Sheryl Crow asked officials to keep the details of her adoption bids secret - because she didn't want her sons' biological mothers to see their kids in the press.That's a new reason for rejecting open adoption; what do you think?
The All I Wanna Do hitmaker decided to adopt a child following the breakdown of her relationship with cyclist Lance Armstrong in 2006, and she welcomed little Wyatt into her life a year later (07). She went on to adopt a second son, Levi James, earlier this year (10).
And the star had one demand for adoption officials when they were filing her request for a child - she wanted her case to be closed to the public to save the boys' real parents any more heartache.
She tells the Guardian, "I said I would take whichever baby I was supposed to have. My philosophy was that souls find each other; you don't end up with the wrong child.
"(But I wanted a closed case). It would be extremely hard for a mother to watch the child she gave away... grow up in the magazines."
Adoption Initiative Conference 2022
2 years ago
10 comments:
I think it would be a little strange watching your child grow up in the spot lights of tv and stuff, but also I think birthmothers should be able to not choose someone famous to raise their child.
"I said I would take whichever baby I was supposed to have."
Makes me wonder what would happen if she had to disrupt an adoption. How do you know what baby you're "supposed" to have? *confused*
I’m not buying it…I’m sure she doesn’t want b-parents nosing. I agree with Mei Ling, what?
I think it's more that she doesn't want the complication. Because doesn't she realize that those mothers might recognize their children anyway??? For her to pretend this is about the parents' pain -- I'm not buying it.
I think that it is up to her. Her kids, her decisions. Just like we want other parents to respect our decisions we should respect hers. Being a public figure does not entitle everyone else to judge her.
she is thinking about what is best for all the parents. in no way is closed adoption better for the children. as some point they need and want to know about their past, and she has questions she can't answer for them. i don't think she's horrible, but i don't agree that she's in the right.
I think it sounds like strange reasoning. I would think the first mom would recognize her child.
I agree with birthmothertalks, that the baby's mom should be able to not choose someone who is famous-- on the other hand, maybe Sheryl Crow didn't want to be picked because she is famous-- but in that case she could have offerd for an open adoption afterward.
I really don't understand-- I am not familar with domestic newborn adoption. I thought PAP had to tell about themselves in the 'Dear Birthmother' letter. It seems like in this case, the PAP would have to be dishonest about who she is to some degree.
I would hope that she, Sheryl, has some information in place so her children can seek their first mom/parents later in life, if they want to.
i thought birthmothers chose the adoptive parents... are there still cases where birthmothers just had over their newboarns to an attorney?
oops-- of course i meant to type newBORNS.
How utterly bizarre that she would assume that the birth mothers would not recognize their sons! I completely understand concealing her identity (and thus her celebrity) until after finalization, but not afterward.
Post a Comment