Madonna’s forthcoming adoption of baby David from Malawi has sparked much controversy with the public as well as in the adoption community. Madonna has illuminated the plight of international orphans — even though David did not become an orphan until his father relinquished rights. No doubt, David will have phenomenal chances and will surely live to adulthood, defying the odds given him at birth. Perhaps he will return to his homeland as a physician or a political leader and continue his mother’s altruistic work — or perhaps he will prefer to be a rock star.

Choosing to enrich your family through adoption is usually a private and heartfelt decision that many families make. Madonna may not be any different from any woman yearning to have just one more. But why this child?

Madonna states that she came across David through her work in Malawi. Accustomed to getting most of what she wants, she probably thought she was acting in this child’s best interests without thinking through the repercussions of selecting a child who had a birth family that might have been able to nurture him if given a paltry private subsidy. She also flouted some of the rules of intercountry adoption, including those for Malawi, which was the first African nation to develop a national policy for orphan care. Its 18-month foster-care requirement was designed to make intercountry adoption impractical.

One could argue the ethics of a celebrity getting work-arounds or whether this personal matter should be under the media microscope, but the bottom line will be whether this child is hurt. A political scenario could develop, where before the adoption becomes final, Madonna and her husband Guy Ritchie are forced to return to his birth country an older David, who has developed an attachment to Madonna. This could create lifelong problems for David.

Like many child advocates, my knee-jerk reaction was that Madonna not only bypassed local and international laws, but overlooked the children waiting to be adopted who live within a few miles of her New York or California homes. Throughout America, at any given time, there are approximately 125,000 children waiting to be adopted out of the child welfare system. A disproportionate number — 45% — are African-American. Yet, of the 50,000 children adopted in recent years, only 35% were African-American. Want to send a message, Madonna? Take one of these children — or more, since it is even harder to place sibling groups.

Surely, Madonna believes she is saving lives with her charity for many and by enfolding her arms around one. Yes, the child mortality rate is gruesome in Africa, but American foster children do not fare especially well either. The younger they come into the system, the longer they wait — with 15% in care five years or more. Our daughter, whom we adopted at age 12, entered the system at age 3 — and her brother was younger than Madonna’s son is now. She was shuffled between 11 foster homes and two institutions before we found her. She tells appalling tales of neglect and abuse in foster homes. She often was hungry, ate spoiled food, and was beaten and terrorized by those who were paid to protect her.

Her story is not unique. She is one of the lucky ones who is now doing brilliantly in college, but she is suffused with sorrow for the friends she left behind who aged out of the system with no family ties. They have suffered the typical results: homelessness, early pregnancies, incarceration, suicide attempts, and hopeless outlooks for the future. Permanent, loving homes are the only solution for American children, but domestic adoptions reached a high in 2002 at 53,000, while international adoptions by Americans continue to rise. While it is true that there are millions orphaned worldwide by war, disease, and disaster, what is needed is a global policy to nurture orphans within their countries and cultures of origin.

Caring American individuals, though, can easily serve their communities and heal tiny hearts by bringing a waiting child into their homes. No, it is not easy — but neither is a pregnancy. Adopting from the system does involve bureaucratic hurdles, but, hey, we get through tax returns and computer manuals. Yes, children in foster care have been neglected, abused, or abandoned, but they can all make progress and flourish and change and grow. They are no worse off than international orphans traumatized by violence, affected by toxic substances in utero, or deprived in orphanages.

There are not many babies available, but if you are willing to accept a transracial adoption, you can find younger children. Don’t forget that every baby becomes 3 then 5 then 10 and then a teen very quickly. No parent gets to skip the messy stages — nor would you want to.

Adopting an older child can be very satisfying. They wipe their own bottoms and tell you how they feel — sometimes with a bit of attitude, but they often have something valid to say. Any child is the instant cure for empty-nest syndrome. And if you adopt a teen, you can be back in the bleachers or checking homework in a matter of months.

Best of all, there are absolutely no costs to the family with a public agency adoption. Home studies, classes, legal work, and support services are free. Most children qualify for medical care until age 18, monthly maintenance subsidies, and, in some states, even college tuition.

Instead of vilifying Madonna, let us thank her for opening up this conversation. Perhaps she will inspire Oprah, Diane, Katie, Hillary, Laura, and other prominent Americans to adopt a teen or sibling group or any waiting child. We can’t solve the world’s orphan crisis by bringing them into our homes, but surely a country with 300 million people can absorb 125,000 (or less than .05%) of our children into loving-forever families.

Ms. Courter is a bestselling author and documentary filmmaker. Her book, “I Speak for This Child: True Stories of a Child Advocate,” is about her experiences as a Guardian ad litem in the Florida courts.