I'm not a legal expert, but aren't most divorce filings open? So maybe announcing the adoption was so that when it is mentioned in the divorce filing it won't be big news.

As for timing- didn't Angelina Jolie adopt her first son about the same time that she divorced Billy Bob? And Meg Ryan adopted her daughter soon after divorcing Dennis Quaid?

and I just realized I read too much People magazine in the check out line:p

I'm just glad the baby is American.

That is refreshing.

I'm sayin'! I know her life is all interesting but it should never have been for the public viewing anyway...come on, move along people....
I hardly call leaving an a-hole like that a "sad" event!

I also feel some kinda way about her adopting a black baby but hey...maybe he'll grow up to protect her blind side. :cool:

Obviously, I don't personally know Sandra Bullock, but as someone who has looked into adoption (and just keeps debating all the ethics back and forth ad nauseum), I wouldn't automatically assume that she just chose a black baby just to choose a black baby. Statistically, the majority of people looking to adopt in America are white and the majority of children available for adoption are not. Generally, it is a longer wait for a white baby (it is also usually more expensive and the criteria for adoptive parents tend to be stricter, but I doubt that these are ever considerations if you are a rich celebrity ...).

These celebs could get white babies if they wanted to. I seriously doubt that the other white families have adopted most of the white babies across the country. If "race didn't matter and we just wanted a baby," then.....

Getting a Black baby from New Orleans (Black + Hurrican Katrina = WIN) is still no coincidence.

Just like Madonna and Angelina Jolie didn't just stumble upon Black babies and other nonwhite babies from overseas. The race and ethnicity mattered for some reason, such as attempting to help babies of different races or having a more diverse family. So, there's no reason to pretend the race and ethnicity are invisible physical, social and cultural traits that were unnoticed and didn't matter then or now.

I don't know many details on the adoption, just that I heard on Inside Edition (?) that she adopted the baby because of her involvement with Katrina and she didn't just get him recently. They talked about how getting around with the baby was almost like a CIA operation because they wanted to keep it a secret for as long as possible.

And there are MANY circumstances where one spouse hides a certain part of their life from the other. That's how a lot of spouses get away with having two separate lives. You never really truly know someone.

Agreed.


True enough - I would hope that no one ever thinks that the race and ethnicity of their child (adopted or not) are invisible and don't matter.

Pretty much.

I don't know anything about California law, but in general, these would be two separate cases. If she's adopting the kid, adoptions are usually not available to the public. There might be language in the Decree which says that whateverherhusbandsname isn't the father or adoptive father of the child and therefore has no parental rights or somesuch, but it likely won't be an issue in the divorce which will probably settle through mediation or arbitration.

Also, in some cases, divorce cases can be sealed. At least in Oklahoma.

A lot of people pretend that. Welcome to "we're all in the same gang."

Wasn't that a rap song? I remember some high-pitched voice saying "we're all in the same gang."

I will say, though, that the little baby has a funny smirk on his face. I love it when babies look like they know what's up. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFmiKodg1tc

I still love this song. :)

LOL

Is the Hurricane Katrina reference thrown in there just because that's what people think of now when they think of New Orleans? Because the baby in question clearly isn't a Katrina baby (by about 4 years).

Sandra Bullock has been active and outspoken about Hurrican Katrina. And also this (if it's accurate) is no coincidence: http://www.sevensidedcube.net/entert...n-new-orleans/

As for "Katrina baby" (I hate that stupid term), Hurricane Katrina was 2005. The adoption process began about 4 years ago. The baby is a few months old. That could mean a number of things as it pertains to this baby's parents of birth, Hurricane Katrina, and why the baby was ultimately up for adoption.