Stone cold hearts of celebrity moms
I HAVE always been suspicious of pampered film stars who adopt little children as though they were choosing a cute pet.
They want their very own cuddly bundle of joy but without the stretch marks, haemorrhoids and cracked nipples that are part of actually giving birth.
And then they demand unconditional love from the scooped-up kiddies.
Once the novelty wears off, these stars are like spoiled brats who become bored with the puppy they got for Christmas — especially when their pet grows to full size and isn’t quite as cute anymore.
Sharon Stone is the latest film star to have been shamed by her neurotic approach to adoptive motherhood.
In a court this week, she was accused of having little to do with the daily upbringing of her eight-year-old adopted son Roan and she lost her custody battle.
The little boy now lives with Stone’s ex-husband but when under the care of his “mother”, it emerged he was all too often farmed out to assistants and nannies while Stone got on with her career.
When she did actually remember she had a child to look after, her response was ludicrously over the top.
Like every other small boy on the planet, Roan suffers from smelly feet.
Instead of giving him a scrub, changing his socks and using Odour Eaters on his pongy trainers, Stone wanted to have the poor little soul’s feet injected with Botox to stop them sweating altogether.
Even in La La land, what kind of person thinks it is a good idea to insert a needle into a child and inject him with a substance that blocks sweat glands?
She also decided that her son had severe problems with his back and had him looked over by surgeons.
In fact, all he was suffering from was constipation, easily cured by a dose of figs or cod liver oil. This sort of panicked over-reaction is no way to bring up a child.
Due to her bizarre conduct, she will now only see her son one weekend a month. Clearly, she is upset by this decision but those in the know claim that it is more because of the effect it will have on her career.
Only she can answer to whether that is the case, but she’s not the only film star to have taken the adoption route.
When married to Tiny Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman adopted two kids with him. She has since had her own daughter, rarely sees her adoptive kids and claims they call Tom’s new wife Katie Holmes “mommy”.
Angelina Jolie has gone round the world adopting kids, claiming she feels more for them than the three birth children she has with Brad Pitt.
Their relationship is under huge strain and, although I think Angelina’s heart is in the right place, she is over-stretching herself, even with all their money.
Weird they may all be, but none of the aforementioned can be tarred with the same brush as screen legend Joan Crawford. Her fame and stardom ensured she was allowed to break all the rules and adopt as a single mother back when it was against the law.
If you believe her oldest daughter Christina, Crawford was a drunken harridan who abused her kids, tied them to their beds, forced them to scrub floors during the night and lashed into them with wire coat hangers. Christina claimed many people knew of the abuse but were too scared to go to the authorities because Crawford was such a big star.
In the real world, ordinary people who adopt are made to jump through hoops and subjected to the sort of scrutiny that makes all but the most determined give up in frustration and disgust.
The same rules should also apply to the rich and famous.
Sharon Stone adopted two more little boys after her marriage ended.
Lord help little Laird who is three and two-year-old Quinn if they dare to develop acne or have sticky-out ears.
No doubt they will be frogmarched to a battery of dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons so they look utterly perfect.
But you have to ask if Sharon isn’t seen by a court to be the right person to look after her oldest child, then what about these two little ones?