Sarah Jessica Parker hasn’t had time to bond with her twins

33854pcn_twins01-640x10241
As many predicted, it seems like Sarah Jessica Parker has left her 3-month-old twins in the care of Matthew Broderick and assorted nannies. Before Tabitha and Marion were even born, several sources had SJP and Broderick fighting over their schedules and how best to care for the babies. When the twins came home, Life & Style announced that Broderick would be taking time out of his schedule to look after the twins, while SJP would work on SATC 2. Now Star Magazine is reporting that SJP had to go to work on Sex and the City 2 so quickly after twins Marion and Tabitha that she hasn’t had time to bond with her babies. SJP is working 12 to 14 hour days, and she barely has any time to spend with her family:

Sarah Jessica Parker is so wrapped up making Sex and the City 2 that she’s having trouble bonding with her 3-month-old twin girls, Marion and Tabitha.

“It breaks her heart, but she just doesn’t have a lot of time,” an insider tells Star, adding that the actress often reports to the movie’s NYC set as early as 7 a.m. and doesn’t finish shooting until late.

When done, SJP immediately heads to the West Village home she shares with her husband, Matthew Broderick, and their 6-year-old son, James, and the twins.

“She checks in on everyone; then it’s off to bed where she looks over her script before passing out,” says the insider.

Even on her day off, SJP works. She had a morning meeting, a business lunch and another appointment on Sept. 6.

“She’s beyond exhausted,” says the insider. “It’s not ideal timing for her to have two babies at home, but she’s doing the best she can.”

[From Star Magazine, print edition, September 28 2009]

I do feel for SJP, because it must be difficult to keep that kind of schedule. But I don’t feel too badly, because it’s not as if SJP is just some average working mom with no control over her schedule. The thing is that the twins were born via a surrogate, so a lot of time and forethought went into their family planning, and the timing of it. And SJP is an executive producer on SATC 2 – she could have easily changed the filming schedule, pushing it back so she could have more time at home. No one is forcing her to keep this schedule – she could have said no. It really would have been that simple. My conclusion is that her first priority was getting SATC 2 filmed and ready for a summer 2010 release, and not on bonding with her babies.

Sarah Jessica Parker is shown on the set of SATC 2 on 9/9/09 and 9/16/09. Credit: Fame Pictures. Her twins are shown with their nanny on 9/6/09. Credit: Hector Vallenilla/PacificCoastNews.com

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

78 Responses to “Sarah Jessica Parker hasn’t had time to bond with her twins”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. DoMaJoReMc says:

    Then why in hell did she even bother to adopt? LOSER!

  2. Obvious says:

    @DoMaJoReMc she didn’t adopt….she had them via a surrogate two very very different things.

  3. Maizieloo says:

    I absolutely agree – if she knew she wouldn’t have time for babies due to her “busy schedule”, then why in the world would she adopt them in the first place?!?! Waaaa-waaa – I have ZERO sympathy for her!

  4. Anastasia says:

    She’s an executive producer on the dang thing. Geez. No sympathy. Only for the babies.

    Does she need the money and ego boosts so badly?

  5. barneslr says:

    This is what happens when people have children as accessories. What a loser.

  6. Beth says:

    Why can’t she take the babies on set? A lot of working actresses do this. Since Jessica is the producer I doubt that would be a problem. Considering all of the years trying for another child you would think she would have looked at her schedule.

  7. GatsbyGal says:

    Matthew lit the last candle on the table and stood back to admire his work. It was a feast fit for a king, or rather a queen, as he had cooked this dinner especially for his beloved Sarah. We’re finally having our first family meal together, he thought, and this is going to be perfect.

    The little ones, the twins, were already seated in their highchairs. Their chubby limbs fidgeted, as if sensing their father’s excitement. Six-year-old James sat patiently in his chair opposite the babies, playing with two forks and making them fight. After that got boring, he placed them on his empty plate and eyed the pot roast on the table with eager eyes.

    “Daddy, can we eat now?” he asked. “Mommy’s late again.”

    “Don’t worry,” Matthew spoke to his son with a smile. “Mommy’s coming home tonight to see us, you’ll see. She said she would.”

    “Mr. Broderick?” came a voice from behind him. It was one of his housekeepers. “Your wife’s assistant from the set just called. They’re doing some reshoots. She won’t be home until after midnight.”

