Here's' the link. And it appears she's filed for divorce. Glad to hear she's become a mom.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sandra Bullock on the cover of People

Interesting. But I hate to be crabby and bring this up-Why do so many actresses adopt? Are they all infertile? Or they want to avoid the "down tiMe" of pregnancy? I don't get it. As for sandra, she's extricating herself from an adulterOus marriage, so it's a way of "moving on". And Angeline Jolie is an obvious exception-she's had kids both ways.

WOW! Cute kid! She looks happy! :0)

She's a classy lady. She may just believe in giving an unwanted child a home. Nothing wrong with that!

Poor Baby.

Good for her. Lucky baby. I sure wouldn't mind having SB for my mother.

That's one lucky baby. I wish Sandra all the best in putting her bad marriage behind her.

I think we've all known some "poor babies" who grew up in a seemingly stable (at least on the surface) two-parent homes.

I'm with Lindakathy: This one's a lucky baby.

Sandra Bullock is 45.

I think it is a good idea, healthwise for both her and a baby - that she adopts.

I agree, this is one lucky baby! I like Sandra and wish her the best.

I have mixed feeling for Sandra. I'm sorry about her finding out her husband is a no-good cad, but being she mothered his last kid from his last marriage, i'm happy that she has one of her own to mother, alto I hope she can stay in contact with the little girl she took care of. The celebs that make m sick are the ones who are too lazy, selfish or just too career ambitious to have their own children but hire surrogates to be implanted with their fertilized eggs. I can't remember the names of the two I'm thinking of,but it has happened. Dottie

Poor baby???? No! This is a beloved baby !

She tried for a long time to get pregnant and I think she was undergoing fertility treatments. She was pregnant once, but lost the baby. It's so sad that wonderful people, like Sandra and our own Steph, have so much trouble having babies, while so many who don't want them (or deserve them) get pregnant easily.

I'm happy for Sandra re the baby, but my heart aches for her for what that no-good JJ did to her.

I'm happy for her. She is 45, I wouldn't want to go through pregnancy, either, even at age 40, due to the increased risks.

She and the ex had been working on an adoption for some time. The baby is from New Orleans, where she spent quite a bit of time and effort after the hurricane, I believe. I don't see her as one who will pawn Baby off on the nanny so she can go out and have a good time.

What a beautiful baby! I think its great shes adopting. I'm happy for her also

jillianrose

If you had to surrender your baby would it be to a 45-year-old movie star who has had no permanent relationships and one brief, failed marriage to an all-around jerk? If your child was African-American or bi-racial, would you choose a single white woman to raise him -- in Hollywood? Is this the most loving and supportive home you could find for your child?

Adoption isn't *about* meeting an adult's desire for a baby. It's about finding the best home for a child who, sadly, doesn't have a home within his natural family.

To answer your question..... yes.

Given the vast lack of adoptive families out there - hell, yes.

I would also answer "yes" to the above question, I'd let SB adopt my baby : I have no clue what the statistics are on the # of people wanting to adopt and what the demographics of that group of people are.

Are some babies surrendered to agencies?, do the mothers/fathers have a say on who will get their baby ?

There are many babies adopted by "non celebrities", we just don't see them on the cover of People Magazine.

I think adoption is extremely admirable, for whatever reason. I highly doubt most are due to vanity.

In Hollywood today, aside from the legendary actresses, the "prime" time is generally their 20's and 30's. I would imagine most of these women are focused on their careers and recognize that they don't have the time to adequately provide for their children at that time. Perhaps when they feel that they are ready to become parents, it's too risky due to age.

Maybe some of them are single and don't want to involve another party in the decision and potentially wound the child. I know many well-adjusted people that are products of single parents. You don't have to be married to be able to provide a good home.

Or, perhaps they are just good people who recognize a child in need and desire to use their good fortune to help those less fortunate.

In any case, I think it's something to celebrate when a child without a home finds a loving one.

If I had a baby I couldn't keep, I would have no problem with him/her going to a Hollywood actress. The number of relationships someone has had doesn't equate their potential love for a child.

Not to mention this child will have everything he needs. Any education he wants. The ability to travel the world and meet all sorts of people. The resources that are unavailable to the average person. But most of all, knowing that he is wanted by someone who loves him.

I think that sounds like a much more promising start than ending up in potentially disastrous foster or state care. I see way more horror stories there than from celebrity adoptions.

Good for Sandra! Lucky baby boy!

Well said Chi83! I would also say that's a very lucky baby and an adorable one too!

I say very lucky kid to have her for a mother. He will be loved. Just keep Jesse away.

What a doll baby!

