Hugh Jackman Creates National Adoption Awareness Week

h_jackman_09052013_6

Father-of-two Hugh Jackman covers the October issue of Town & Country. The Wolverine star – who adopted son Oscar, 13, and daughter Ava, 8, with wife Deborra-Lee Furness - opens up about creating National Adoption Awareness Week.

On creating National Adoption Awareness Week: “I’m working with Americans to create an international campaign to shine a light on the fact that there are 153 million orphans in the world. If that were a country, it would be the ninth-largest in the world, just ahead of Russia.”

On waiting to propose to Deborra-Lee: “I decided, I won’t ask her to marry me for six months. Then after four months I thought, That’s the most ridiculous rule!”

Deborra-Lee on Hugh’s many looks: “I like him clean-shaven. But I like him all ways: chubby, muscley, skinny. I’m always having affairs.”

Also pictured below, Hugh is seen picking up Ava after her first day back at school in New York City on Wednesday (September 4).

View Slideshow »»

View All Photos »»

Filed under: Ava Jackman,Hugh Jackman

Photo credit: Town & Country/AKM-GSI

17 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. What people SHOULD be aware of is that Huge Jackman CLOSED his son’s Oscars’s adoptions, and subsequently the child’s biological mother killed herself.
    People need to beware that adoption is not a win win that everyone would like it to be ad that ALL adoptions are based on a foundation of loss.

    Reply
    • Anon

      *IF* this is true, just remember, adoptive parents have no obligation to keep an adoption open. Adoptive parents aren’t babysitters. “Here, take my son and raise him but I want to see him whenever I want, and I want pictures, and I want to be invited to birthday parties”. Who does THAT benefit?

      Reply
      • a mother

        Anon it is true and you ask who does it benefit to have an open adoption –it benefits the child and adoption is about finding a family for a child who has none and not finding a child for an infertile couple who want to be parents.

        Reply
      • Jacqui Gilchrist

        That’s precisely why adoption should be outlawed…it removes the rights of the mother and child which was the reason why Open Adoption came into being…to stop the COMPLETE separation of mother and child because it was well known that closed adoption was damaging to the child…I note that many adopters choose to close the door once the con is over and they take possession of the child…how can anyone in their right mind say that it is their right to close the door on a previously open adoption…where is the welfare of the child in this equation, where is observation of the rules, which were designed to provide the BEST OUTCOME for the child…selfish, selfish people who are so tied up with their “RIGHTS” that they forget all about what’s right for mother and child…perhaps nature made these people infertile for a good reason…they obviously have a severe lack of common sense

        Reply
      • Rabekah

        …it benefits the child. Adoptive parents are care-takers. The most generous and loving scenario would be for the child to know all of his/her family and to grow up with no secrets. Connection to biological roots is very important. Adoption doesn’t mean ownership and the best interest of the adoptee should be the priority.

        Reply
  2. Louise, UK

    they seem such a lovely couple,and so happy together. well done to them for this campaign!

    Reply
  3. Laurel

    153 million orphans?! Wow, Mr. Jackman! That’s incredible!

    No, I mean it’s truly *incredible.* It’s incredible because it’s false. “Orphan,” in this context, has come to mean “child a wealthy Westerner wants to adopt,” nothing more.

    If you’re interested in helping suffering children in foreign countries, go there and help directly, or send money. Children whose parents never meant for them to be adopted are being bought and sold all over the world to satisfy the desires of others. You don’t want to contribute to that.

    <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/outlook/2009-01-11/adoption/&quot; title="The Orphan Manufacturing Chain"

    Reply
  4. Adoption Trafficking

    ‘The child of an unwed mother may be considered an orphan, as long as the mother does not marry (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather) and as long as the child’s biological father has not legitimated the child. If the father legitimates the child or the mother marries, the mother is no longer considered a sole parent.’ Based on this definition from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services there is a worldwide crisis of ‘orphans’. What International Adoption really is, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It’s a multi-billion dollar business, giving rich white people access to colored children of the world.