    Matthew’s heart sunk into his stomach. “Thank you,” he said, his voice barely a whisper. He looked to James to appologize, but the boy had already ran from the room. The twins were staring at Matthew, almost like they knew this would be another night without their mother.

    He blew out the candles on the table and started cleaning up.

  8. CandyKay says:

    Again, she reminds me of Joan Crawford.

    Career comes first, kids come second, except when it’s time for a photo-op.

  9. Eileen Yover says:

    Uh, “It absolutely breaks her heart but she just doesn’t have the time.” ?????
    They are her BABIES for crying out loud not a pet hermit crab! You make time! I put my career on hold when I got pregnant and it was unplanned. I was lucky enough to be able to stay home even though that first year 7 years ago was tight…but worth it. Now another kid down I am back to writing full time. Seriously I know woman want to have a career and children, but at least take a few months to bond with the babies.

  10. DoMaJoReMc says:

    @ Obvious:
    I stand (humbly) corrected! Mea Culpa! I still think she should have given some thought as to whether or not she could give these babies what they need. THAT I will stand firm on.

  11. Aviatrix says:

    Poor little bandaid babies.

  12. DoMaJoReMc says:

    @ GatsbyGal

    Brilliant! Very touching stuff. Sad, tho!

  13. Cherubim says:

    meow! give her a break! SJP can’t control the timing of a pregnancy nor the timing of a film – actors are sometimes are difficult bunch to get together. Plus it’s not like IVF necessarily takes after the first, second, or eighth try! Who knows for how long they were trying to have children? Working moms everywhere have to continue with their lives – not hang around waiting patiently for a baby to appear. Believe me, I am sure SJP’s needs come last in her family (just like most mothers) while her kids come first.

  14. happymom says:

    I totally agree with Cherubim. Also, those babies are so little right now-they’re going to be at the point where they just eat and sleep. Once she’s done with the movie, she’ll have plenty of time to interact with them-and they’ll be more alert anyway.

  15. QB says:

    This is bad , Is going to be harder to bond with the twins when they get older. Is really different when you have a surrogate , you don’t have those 9 months where you bond and get attached to the baby. She planned the pregnancy she should have taken 1 or 2 years off.

  16. GatsbyGal says:

    Cherubim – SJP CAN control the timing of a pregnancy, especially when she’s paying another woman to be her surrogate.

  17. mila says:

    Well, the kids also have a father!If Sarah was a man nobody would question her decision to go back to work so soon. Having said that, I think she made a wrong decision-those first months are very important and she’ll miss a lot.

  18. ash says:

    Yeah, let’s get surrogates so we can have more kids, then I’ll peace out and work non-stop…..

  19. DoMaJoReMc says:

    @ Aviatrix:

    Those were my thoughts exactly when I first found out about the anticiption of the babies. To FIX things……

  20. OXA says:

    She may be on set all day but most of that is spent in her trailer. There is abosolutely no reason she cant have the twins there with the nanny and spend time with them between takes.

  21. Kathie says:

    Okay all you sexist pundits out there for the last time, no one would be chastising Matthew Broderick if he were hard at work on a project and left SJP to tend the twins while he worked hmmm? I am sure he is there with them constantly and if he weren’t how come nobody ever worries about how much the father “bonds” with the family newborns? He is obviously a very involved and concerned parent and I applaud the time he spends but I really think this is way over the top sexism to trash SJP for working while the other parent IS home looking after things regardless of gender!

  22. Felicia says:

    Wow. I really miss working and financially we would be better off if I could work but that isn’t the best choice for my child right now. Seems like an obvious choice for us. I would think since she didn’t experience all those hormones that help mother/child bonding that she’d want to spend time with them instead to create that bonding through experience. That is what most women who use surrogates or adopt tend to do. I can’t imagine what that must feel like to basically have two little strangers at home. I guess the babies will bond with Daddy so it isn’t so bad for them but the idea just feels foreign to me.

  23. clare says:

    Hot on the pursuit of even more money. Family can wait.

  24. goaheadandyellatme... says:

    I don’t think that it is up to us to decide if a woman is bonding with her children or not. Why is everybody believing the source quoted here?

  25. lucy says:

    With Matthew and nannies, I’m sure the kids are well looked after, and I’m sure SJP spends every moment she can with them. I’d hope they’d come on set quite often, since there is a lot of down time.
    I do have to think it’d have been better to plan the timing of either the movie or the pregnancy to work out better, but I guess you can’t guarantee the pregnancy and the movie involves a lot more people than just SJP.
    Whatever’s going on, I hope they’re all happy and enjoying the twins.