I didn't realize she's 45. That's a risky age to get pregnant, dangerous for both mother & child. I wish her luck. She seems to have her head on straight and that child will have the best of everything. Lucky baby!

mary_c -- WHAT vast lack of adoptive families? People and go-betweens are traveling all over the world searching for babies! The medical 'profession' is creating human babies AS ORPHANS (annonymous 'donor' ova/sperm) 'on order' so that they can be adopted.

I'm amazed by the sentiments here. Aren't you the same people who tsk-tsk when this 'celebrity' or another one -- or their children -- are divorcing *again*, or are in rehab, or have committed suicide? Celebrities are not famous for being good parents.

I'm glad my mother wasn't 45 when I was born or menopausal when I was a teenager, and I didn't even have to cope with being an adoptee or a black child in a white world.

There are so many better homes for this child. It's sad that money and celebrity-worship still exist in US adoptions. I don't understand why anyone would applaud it.

FWIW, I am the mother of a now-adult adoptee and spouse of an adoptee. I've learned a lot about the history of adoption and adoption issues. I worked for 15 years helping adult adoptees and birth families find one another. In too many of those cases there was no NEED for adoption -- except that agencies and attorneys needed to procure babies for the adoption market.

No responsible agency would put this adoption together, but there have always been plenty of irresponsible ones to serve Hollywood -- or anyone with funds.

The rationale for adoption has been reversed. Adoption laws were intended to serve the child, not 'reward' wealthy would-be parents. The goal of finding THE BEST home for a child who cannot be raised within his own family has been forgotten.

So Chisue - Sandra Bullock can't have a baby according to you? Because (A) she's 45 or (B) she's a celebrity or (C) her husband cheated on her and she's getting a divorce of (D) she's got the funds to secure an adoption?

In my humble opinion, your reasons are absurd. Just because you adopted a "same-race" child, married an adoptee and for 15 years have helped adoptees and birth families find one another gives you no basis to determine that Sandra Bullock should not adopt this child.

You know nothing of her ability to naturally have her own child, how long she may have wanted children, or the child's background or birth family.

Do not judge your neighbor until you walk two moons in his moccasins.

Barbara

When Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidmam were married they adopted 2 children, one being Bi-racial. The children seem very well adjusted despite the divorce.

Since Sandra has become famous, there has not been any negative press surrounding her until this mess caused by her husband. Why punish her??? Goodness, it's not like we are talking about Lindsay Lohan, then I'd say she certainly does not deserve to have or adopt a child.

and it was an american child...we tend to forget children of color in this country need to adopted, too...too often families of color don't have the resourses to adopt...

besides i'm sure sandra has plenty of friends who will lend a helping hand if "race" should be an issue...

I usually agree with Chisue, but not on this one. Maybe in some cases it would be "ideal" to have a child adopted by parents of their own race, but what family is ideal? Families come in all sort of sizes, races, relations, etc...what matters is love and having the means to provide for a child. Single parents raise children all the time. Some women still have children at 45 naturally, so I see no reason why she is "too old" to have a child. Grandparents raise grandchildren and are much older than 45.

Somehow, I don't think that child will grow being upset he has a loving, white, single woman who happens to be an actress for a mother.

I say any loving parent that really wants a child and has the means to financially and emotionally provide for an adopted child should be applauded.

I walked into this post earlier and had a response typed..and then deleted it and let it be very simple...but now I can't help it.... as the biological WHITE mother to 3 BLACK young men..I can't stay out of this one...

And I find Bi racial is a very condescending word folks...what race are PEOPLE? Human I believe! There are ethnicities within the human RACE...but is it really necessary to continue dissecting peoples blood lines??? I suppose if that is important to you stay 'pure'..but your children and grand children may not agree with you......For me it's about love. I hope that one day that's what's important to everyone!

My brother and his wife just returned from Ethiopia to wrap their arms around their first child! They are a white couple that chose to adopt out of country..for many reasons..the first being most places denied their requests in this country because he is a cancer survivor. They chose a little boy that is the youngest of 7 children..all from the same biological parents...The mother chose to walk away from the family..the father could not support and provide for all of his children and chose to give his youngest son up. What a heart wrenching decision!!

AND BTW, my brother and his wife are both capable of producing their own children. She like many others has chosen not to become pregnant for her own reasons. And I am positive that my new nephew is just the beginning of their very happy full family of a few more children who all will capture the varietal rainbow of ethnicities in this world!

In the journey that my brother and wife have lived the past 3 plus years to get to the day the received their first child...the only bad thing he could say about celebs and their adoptions..is some countries have the impression that all Americans can throw 10's of thousands of dollars at them for a child. Therefore Governments are getting quite greedy, versus providing a happy lifetime for a child in need of a new situation.

