Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Sandra Bullock Adopts

From People:

Bullock reveals exclusively in the new issue of PEOPLE that she is the proud mother of Louis Bardo Bullock, a 3½-month-old boy, born in New Orleans. "It's like he's always been a part of our lives," Bullock, 45, says. She and husband Jesse James, 41, began the adoption process four years ago. . . . Bullock says she is now adopting as a single parent.
Oh, and the story mentions nothing so indelicate as the race of the child. Only the photos reveal how far removed she is from this study's findings.

P.S. I said jokingly in the comments that any family would look better in a home study by not having Jesse James, Bullock's soon-to-be ex-husband, in it. And that was before I read Dawn's post on the subject at This Woman's Work and was reminded of Jesse James' Nazi fetish. Yikes!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

IMO, given her current situation, she's smart to adopt as a single.

Wendy said...

It just shows that adoption is mostly about the AP's, how do you adopt from an unstable home, during a divorce, and in the midst of a previous custody battle? Money.

Anonymous said...

If it was all about money it would not have taken 4 years! That being said she was not a divorcee until recently. It would appear that she was at the time of the paperwork (i.e. applications etc.)her home was, to her understanding anyways, not unstable. It also appears she did not want to release personal information regarding her child. Appears to be a domestic adoptions, so it would stand to reason her child may have been adopted from a much, much more unstable home.

malinda said...

I wonder if the birth family knows that their child is now in a single parent home. As a single parent, of course I have no problem with a single parent home! But many birth mothers do -- one of the resons they may be placing is so their child won't be raised in a single parent home. I'm curious about the effect of such a change before the adoption is final. Certainly, she'll need a new homestudy -- and I'd think any family would be better off without Jesse James in it!

Wendy said...

Why is there an assumption that a domestic adoption equates to a more unstable home--not necessarily true. Also, her adoption is not final, I wonder how many social workers would allow this adoption to continue if she was not famous and rich. Average Joe is dealing with custody issues, drug use with former spouse and is now remarried. During the adoption--I don't care when the initial paperwork was filled out--there is a divorce (regardless of cause) in progress and yet other issues relating to losing siblings that are not related to the mother. Add in the "home parent" was the father, the mother travels for work, that initially led the social worker to determine stability in the home. Hmmm. You think the adoption would progress on schedule?
I agree Malinda, where are the birth parents? Did they agree to the adoption of a single parent, a family with no children versus one they thought there would be siblings? Jesse James, regardless of behavior, was part of this equation. Wondering about that background check as well--this was not new behavior or out of character.
Face it, fame and money can make issues disappear or become small in comparison--it glares of the child is of course "better off". Maybe not.

LisaLew said...

I agree, I don't think it's "money" that allowed her to adopt. She's had the baby since January. I also think she was smart to leave her baby "out" of the mess publically until she sorted out her future plans.

I hope that she is in a good place to focus completely on that beautiful baby (for his sake), enjoys motherhood and is able to move on from the mess her estranged husband created.

malinda said...

If this is a private placement adoption, there may not yet be a homestudy -- most private placements are completely unregulated at placement. It's simply an agreement between the placing parent and the adopting parent. No homestudy is done until the APs move to finalize. Judicial oversight happens only at finalization. Some states prohibit direct private placements -- don't know about California or Louisiana.

Wendy said...

That makes sense Malinda. IMO, it is backwards thinking, what if they are found not fit, then the child goes where? The birth family believes they have a placement and then they don't. Also, I think it helps to avoid the birth mother having the time to deal with the actual event of birth and all that comes with that, if they child is already removed it makes it all the harder to get them back if they change their mind or may prevent them from doing so in not wanting to disappoint the adoptive parents.