  26. KansasRefugee says:

    I’m with Kathie and Mila. Too often, we women don’t encourage, recognize and respect good quality father bonding. Yeah, some men have been jerks to us in the past, and some still are, and the patriarchical system was set up to our disadvantage but let’s show everyone a better way.

  27. wow says:

    KansasRefugee, I think now in some countries, they do allow something like a maternity leave for fathers, while the Mother works. Anything that’s new will always seem foreign and odd until people start to open their minds up. SJP is in a powerful position and is making the best of it. I don’t feel bad for her children at all because I am sure they are not wanting for anything, let alone attention.

    Having said this though, I do think her marriage is a sham and the babies were brought in to “fix” things. Now if I’m going to have an issues with them, it would be about that. But I’ll save that for the next SJP post about her marriage because I’m sure that will be the next one from the tabloids.

  28. Ling says:

    @goaheadandy: You made the point I was just about to make. I agree, if the story were true I would definitely question SJP’s priorities, but who’s to say?

    One comment I will make, though, is: does anyone else notice the coincidence of Matthew Broderick basically living the life of his Stepford Wives character?

    And, the obligatory Lion King reference (I was a ’90s child, bite me):

    You just know that Nala would be off all day leading the hunt while Simba snuggled at home with the cubs.

  29. N. says:

    Like one of the other posters said,

    No one would bat an eye if the tables were turned

    If Matthew were working as hard as SJP was, no one would be attacking him.

    I think it’s great that they’re able to reverse the roles for now. What an amazing opportunity for the father to bond with his babies while the mother works to provide for them.

    To think otherwise is just sexist!!!!

    Open your minds!!

  30. both says:

    True that she should’ve put more thought into timing, and the babies are the most important, but would people be as harsh if HE were the absent working one. They should be.

    And is he going to get all hissy again because her career is more successful than his?

  31. princess pea says:

    Um. LIFE & STYLE says this. They are about as accurate as the Enquirer, typically.

    And I’ll sign on that list of people who think fathers can care for babies, too.
    And also that surrogate or not, NO ONE has mastered the uterus yet… it can take more than one attempt.

  32. Goddess711 says:

    When the toaster popped up with the latest SATC script I don’t think they were considering anybody’s “schedules” they were focusing on riding the SATC wave of money from the first movie. It’s all about the money, not timing and definitly not about good scripting.
    She goes to work and ignores the family – so what? That’s on par with the majority of parents these days. If it were Matthew Broderick signing up for a new musical and taking off, nobody would care. Why care if it’s SJP? They can afford good surrogate mothers to have the kids and then raise them.

  33. For Sooth? says:

    Yeah to the Women’s Movement for allowing Sarah to put work before family. Yeah for empowerment. Boo for bonding.

    GD it to He** people, our priorities are majorly effed up.

  34. Mae says:

    Wow, how pathetic of her. While she might not have control over the timing of some of these projects it shows where her priorities are. Even if she has a signed contract with a company she could do several things that would be better than just ignoring her new babies: 1) bring them to set with the nanny, 2) NOT have had them right now, the timing of everything wasn’t some sort of surprise, 3) QUIT. Its not like she’s desperately in need of more money.

    In Hollywood it seems children rarely rate first.

    I have lost any respect I once had for her.

  35. Cinderella says:

    There seems to be so much more to this story. I’m not going to lose respect for her at this early stage because I think she got caught up in something that was not her fault. She’s probably doing the best that she can.

  36. Eileen Yover says:

    I think its awesome that the man is doing most of the caregiving to the twins-BUT for her not to be around enough to even bond with them is crap. She’s their mother, whether its bad timing or not. I don’t care if she’s the president of the USA, take some time to bond with the babies, especially since she didn’t give birth to them. So men aren’t the ones to carry the babies and usually don’t take off to care for them makes what she’s doing ok? I told my husband if he can’t make the time to come home and be with our new baby than I can go somewhere else and collect his monthly paycheck.
    This is all based on IF this is a true story, I’m well aware that 70% of this is problably B.S.

