Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:05 AM ET, 04/28/2010

Surprise! Sandra Bullock is a new mom

By Liz Kelly

New mom Sandra Bullock and baby Louis. (People)
Gallery: Sandra Bullock and Jesse James

Updated at 8:38 a.m. ET with details from People article.

Turns out Jesse James wasn't the only one with a secret. As revealed this morning in an admirable bit of coordinated bombshell dropping on and the "Today Show," Sandra Bullock is a new mom. In January, she and James brought home Louis Bardo Bullock, a now three-and-a-half-month-old baby boy.

The fact that she, James, their family (James's kids Sunny, 6, Jesse Jr., 12, and Chandler, 15, were in on the news) and their handlers managed to keep the adoption secret for almost four months is nothing short of a miracle considering the scrutiny both Bullock and James have been subjected to since Bullock's Oscar win and the subsequent shocker that James cheated on Bullock with at least one, and possibly several women.

Bullock named the baby boy, born in New Orleans, after New Orleans native Louis Armstrong because Armstrong's song "What a Wonderful World" came into her head the first time she saw him. Bullock tells People in the exclusive interview -- hitting newsstands on Friday, April 30 (we got an advance copy) -- that she hasn't had two full nights of sleep since the baby was born.

"You wake up, you feed, you burp, you play, you do laundry," she says in the interview. She credits James's daughter Sunny for planting the adoption idea, but said that she and James quickly took to finding a child in New Orleans, "instead of bringing another life into this world."

Larry Hackett, People magazine's managing editor, appearing on "Today" this morning, said Bullock and James had planned to keep the adoption news under wraps until after the Oscars, not wanting to subject a new baby to the crush of awards season madness. But, added Hackett, Bullock felt the time was right to come forward with the news.

Although Bullock and James had started the adoption process four years ago, Bullock told People she is filing for divorce and now adopting as a single parent.

The article features a multi-page photo spread of Bullock and baby Louis and a short statement from James in which he talks about the difficulty of the past few months and his decision to agree to Bullock pursuing the adoption by herself. Though, obviously hopeful for a reconciliation, James adds that he knows "in my heart that I can be the best father possible to my four children and the mate Sandy deserves."

For her part, Bullock characterizes her current relationship with James as "bittersweet" and tells People that she had no idea about James's infidelity before the story broke.

"All I remember is thinking I need to get Louis out of here before the vultures descend," she said. "But never in a million years did I foresee something like this happening. I wish it hadn't, and it still doesn't seem real."

People magazine's exclusive article hits newsstands this Friday, April 30.

By Liz Kelly  | April 28, 2010; 8:05 AM ET
Categories:  Celebrities, Sandra Bullock/Jesse James  | Tags:  Jesse James, Sandra Bullock  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sandra Bullock reveals secret adoption of baby boy; plans to divorce Jesse James
Next: Joss Whedon still not confirmed as 'Avengers' director


Good for her, becasue a Nazis raising a Black Kid don't compute.

As a side note, every picture that I have seen of Jessie James, he appears to look like he is hiding something.

Somewhat of a guilty look. The fox who has swallowed several hens. A deer looking a head lights.

What an idiot.

Posted by: Special_One40 | April 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, so much for the rumor of a gay celeb coming out on the cover of People. Unless Sandra has more than a new baby she kept secret.

Note to Angelina: This is how you adopt a child. It's not about you, it's about the kid.

Posted by: epjd | April 28, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

EPJD, the gay celeb is supposedly new week's cover, May 5.

Posted by: SubRosa2 | April 28, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

epjd -- I hate that I know this (shouldn't I be using my memory for more important things?), but I think the celebrity coming out is slated for next week.

Posted by: WesternShore | April 28, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Sandra Bullock is a class act. Additionally, that Louis is one lucky baby. See. One doesn't have to go to Africa, Russia or China to adopt. We have plenty of wanting babies right here in the good ole US of A!

Posted by: yeswecan3 | April 28, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Yay for some happiness in the midst of all of her current insanity. Despite everything else she looks happy in the photo and the baby is adorable (like the story behind his name). So three cheers for our home town girl.

PS totally agree ep - somehow, excepting the current circumstances (out of her control) it seems like Sandra Bullock has done an excellent job of keeping out of the usual breathless paparazzo swarm, makes the others who complain seem a bit disingenuous.

Feel bad for his other kids, and I am wondering if they are all seeking a way to live with her instead of either of their biologicals...

Posted by: LTL1 | April 28, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Congrats to Sandra. Nothing like a baby to keep things in perspective.

Posted by: Lizka | April 28, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Cute little bugger isn't he? New rule... NO MORE foreign adoptions!

Posted by: veronihilverius | April 28, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I hope she finds real happiness and gets this #(*&@%%# episode behind her. Yes, there are a lot of babies and children who need adoptive parents here in the USA. No need to go overseas to buy them.