I am amazed that anyone could be so judgemental that they would deny love and family to this child just because of race, marital status, place of residence or age.Thank goodness that they are not in a position to make these decisions.

Good for Sandra and good for that baby. He is truly blessed to be in the situation he has found himself in whether he knows it yet or not!

Before I head off for the teacups, let me ask this again.

Do you think this is the BEST placement for this child? Do you believe there are no nice plain loving couples in America who want to adopt that would give this child a *normal* life? (Of course they exist. They've been waiting years to adopt. It looks pretty obvious that they were out-bid.)

Chisue, I see your point but....what's a "normal" life? Are families who have one parent away at war for months/years at a time normal? Are familes where parents work opposite shifts normal? Are families where one parent is disabled and maybe can't do things other parents can do normal?

I just don't think there is any such thing as "normal" and whatever a child grows up with is normal to them. There are plenty of kids who grow up miserably in families that appear "normal" from the outside, and plenty of kids that grow up completely happy in unconventional families.

Do you think this is the BEST placement for this child?

What do you consider the BEST? How many children are adopted into those BEST standards? If a child can't be adopted into the BEST situation (family) should they just continue to be wards of the state and raised by maybe numerous foster families? Are temporary foster families better than being adopted into less than the BEST family?

So long as a child is given its basic needs and some of its wants, and raised with love and respect, I don't see what the problem is.

It IS the best place for him because he is loved and provided for.

She started the adoption process 4 years ago. 4 years she has been waiting for a child and now she is accused of paying for it? That is an unfair presumption.

A friend's DD was racially "mixed". That DD had a baby who was put in foster care at age 3. She was then relinquished for adoption and was adopted by a white lesbian woman who had been the caseworker. That little girl is now 18 and got to have a stable home and attend private schools. This same DD had 2 more children she attempted to raise who were in and out of foster care. These kids mom is 38, a drug addict and a prostitute. Now which kid has a "normal" home? The one who got adopted by a stable white woman or the 2 that have lived their formative years with their very mixed up mom? As far as I know, these kids will remain in foster care until they age out at 18.

Chisue-I just can't wrap my head around your way of thinking.I guess in your opinion if Terri were to divorce her husband she shouldn't be allowed to raise her children because she is white and they are bi-racial? No offense intended Terri.Sound irrational? Yes,just as irrational as your ideas about who should and should not be able to adopt a child! I don't care what "color" they are or how much money they have it all comes down to how much love they have to give.At least that is my oppinion!

Do you think this is the BEST placement for this child? Do you believe there are no nice plain loving couples in America who want to adopt that would give this child a *normal* life? (Of course they exist. They've been waiting years to adopt. It looks pretty obvious that they were out-bid.)

I'm curious about these "nice plain" couples......what constitutes "plain," and why is it good? Does this disqualify anyone who's involved in the arts, for instance? How about New Age homeschoolers?

But to answer your question, Chisue, yes, I do think this is the best placement for the baby. His mother, who comes from a loving family and gives every indication of having her intelligent head on straight, thinks he's perfect and can't imagine life without him. Sounds good to me!

And I also think there must be plenty of babies available to those nice plain couples. It's not as though Sandra Bullock's baby was the only one left.

With all the kids in foster care, I applaud any and all who adopt. Too bad every child can't be loved and wanted. He will be just fine.

Chisue, since you've worked with adoptees, I'd figure that you're more savvy to the big picture. I'm so wrong. And I'll tell you..... I'm glad my birth mother never showed up on my parents' doorstep. And I've never looked for her. How can you say that a celebrity will be a lousy parent and "nice folk" will be great? Your generalizations are absurd.

I agree Sandra is a classy lady.
Doesn't everyone deserve to love someone? Whether it is baby or adult we all need love and that is the bottom line to me. Race doesn't matter. What appears "normal" is sometimes far from normal. Hollywood is sometimes far from what we think Hollywood is also. If she were living hand to mouth would that make the adoption better? So if she can afford to do whatever is necessary to see a healthy beloved child grow to an adult, I wish there were more people like her.

"I'm glad my mother wasn't 45 when I was born or menopausal when I was a teenager"

Wow, that kinda hurt my feelings. My teenagers' mother is menopausal.

I don't know anything about Sandra Bullock, just what she seems to be like so I can't say one way or another whether this is a good idea. But, even some normal, everyday people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Take for instance the "mother" who sent her adoptive Soviet Union born son back to the Soviet Union by himself, at age 7! Then there are countless adoptive parents who are abusive, even killing those children.

I don't see any problem with Sandra Bullock adopting this baby. I think this baby is very lucky. But I have a feeling that Sandra feels like the lucky one... as far as the adoption is concerned. My hunch is that she's going to be a good mother.