  37. Ron says:

    Sometimes timing sucks and that’s that. There are a number of things at play here. The first SATC movie did really well and they wanted an immediate sequel. Second SJP and MB were planning to have a surrogate kid and the woman gets pregnant at an inconvient time. Once the sequel ball was rolling, all the actors had already signed on for a sequel with the first movie contract, they have a window of opportunity to get it into production to keep that contract valid. SJP is an executive producer on this project only for creative, she does not control contract negotiations or the production monies. If this movie get’s pushed, they have to honor a clause in most contracts which is a production hold. The clause states that the actors, director, crew etc that has been signed on get’s paid at their day rate while it’s delayed so they don;t pick up another project. If let’s say Kim Catrall is making 4 million on a 90 day contact, she would get 44,444.00 per day while she sat around. There is NO WAY, SJP could just quit. She would be sued from here to France. I am sure the majority of this story is bull. It’s not like quitting your job at McDonald’s.

  38. moo says:

    @DoMaJoReMc she didn’t adopt….she had them via a surrogate two very very different things.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    and your point??? other than being an ass??????

    the STORY is about not being with the kids!! WHO CARES if they were adopted or bred or bought? Mommy isn’t there!

  39. Anastasia says:

    I would think it was crappy if the new dad was working so many hours he never saw his new babies either UNLESS it would mean not eating and no home if he didn’t. Same thing for the mom.

    But in this case, neither one of them HAS to work, so it’s ridiculous.

  40. dirty martini says:

    Not good. Not good at all.

    She didnt’ carry these babies. And she isn’t with them now.

    The only string she has to them involves a bank account.

    Kind of like me and my ex husbands………..

  41. Popcorny says:

    What an ugly pretentious narcissistic phony. She deserves her ghastly hands and feet (… and face, nose, chin, husband, etc).
    Like the author said, she planned these babies.
    It’s just disgusting she puts her “popularity” over her kid’s development. She and her Cubby … err … hubby have plenty of dough. She thinks she’s adorable. She’s rancid.
    How those feet sell shoes I don’t know.
    Damn!

  42. Ggirl says:

    Agree with people who think SJP is using those babies as accessories. Just from many of the articles and blogs SJP seems to have no limits on her ambition and as an executive producer, I am willing to be bet that she would whore out the birth of her twins to produce interest for SATC 2. The problem is that she is not all that interesting. I used to buy into the image she was peddling as the well mannered ‘artist’. Not anymore. SJP claims she wants privacy but only when it suits her. Every little security situation with the surrogate mother was released like we were all supposed to be on the edge of our seats lapping up every detail. Please. I couldn’t even suffer through the last SATC movie. I have seen enough of SJP’s bitchiness to last a lifetime. Those poor twins. It makes no sense.

  43. Cheyenne says:

    This woman is full of bullshit from nose to toes. You TAKE TIME to bond with your babies. Every working mother knows this. And unlike most working mothers who have to work out of economic necessity, she doesn’t have to work at all if she doesn’t want to. The world won’t collapse if they have to make the damn film without her in it. She’s chosen her priorities. Her career comes before her children. Her children are trophies to her. No more, no less.

  44. redred2 says:

    Also, the movie could not be done without her. She could have had 2 or 3 on site nannies in her contract.I’m sure her hair stylist & make up artist in it.I really do question her parenting skills. There was a pic of her 6 yo on the first day of school(she was taking him). The boy looked a mess. His clothes were too small from his jeans to his hoody. Hi shoes were too big. He looked like an almost extremely poor kid. It was like she didn’t know how to dress him & like she got his clothes out of the hamper.Lots of celebs have their kids on set. It would be different if she were somewhere else. But she goes home every night. They could stay in a hotel while she’s filming to save traveling time. With all this said, I do not believe she is neglecting her kids , she just needs to MAKE TIME for them (if only for two hours a day to hold & feed them)& needs to learn how to dress her son. I keep forgetting that someone else dress her.

  45. redred2 says:

    Many celebs seem to use their kids as props. Everytime they bring out their kids they r promoting one of their projects. Or just promoting themselves. The best thing that ever happened to that Kortney Kardashin (however the hell spelled) is her unplanned, almost aborted child. She is pimping the hell out of that kid.

  46. Zoe (The Other One) says:

    Yuk, what a lot of vile comments. All y’all crying and wailing ‘think about the children’. They are hardly dumped on the street to fend for themselves – they have a working mummy, just like millions of other kids. To say that cos she’s a producer she can reschedule a film to suit her is wrong and insults our intelligence.

