the would-be adoption ws causing the alleged turmoil in the Material Mom's marriage to filmmaker husband Guy Ritchie--Madonna's rep is negating the whole thing. That's what they get paid for, right? Deny, deny, deny.

Liz Rosenberg, Madonna's mouthpiece, insists the rumors are not true. Instead, she says, Madge is headed on tour in a week. Not that a busy schedule ever stopped a female celebrity from giving birth or adopting! Tell that to Angelina Jolie, Liz!

From Mary McDonnell finding an abandoned baby in the bushes while jogging in Grand Canyon to Jennifer Garner's desire to adopt in Juno, it would seem that Hollywood, if not the rest of the world, sees adoption as primarily a female goal. According to a new report, however, adoption is apparently a guy thing. Like just about twice as much a guy thing.

Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth showed that more than 1.2 million men and just over six hundred thousand women had adopted children. The report also noted, though, that at least part of the difference may be due to men marrying and adopting their new spouse's children from a prior relationship. Still, even allowing for that situation, you simply can't make the claim that adoption is something only women think about.

My father grew up in an orphanage, so I do like the idea of adopting. If money weren't a consideration, I would definitely think about adopting a couple of kids. I know there are a lot of kids out there that need families; it's good to know that guys are every bit as interested in giving them homes as women are.

Poland thinks that they have the answer to their declining population problem, a controversial "baby house" where 37 young women live, prepared to provide babies for infertile couples. Authorities say that 1.5 million couples in Poland are unable to have children, but for 11,000 pounds (about $21,000 U.S.), women at the baby house -- who are screened for health problems and who pledge not to drink or smoke -- will have one for them.

Though it's not entirely clear from reading this article, it appears that these women are not gestational carriers, or women who carry a baby who is not biologically related to them. They are surrogates in the truest sense of the word, carrying their biological children, then giving them up for adoption. This, I think, is one of the most controversial parts of this "baby factory" idea. What if the women change their mind during the pregnancy or after the baby is born? What if they aren't prepared for the emotional part of relinquishing a baby?

The center requires parents to adopt the babies immediately after birth, regardless of whether the child is healthy or not. This may prevent them from being embroiled in a situation like the recent surrogate custody issue in India, but even so, this seems to be a solution that might create more problems than it solves. What do you think?

For one thirteen-day-old baby, life is turning out to be no cake walk. A newborn brought into the world nearly two weeks ago by native Indian Priti Patel, who served as a surrogate mother, is stuck in India. Her would-be parents, Ikufumi Yamada and Yuki Yamada, divorced right before she was born.

Yuki no longer wants to adopt the child, but Ikufumi does. According to Indian law, however, children may not be adopted by single men. As a result, the newborn is living in India with Ikufumi 's mother, who is staying on to care for the newborn. The baby has yet to be adopted. Since she has no adoption papers, she cannot be issued a passport. And, because she can't get a passport, she can't leave the country.

%Gallery-29009%

Patel has also left the scene after serving as the surrogate. She is part of a process known as commercial surrogacy wherein couples who cannot have a child on their own provide the sperm and eggs to a surrogate mother, who carries the child to term and then is paid a fee for her services. The couple then generally adopt their child and are on their merry way. Not so much for the twelve-day-old, who at this point I don't think even has a name! What a sad state things are in when a little technical legality keeps a man from legitimately adopting his own child!

Pic by ayahthetiger.

Making the choice to adopt requires a big commitment. You really have to be prepared and know what you're getting into. It's not something that can happen by accident or in the heat of the moment. In New York, you can even get certified as "Qualified Adoptive Parents" by the New York City Surrogate Court. That's what Rosario Gennaro and Alexander Gardner did.

When they went online to register with ParentProfiles.com, a website that lists prospective adoptive parents' information, however, they ran into an unforeseen obstacle -- discrimination. You see, Adoption Profiles, LLC, the company that runs the website, limits profiles to "Qualifying Husband and Wife Couples".

The same company chose to stop doing business in California rather than take on the state's antidiscrimination laws after being sued in 2004. Now they may have to give up New York as well -- Lambda Legal, a national, non-profit, civil rights organization, has filed, on behalf of Gennaro and Gardner, a discrimination complaint with the New York attorney general's office.

It's a shame that someone would let their prejudice get in the way of finding a loving home for a child that needs one. "We are committed partners who can provide a loving home for the child," says Gennaro. It's too bad that Adoption Profiles won't let a child into that loving home.

If you thought fake babies were a weird substitute for having actual children, what do you think about monkeys? As in primates? As in monkids? Apparently, adopting capuchin monkeys and treating them just like a human member of the family is all the rage among some folks. Empty-nesters and those who can't or don't want to have actual children are shelling out big bucks for monkeys who will take their place in the family as babies who never grow up.

Lori Johnson adopted her capuchin, Jessy, because she was lonely after her children grew up and left home. Depressed, she decided that what would cheer her up would be to rip a baby monkey from its mother and dress it up in baby clothes and treat it like her own child. When Jessy became a little aggressive, Lori had the monkey's teeth removed. That solved the problem and now they are a happy little family, sharing the dinner table and even the bed. "I couldn't imagine not having her," Lori says. "We do something all the time with her."

Not all monkid stories have a happily-ever-after. Kari Bagnall, who runs a sanctuary for monkeys whose human parents could no longer care for them, sees first-hand the dark side of adopting wild animals as pets or surrogate children. "I have monkeys here that the people have had for 20 years. Never had a problem," Bagnall says. "Twenty years later, the monkey attacks. So it's just something, it's going to happen. It's not a matter of, you know, if they're going to attack. It's when."