Posted by: Baltimore11 | April 28, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

When I first held my second son, the song I heard was John Lennon's "Beautiful Boy." (No connection to his name, though, since we'd had that picked out for a very long time.)

Posted by: mouse4 | April 28, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I hope she runs for the hills with her new baby & never looks back to JJ & his kids. She should totally split from them & leave him & his crappy porn star ex to raise their kids. LOL @ Special_One, I forgot about the Nazi thing.

Posted by: LadeM | April 28, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Many happy returns to Sandra and son.

Side Note: Speaking as an adoptive parent with two children who were born in another country, I am a little surprised at the comments here. Last time I checked, all kids needed homes, not just those born here.

That said, I imagine that yeswecan3, veronihilverius, and Baltimore11 are in the midst of their own domestic adoptions this very moment. Please come back and share the good news when you bring your own child(ren) home. We look forward to hearing about your new family additions!

Posted by: td_in_baltimore | April 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Let's keep in mind that Sandra Bullock is a woman with power and money. International adoptions happen because they are more affordable and there are more children to be adopted overseas than in the U.S. It took Sandra Bullock 4 years to adopt her son. Four years is a long time to wait to have a child.

Let's not disparage the millions of children who are international adoptees or the parents who lovingly brought them into their homes.

But, I agree that Sandra Bullock is a class act. Kudos to her and her son.

Posted by: bindrew | April 28, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Sandra continues to be a class act in the midst of this crazy scandal. What a cutie and a lucky child. They both deserve better than JJ and his scanky lifestyle. God bless you Sandra and Louis.

Posted by: robhill1 | April 28, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Several years ago a former co-worker was in the middle of adopting children from Russia. I actually asked her why she chose to go all the way to Russia when there were plenty of children in this country. Her reason had nothing to do with money, her "complaint" was that the adoption process in this country was too intrusive, she and her husband had to go through background checks, provide several references and go through an interview process. I don't know what agency they went through to adopt their children in Russia, but I would think that every adoptive parent would have to go through this. But after the latest incident with the woman in TN returning her Russian child, maybe not.

Posted by: milesdy | April 28, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the previous poster. New Rule: no more foreign adoptions. Make adoption a warm fuzzy in this country for Birth Mom and Adoptive Mom. A baby has been created, for goodness sake, and there is so much potential in her or him.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | April 28, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Russia has stopped letting Americans adopt Russian children because of reports of abuse and neglect once they get the kids here. I don't blame them. Other newsworthy stories: the woman in Calvert County, MD who stuffed two of her adopted kids into a freezer after she killed them and continued getting support money for those 2 dead girls. Why was she getting money after the adoption is my queston. The mother in Virginia who killed her adopted daughter and left her out in the cold beside a stream. The child was mentally challenged and kept running away from home -- no wonder, considering the abuse she was going through in this woman's care.

It's a good thing the parents are under scrutiny -- it's not intrusive, it's to keep these horror stories from happening,but obviously it's not working. I think there should be more background checks of parents and even stricter adoption and foster parent laws for the safety of the kids.

Posted by: Baltimore11 | April 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

He is adorable and she looks so happy. Good for her!

Posted by: jaybbub | April 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

It is funny because there does periodically come out this "our own first" mentality on various issues - I remember it when Katrina hit 6 bare months after the Tsunami of SE Asia. Sentiment being don't send money to help "them" - help "our own" first. As if the two were mutually exclusive.

I think we can all agree that there are plenty of good causes we could support and plenty of people in need - here, there, where ever. Lets cheer each other on for doing a good thing not jeer because someone else is moved by a different need then the one that moves us.

Posted by: LTL1 | April 28, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Please don't anyone demand we have no more foreign adoptions. I am all for adopting a child born in the US but not to the exclusion of children from other countries. Those overseas children may live in unimaginable poverty and if not adopted die at a very young age via one means or another. A woman who started an international adoption agency told me several years ago about an instance in a 3rd world country she where she and her team were urged to get to a family in the outskirts of a city quickly as they had a new baby girl but could not feed it - were close to starving themselves - and were going to kill the child rather than watch it slowly starve to death. They raced to get to the baby in time but were too late. The family members were crying but felt it was the best they could do for the child. The woman told me this is not that uncommon (BTW, no Planned Parenthood in that location either!). Please educate yourself on the plight of children in 3rd world countries before you outlaw overseas adoptions.

Posted by: margaretpierson | April 28, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

B=more - I completely agree that protections need to be in place and effective. Absolutely.

Having said that, I think I'd look for a comparison of the abuse statistics on adopted and foster children versus biological children. Are the rates of abuse higher with adoptive and foster children or biological children?

And what are the protections for biological children?