    I’m with cherubim, kathie, mila and everyone else who has dragged their asses out of the 19th century. Good grief.

  47. eternalcanadian says:

    this is most strange. the babies were obviously planned. the timing was planned. so what’s up with this running off to work crap? that’s really too bad. puts her in a bad light. i’m not saying matthew can’t do a good job, but why go through all that trouble of a surrogate pregnancy and then dump the babies on the hubby and go off to work? it is not like she needs to work for the money, and being a producer of the movie she had the authority to say, hey folks, i need some parental leave, six months or so. she’s also not spending time with james, and i’m sure he’s wondering why his mum is gone all day long too.

  48. jiNx says:

    Like most others are saying …….she knew when her purchases were arriving so why didnt she work her schedule around them? Worship the almighty $!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    No sympathy and I really really liked her before she ordered her babies …though in hindsight I think it’s Carrie I like. Oh well!

  49. Popcorny says:

    Yes, “Zoe”, it’s very “20th century”(?!) to neglect your children, especially infants (because they can’t complain).
    Maybe she’ll dye them pink or blue to match her shoes, or add swarovzki crystals and let them dangle like earrings.
    How archaic and neandrathalithic of us to expect children be a priority, so sorry to have insulted your “intelligence”.

  50. asiont says:

    those kids have also a father, and I can bet they are not left alone.

    is it really so strange that some women want to be working mums?

  51. Michelle says:

    I have sincere doubts that her children are abused, neglected or going without anything needed. The hatred and virility of some of the comments here is just ridiculous- it’s a report from STAR magazine ffs. They’re not exactly a beacon of truth. Have any of you personally spent time with Sarah or her family? Then how do you know this isn’t yet more tabloid BS? Chill the eff out, people- is it any of our business, anyway?

  52. Zoe (The Other One) says:

    Ack – pls don’t eat my posts!

    @popcorny – when did I say I approved of children being neglected? When did I say you were insulting my intelligence?

    Wind your neck in and don’t be coming at me because our opinions differ.

  53. Ally says:

    Oh enough with the woman-bashing. She’s the breadwinner in the family, and she’s doing a damn good job of it. The other parent is parenting full-time. The end. Get over it.

    This is the new shape of misogyny — berating women for their life choices, now that they finally have some hard-won options. Wake up and realize you’ve internalized woman-hating claptrap spewed by cavemen.

    The other part of this is that some of you are not 100% thrilled about being stuck at home caring for the kids while your husband comes and goes as he pleases, so you’re mad that others like SJP have customized a life that suits them instead of miserably living someone else’s idea of what is mandatory for every woman. Instead of being bitter and jealous, fix what bugs you about your own family arrangement.

  54. Whatever says:

    Jessica, go ahead take all the time off to bond with your kids. In a few weeks everyone will forgot all about you and say Jessica who? For that I would be thankful on Thanksgiving!

  55. Popcorny says:

    “@Zoe” … reread your post.
    And try not to be so surprised to get a response when you turtle it out yourself to take on other’s opinions and dismiss them, categorically and outright, as being “outdated”.
    It’s not “old school” to think that a parent who PLANNED to have the babies would also have planned the time for the babies and have the babies be a priority … not a movie.
    These poor babies didn’t “happen” upon her like most women experience … she planned them and that makes ALL the difference.
    SJP is vile.

  56. Zoe (The Other One) says:

    Good for you popcorny.

    My point remains – don’t get up on me cos you don’t agree with my opinion. I didn’t call anyone out so I fail to understand why out of all the pro-SJP voices on this post you chose to single out mine.

    @Ally – beautifully said 🙂

  57. Popcorny says:

    “@ Zoe”
    -When you say “I’m with …. and everyone else who has dragged their asses out of the 19th century.” you’ve certainly “called out” and were “getting up on” those you disagreed with.
    And with no criticism, but w/a tad of irony, this is the 21st century, well past both the 19th and 20th centuries.
    Let’s update!

  58. wif says:

    she has proven in the past to be a very good mom to her son, there’s no evidence to suggest that she won’t be a good mom to the twins.

    SJP has limited time to make more millions off the SATC cannon. She isn’t a particularily good actress and I think it’s wise of her to pull in the bucks while she can. MB’s broadway accolades will never bring in the kind of money she can for these films. And living your life in the eye of the paparazzi is expensive.