    Reply
    • Jacqui Gilchrist

      It’s disturbing that the mother/child relationship has been altered by legislation…you can’t legislate DNA out of existence…you can’t break the bond of motherhood…but you can corrupt it with lies and deceit…

      BTW in the opinion of many, Hugh and Debra Lee caused the suicide death of Oscars real mother by offering open adoption, then shutting her and her other children out…I wonder how Oscar will feel when he is hit in the face with this info a few years from now…

      Reply
  5. jan stewart

    Claudia is correct. The door was slammed shut in the mothers face after the so called ” open ‘ adoption was closed. Yes it is true that adopters are not obliged to keep an adoption open but I am afraid it speaks volumes that they dont….and it benefits the child…..remember there is a child involved…who has rights too….For these newborn adoptions to happen a family is destroyed……for ever……in order to make an adult feel good about themselves. the multi million $$ adoption industry thrives of the misery of other families.
    Perhaps you should do a story on paper orphans or Veronica Brown…..then you may see the level of self indulgence and narcism that is shown by adopters.

    Reply
  6. kitty

    Anon you said who does that benefit??? THE CHILD OF COURSE never heard such a silly question

    Reply
    • Jacqui Gilchrist

      kitty…the child DOES NOT benefit…you people have a blind side…if you were fairdinkum you’d be searching out the truth but instead you argue the point with adoptees and mothers who know the truth…

      Here’s the Adopter’s scenario…you have a dream, a nursery and a crib to fill in order to make your fantasy life real…you want a baby…a cute one that looks like you so no-one will know it’s not yours…you will change it’s identity and expect gratitude from the child/adult for saving him/her from their unfortunate mother…what a load of codswaddle…the truth is the child is damaged at separation from the mother and all the love and money in the world CAN’T change it or fix it….but that doesn’t matter…you’re okay…you got what you wanted…you can always send the baby back if it doesn’t suit you, can’t you? Ooops, no, you’re the parent now…you will muddle along, create more problems, do more damage, and put every obstacle in the way of the now grown adoptee who wants their original family back because you paid out a lot of money, and OWN this person…their rights were annulled the day you took possession

      Reply
  7. kitty

    that is correct Claudia all adoptions are founded on loss.Unless the adoptive parent realises the childs need to know his or her roots they will only be letting them live jalf a life.

    Reply
  8. lyn

    does anyone ever give a thought to the real mothers of these bought children ? hugh jackman and his horrible wife should be held accountable for buying these children, and YES the story is true about one of the mothers, shame on this couple for supporting adoption, LOSS of a child is a LOSS dont care who to.

    Reply
  9. mark 'jarradd' hartley 'ayers'

    “Adoption Loss is the only trauma in the world where the victims are expected by the whole of society to be grateful”
    - The Reverend Keith C. Griffith, MBE
    further ”is the mother of all lies”
    furthermore ”The crime of genocide” “Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.”
    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
    “Article II: In the present Convention, genocide (b) Causing mental harm to members of the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    furthermost as australian who has had their human rights breached via 3 of the 5 meanings of genocide…
    Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
    (a) Genocide;
    (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
    (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
    (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
    (e) Complicity in genocide.
    its a small world ”family preservation not adoption separation” help the communities and one will be apart of community, the i wants in life have stolen my heritage cultural connection family medical records and even my religion as my birth rights were remove ‘lost in a world of just be grateful…. dont bite the hand that saved you its on the credit button called guilt, whilst its hard to be me as myself does know where I came from……

    Reply
  10. Korean adoptee

    Oh gawd. Yet ANOTHER Hollywood “celebrity couple” ‘promoting’ (int’l) adoption as “happy ever after Disney la-la land”. When’s it gonna stop? Can’t they produce their own? What’s wrong with these people’s sperm count or the woman’s eggs? Have all the moolah to support whole villages in China, Africa and god knows where else – no. Instead they have to go and pretend to ‘want’ children – other people’s children and then kick them to the curb once they have their hands on their new ‘toy’. I feel sorry for the children. Just like Brangelina (who was terrified that the original mother would reclaim one of her ‘sons’) or that horrible person called Madonna (a disgrace for the real Madonna) or Nicole (cold as a fish) Kidman and her crazy brainwashed Scientology ex-husband Tom Loser Cruiser. Very sad. Before anyone’ll blink, these two will be divorced, too, what with the Hollywood industry being ‘so’ conducive for “stable family homes”. Not. And you guys promote this rubbish by plastering Hugh grinning like a pancake off your page. Embarrassing how unaware you are of the real business that is adoption otherwise known as child trafficking for rich white people with too much money and too many fake wants they are not equipped to deal with then the child starts to grow up out of their ‘cutesy’ little toddler buggies. Wake up to the nonsense and contributing to misery rather than glamour pages the adoptees could care less about – not to mention their original families who are left with a hole that no money in the world could ever fill.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>