PS having seen orphanages in SE Asia, foster children here have significantly better care (by and large) and more of a chance than most orphans overseas. Not saying that it is ideal by any means, every child deserves a home and a loving family, but it is food for thought.

Posted by: LTL1 | April 28, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Folks: get real. The only people who can afford to adopt the very few American babies there are that are healthy and won't end up being taken back are wealthy celebs like Sandra and Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman. UNLESS, you are a saint and are capable of raising an older child who may have considerable medical/emotional/mental needs.

That's why people go overseas to adopt, not so they can "be like" Angelina/Brad.

Posted by: chunche | April 28, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

What a pig Jesse James is for going through the whole adoption process privately knowing the marriage was bad. Decisions about a child's welfare were based on that application.

And for those saying 'no more international adoptions', you just aren't at all familiar with the process. There are so many American families waiting in line (and competing) for American *babies* that they are pretty much guaranteed adoption.

Posted by: sarahabc | April 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I have a niece and nephew adopted from Korea as babies. Now the nephew is grown, and he and his wife have adopted two kids from Hong Kong with some learning problems who are doing great.

One big reason people use foreign adoptions is because they don't want birth parents changing their mind and cancelling the adoption as can happen with U.S. births.

Please don't be so critical about foreign adoptions. Many kids in American foster care are not actually considered adoptable - they have a parent somewhere, but the parent is not available to 'parent' or won't give up custody.

Posted by: swissmiss150 | April 28, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

She has way too much makeup in that other photo.

Most women will get more joy, happines & satisfaction from their children than they will from their boyfriends/husband. Unconditional love. In most cases anyway.

I bet he won't grow up to be a Southside Crip.

Posted by: uncivil | April 28, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with yeswecan3!

Sandra Bullock is a class act and certainly doesn't deserve the bad rap she's been getting.

And I don't think she's received half the recognition that she deserves.

She's an excellent actress and role model.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | April 28, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow there sure is a lot of misinformation about adoption, both domestic & foreign. Depending on how you choose to proceed domestic adoption can be much cheaper than foreign adoption. It also doesn't have to take 4 years to adopt a healthy newborn.

Noone should ever tell someone else how to form their family. If someone choses overseas adoption, someone else will say they should have adopted from the U.S.. If someone adopts a healthy infant from the U.S., someone else will say they should have adopted an older child. Ok, stepping off my soapbox now.

Posted by: jes11 | April 28, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

You want a bad boy? You reap what you sow.

Bad boys act like bad boys.


I like Sandra. Got a nice figure.

But she's a woman & they get taken in by men. No matter how smart they are.

Posted by: uncivil | April 28, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Foreign adoptions cost upwards of 30k, so definitely aren't cheap. The least expensive adoptions are through the US foster care system, but you rarely hear about those. I'm happy for Sandra and applaud anyone who chooses to adopt a child in need (here or elsewhere).

Posted by: kvs09 | April 28, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Sandra and her baby son both!

The reason Sandra Bullock isn't harassed by
papparazzi as much as Angelina Jolie is or Michael Jackson was, is that she seems very competent and good at looking after herself, with no apparent issues, and that means no news for the media. She is what she is, nothing to report. It's the same with Madonna, even though she is much more colorful, because journalists feel they can't bring her down.

Jolie has calmed down, but media are still hoping for something bad to happen. Michael Jackson was utterly vulnerable and once the media turned on him, he didn't stand a chance.

Again: All the best to mother and son! She will probably not abandon her former husband's children, who consider Louis their sibling. But I don't think she'll ever take Jesse James back.

Posted by: asoders22 | April 28, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

If she kept the baby all this time in secret she could continue to do so and deal with her publicity problems on her own. To use a baby as a come back publicity stunt is just unnaceptable to me. Wake up America!

Posted by: voice02 | April 28, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I know biological children are abused, too. I'm not saying they aren't. Every case is different. Sometimes the child who is abused is defiant or mentally challenged. Sometimes the parents have other children who are not abused at all but they target one individual to take out their frustrations. I just don't like to see people adopting children for the sole purpose of abusing them after they are adopted. No child should be abused, neglected, or abandoned.

Note: Dr. Alice Miller, noted child psychoanalyst, died in France earlier this month. Her obit. is in the Post today. she said 'Nobody is born evil. We produce destructive people by the way we are treating them in childhood.'

I hope baby Louis brings a lot of happiness to Sandra Bullock's life --he's one lucky kid to get such a great beginning.

Posted by: Baltimore11 | April 28, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who managed to keep their mouths shut for all this time without spilling it to the tabloids deserves a raise - and a pat on the back!

Posted by: swissmiss150 | April 28, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Congrats to a lucky lady and her lovely son.
And pooh-pooh to naysayers. Both Sandra and Louis deserve the love and happiness they will have as a family.