    And bonding doesn’t takes weeks. It happens in a flash (at least it did for me). One minute you’re thinking “This is weird, who are you?” the next you’re willing to throw yourself under a bus if need be.

    I suspect, as others have said, that MB is doing fine being the current primary caregiver (and this won’t last forever, movie shoots are for a few weeks to a couple of months) and that she sees lots of the twins on set.

  59. asiont says:

    Ally, I agree with you, that was well said

  60. Patrice says:

    “The thing is that the twins were born via a surrogate, so a lot of time and forethought went into their family planning, and the timing of it”.

    I couldn’t agree with Celebitchy MORE on this one. She knew exactly what she was doing, when these kids would be concieved (if successful), born, and when she would have to go back to work and for how long. So much for the plea that she was “challenged ” fertility wise and “family was always #1” and that’s why she went through everything with the process of surrogacy to have them. Bulls*t. I knew these were relationship band-aid babies from the start. I feel badly for those girls. This was no surprise pregnancy that caught her off guard. She knew what she was doing, in fact, she was in the process of filming a different movie around the time they were born. Maybe the surrogate route had nothing to do with infertility. It’s not unheard of (though it should be).

  61. Patrice says:

    Cherubim: “meow! give her a break! SJP can’t control the timing of a pregnancy nor the timing of a film”

    You CANNOT be serious with this? Surrogacy and IVF are extremely calculated, emotionally draining, and time consuming processes. Are you HONESTLY suggesting that she was going into it (even once) with the idea in the back of her mind that it just probably wouldn’t take again? Get real. This is no happy accident that we’re talking about here. There was a hell of a lot of money, trips to medical offices, and planning that went into getting these babies here when they came.

  62. maggie says:

    ” I don’t feel TOO BAd for her” not “TOO BADLY!” This is basic grammar. Please check your work or have someone help.

    This is an example of sheer greed for more money. I would feel BAD for her only if she had no choice but to work. Since she has millions in the bank she clearly can take off at least several months like most working mothers. I have no sympathy at all for her.

  63. Jenn g says:

    Well, it’s already sad that these celebs go through surrogates so they don’t ruin their bodies, that’s your first sign. Selfishness off the rip doesn’t usually lead to quick bonding with kids that came out of someone else’s vajay-jay. None of us know for sure her medical history, but I highly doubt that it wasn’t possible for her to carry her own kids. When you have kids, or pay others to do it for you, it’s time to be selfless; no matter what your job is! You made a choice, the choice to be a mommy.
    (She already admitted years ago that she wasn’t sure if she wanted more kids because of what it does to your body before everyone keeps saying “that’s not why she had a surrogate”)

  64. Zoe (The Other One) says:

    Ugh “seriously” “popcorny” why does everything you say need to be in “random quotes”. Back up a second and consider that my “reference” to people being “old fashioned” was based upon the fact that “women” can “work” these days and it not be considered “child abuse” because we don’t “live” in the “dark ages”. Some women “work” cos they “choose” to – this doesn’t make them a “better” or “worse” parent because of it. I don’t “think” the fact “SJP” is a “producer” on a “film” means she can dictate the “start” and “finish” dates of said “film”. So perhaps you “can” now “as requested” wind your “f*cking” neck in. Chars.

  65. Popcorny says:

    Quotation marks are to reference the words of others, “Zoe”.
    My “f*cking neck” will come and go as I dictate, not you.
    More importantly than your bruised ego, you are totally skipping over the fact that SJP planned the timing of the babies knowing this movie/workload was coming
    -you’re also skipping over that she CHOSE to prioritize work over her babies.
    How sadly misguided it is to assert that this has anything to do with women’s rights.

  66. Jag says:

    The easiest thing would’ve been to bring the babies to her trailer on set, and bond with them between takes. THAT is what makes me question why she bought the babies in the first place – not the fact that she’s still working. If a new father were doing what she’s doing, I would question it just the same.

  67. Kait says:

    You’re right, because she obviously can’t bond with them when they are older. It’s just like my family – our daughters were adopted when they were two and eleven months and of course we can’t bond with them because we missed the months of being pregnant and having them sleep, eat, and poop around the clock.

    You guys are being ridiculous. Yeah, she could have changed the filming schedule except, oh, that’s right, she’s not the only person working on this movie and sometimes it’s necessary to take other people in to consideration. She can still bond with her babies later and by saying that she can’t, you’re implying that thousands of adoptive mothers are screwed on bonding with their kids because we didn’t birth them.