I don't doubt that Lori Johnson, and the estimated 15,000 like her in the United States, truly love their little monkey children. And I can even see the appeal in adopting a creature that will forever remain infantile and cute. But I think it is the height of selfishness to take an intelligent creature away from its natural mother and habitat because it makes you happy.

Every state in the union now has a safe haven law, allowing a parent to leave a baby with specified people or organizations instead of abandoning or injuring the child. I think this is a good thing -- if someone finds themselves with a baby they are unable to care for, I would much rather see that baby dropped off at a hospital, firehouse, or police station than have it dumped in a trash can or left in the woods.

I have no idea what it would be like to have to surrender one's child, but I do have some insight into what it is like to be on the other end of the process. I came across this piece written by a college student who was working at a hospital when a young woman brought in her baby. It's an interesting look at a side of the process we don't usually think about -- those who take these children in are affected too.

I wish that we had absolutely no need for these laws, but until that happens, I'm glad there are people like this young man who can help these infants with compassion and caring.

In a recent New York Times article, the pain associated with not being able to have a child is likened to that of a back ache--dull, aching, and never quite goes away. For some women, the miracle of child birth and the joy of raising a child will always be unattainable--because of infertility, because of timing or age, or for unknown reasons.

Some of these women (and their partners) adopt. Some, like Pamela Mahoney, who was interviewed for the article, make the tough decision to move on. Many of them do this after countless hours and thousands of dollars spent on treatments, analysis and IVF. They decide to remain childless.

The question that keeps ringing in the back of my head is why not adopt? There are so many children out there who need loving homes, the kind that surely these couples would be able to offer. As one woman commented in the article, adoption isn't an easy answer. She'd seen the struggles of her friends who went through the adoption process. I've seen it to--some meet with success, others not so much. It's just as heartbreaking.

Willie Garson, the accomplished actor best know for playing Carrie Bradshaw's gay sidekick Stanford Blatch on Sex and the City, is having a momentous year. In its opening weekend, the SATC movie pummeled the competition (including box-office darling Indian Jones) to be the #1 movie of that week.

But Garson has something more exciting than professional success. He recently revealed that the adoption paperwork is nearly finished for him to become the father of a boy from Los Angeles county.

When Teleflora ran a mother's contest that categorized adoptive mothers as "Non-Moms" it incited a justifiable outrage. Of course, adoptive mothers are mothers!

Now it's Madonna, adoptive mother of David Banda, who is raising eyebrows with a statement she made regarding her adoption proceedings.

"It was painful, and it was a big struggle, and I didn't understand it," the singer/dancer/actress and mother of three told reporters in Canne.

When considering adoption, how much thought or emphasis is placed on race? Well, that may have very much to do with the family planning on doing the adopting. To the adoption agencies who are supposed to be color blind because of a federal law, however, things may be about to change. A recent report on the subject, however, claims that downplaying race during adoption--as these agencies are instructed to do--ultimately underserves the children being adopted.

The report studied a decade of material concerning children of color adopted into white households. Among the findings were that white parents were not prepared for future challenges of raising a child of a different race, and that both social workers and state agencies were afraid to even bring up the subject of race with prospective adoptive parents.

The report is strongly suggesting the federal law, known as the Multiethnic Placement Act, be changed to allow agencies receiving federal funding to consider race and culture when choosing parents for foster care. According to one interviewee, Shannon Gibney--who seems to have put it best--"...you can't just say we're all human or love will be enough." The downside of letting race play a role in adoption? In the eyes and experience of some, foster children wait longer for adoption. This is sure to be a controversial topic setting the Internet from abuzz to aflame. Your thoughts? Especially if you've adopted a child of a different race or culture, I'd love to hear about your experience. Is the law a help or a hindrance--or does it even matter?

Oh come on. We all saw Juno. Everyone knows the way you find a kid to adopt is to put an ad in the Penny Saver. Sheesh. So I guess not everyone actually saw that movie. A couple near Seattle, Washington tried a different approach recently. Noticing that their waitress was pregnant, they left their card with the tip. Along with their names and phone numbers, the card said "We wish to adopt a baby. We are a caring, happily married, financially secure and loving couple. We want to share our joy and love with a child."

For Julie Moore and her husband J.D. Ross, the card was an unpleasant surprise. "I was just shocked because they didn't say a word to me about being pregnant, ask me how my pregnancy is going or ask me if I was pregnant or anything," said Julie. "I don't wear a wedding ring at work. For them to assume I'm not married or that I'm working in a service industry that I maybe couldn't afford to have a child, I don't know, I felt there were too many assumptions there," she added.

As for her husband, he "thought it was really creepy." According to the prospective adoptive parent's lawyer, there haven't been any negative responses before, but I guess there haven't been any positive ones or they wouldn't still be looking. Perhaps they might be more successful with a less cheeky method?

A few years ago, my best friend decided to build her family through adoption. Recently, she became Mom to an amazing young boy. She's taught me so much over the last few years, both about the process but also about how how to be sensitive to adoptive parents and children.

So I was shocked when I read that a company called Teleflora, which is currently sponsoring an America's Favorite Mom contest for Mother's Day (Donnie and Marie Osmand will crown the winner on NBC's Primetime tomorrow night), categorized adoptive moms in their contest as "non-moms." An adoption blogger complained, and the company quickly realized their error. They've now change the category to "adopting moms" and issued an apology on their web page.