Posted by: cfow1 | April 28, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

swissmiss150 is right. My brother and his wife adopted two Russian children years ago and I asked them why they were going overseas instead of adopting here in the States, they simply said once they adopted they didn't want to have to give back a child to the birth mother. Their kids turned into loving, sweet children! Good luck Sandra Bullock - what an adorable baby!

Posted by: MrsKirby | April 28, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Sandra Bullock for moving on with her life. May she and her new baby be blessed.

Posted by: PittAlum | April 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Noone should ever tell someone else how to form their family.

Quote of the Week. Heck, Quote of the Year.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | April 28, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

As a single adoptive dad of a boy who was in foster care (he was 10 when I adopted him) I think it's great to adopt special needs children. They're terrific. I hope Sandra Bullock has as wonderful a time with her kid as I have had being my son's dad.

Posted by: GayChristian | April 28, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes, yes. Sandra Buttocks is the perfect mom and Jesse James is totally evil. (Though she did marry him and revel in his bad boy image, so what does that say about her judgment?)
This and many other cliche Hollywood scripts have been foisted on the public for decades. And Rock Hudson and Doris Day were supposed to be the perfect couple, as were Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman and many others. It's all a B-movie script dreamed up in Hollywood.

Posted by: gce1356 | April 28, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

What a class act Sandra Bullock is, and thank goodness she is moving forward on her own. As well, may she serve as a lesson to those disingenuous celebs who whine about paparazzi: Sandy proves it IS possible to be a major star and still guard her privacy. As soon as the wheels came off the wagon re. her marriage, the first thought on her mind was getting her son out of there before the vultures descended. Her values are in the right place.

Note to the jerk Jesse James: the mate Sandy deserves is not a Hitler fanatic who totally disrespects her by sleeping around with any skank he can find.

Posted by: Californian11 | April 28, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm happy for Sandra Bullock, I hope the baby brings her much-deserved happiness.

I'm also happy to see comments supporting adoption from other countries. It's so small minded to condemn people for adopting children from countries other than the U.S. Reasons have already been stated so I won't repeat them. I admire any person who adopts a child from whatever country they chose.

Posted by: faithfulreader | April 28, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Yep, nothing like adding a child to a deterioating marriage...what were they thinking...

Posted by: TNbybirth | April 28, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I know this is happy news for Sandra, but I can't help wondering if I were the birth mother, I presumably gave up my baby so he could have a father and a mother - an intact family. That is typically the dilemma for giving up the baby. I'd be sad that instead, my baby is getting the exact situation I was trying to avoid. I know that Sandra is rich, so money won't be an issue, but typically money isn't as huge a motivator as stability. Sandra's situation seems totally unstable.

Posted by: Amelia5 | April 28, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Why is this of interest to anyone other than those directly involved?

Posted by: MrBethesda | April 28, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

God gave us pictures of our babies as they grow up and it's in the form of memories. Sandra is blessed and her son Louis looks just like my son did at his age. Those fat cheeks/curely hair and so cuddlely. Now as we see racism/hate spilled out over America by Americans and Law Makers it took Sandra and her son Louis to show us love is all it takes. I love Sandra and funny she's so real you'd love her if God gave her color. When one door closes God opens another one. Reading comments above it proves many Americans would love to have a child to love but the US is to rapped up in Race and forget God created all of us, He just uses crayons.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | April 28, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's commendable that she and the soon-to-be ex would adopt a child of another race however, her personal life is in shambles. We can acknowledge the white mom/black child fact (without being racist), and there's no father in the picture at all. She's a famous name and worth millions so the adoption will probably go through regardless of the circumstances. But is this really the best situation for the child? The primary object of adoption is to give a child a stable, loving environment, preferably with stable parents.

Posted by: sueduncan | April 29, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Of course it's commendable that she and the soon-to-be ex would adopt a child of another race however, her personal life is in shambles. We can acknowledge the white mom/black child fact (without being racist), and there's no father in the picture at all. She's a famous name and worth millions so the adoption will probably go through regardless of the circumstances. But is this really the best situation for the child? The primary object of adoption is to give a child a stable, loving environment, preferably with stable parents.

Posted by: sueduncan | April 29, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I know the story of a beautiful, perfect little girl who was adopted from New Orleans by a single mother who is not rich or famous and the process took less than 8 months. The birth mother was so impressed with the new adoptive mother that it didn't matter whether there was a father in the picture or not. This little girl receives so much love that she doesn't miss what a "father" might be able to give. Let's not make this an issue of whether both mother's & father's are needed to make a family... it's been done without both for many, many years. And let me say that my family is a perfect example, I am the single mother of two wonderful children who thank ME on Father's Day for giving them what their father didn't/couldn't!

Congratulations Sandra and baby Louis... May you both have good blessings!

Posted by: msmmgood1 | April 29, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company