    And for those that asked – the Broderick-Parker family DID adopt the twins. Being birthed by surrogate means that according to the law, those babies belonged to the surrogate and needed to be adopted by their genetic parents.

  68. Zoe (The Other One) says:

    “Bruised ego” “popcorny”…not likely. LOL. I “know” what “quotation” marks mean. I was merely making “lighthearted” “reference” to the “random nature” of use you give “them” rather than “for” their actual “purpose”.

    I “said” she “chose” to “work”. Not “overlooked” that at all.

    I’ve said that a “working woman” doesn’t make a better or worse “parent”.

    You’ve STILL to clear up why out of all the dissenting voices on here you are “continuing” to single mine out for disagreeing with your opinion.

  69. GatsbyGal says:

    Zoe, you’re just making yourself look absurd now. Please stop, I’m embarrassed for you.

  70. CB Rawks says:

    Her new babies are a straight-laced schoolmarm and a kitten?

    Weird name pairing.

  71. CB Rawks says:

    Some people have implied that it doesn’t matter if she bonds with the babies later on, but I don’t agree with that.
    Now is the time when they are learning to feel safe and warm in someone’s arms and developing attachments, and it isn’t with her. She’s the one missing out, and some film can’t possibly be more important than that!

    I don’t mean that adoptive mothers are unable to bond, or that being the actual birth mother is necessary.
    What I mean is that once the baby is yours, you should not hand it off to a nanny if you have the ability to stay with it, and she DOES. It’s just a movie.

  72. la chica says:

    it is indefensible that this woman is neglecting the children she chose to bring into this world.

  73. 4Real says:

    Neglect is a strong word. And she’s not the only celeb buying, oops, I mean adopting babies. How different is she to Angelina, Madonna, etc. I’m sure she’s bonded as best as she could with most of her time being taken up on a movie set but we all know the rules are different for the rich and famous. Those twins may lack maternal attention right now but have everything else materially they could want. Plus look at Octomom. She spends all of her time bonding with her kids, but doesn’t work and everyone dogs her out for that. We can’t have it both ways. Maybe we should focus more on kids who are really and truly neglected, going hungry, wearing shabby clothes, abused, unwanted, and unloved instead of celeb babies being taken care of by a nanny. It’s a non-issue.

  74. Other Karen says:

    How is it better for the kids to be on the set with her than at home with their father?

    Big budget films have **a lot** of livelihoods depending on them. Making all the assorted crew members unemployed unexpectedly for events within your control is not cool. Movie jobs are lined up pretty far ahead of time.

  75. Mary says:

    It’s all totally uncessary! I just love to read about rich people like this! SJP is from not too far from where I am. I’m proud that she’s done well for herself but come on!! It’s really sickening what “actors” make compared to an average secretary. Don’t cry to me about “not having time.” I wish everyone were paid millions of dollars to never eat, be photographed & recite lines someone else has written for you.

  76. sdillyconrad says:

    Everyone else only takes 3 months leave for babies, why are you trying to turn her into a bad mom because she goes back to work the same time everyone else does. Sounds like jelousy to me!!!!!!!

  77. luna says:

    Really disappointed to see an article like this on CB. It’s a different issue calling someone a bad mother when the effects of their parenting are so obvious (Dina Lohan), but to imply that someone is a bad mother or doing something “wrong” because they ONLY took three months off from working after their babies were born? Please. Everyday working women have less than that and they deal with it. And who’s to say that the babies don’t visit the set or that she hardly sees them? No one knows that. I remember reading articles years back about how little James would visit the set and play with Cynthia Nixon’s baby who was also on set.

    There has never been any news of SJP being a bad mother, and to jump to conclusions and pass self-righteous judgement on her is ridiculus. Good for her for having her own passions and ambitions.

    It’s sad to see how easily the Minivan Majority can be angered just because a woman doesn’t follow what is socially prescribed for her. Not taking a whole year off work obviously means that the woman is selfish, which makes it ok to attack her on the topic that is the be-all and end-all of womanhood: motherhood.

  78. sauvage says:

    As for some people who say that she will have plenty of time to spend with the twins when they are older and more aware of their quality time together anyways – there is NO FRIGGIN’ WAY to do the baby-mommy/daddy-bonding part later than right at the beginning. If bonding period is over, it’s over. Sure, you can do some good later, but you can’t establish it later. What’s gone is gone.