Where is Suri Cruise?

With all of Kate/Katie Holmes’ outings since the birth of her and fiance Tom Cruise’s daughter, Suri Cruise, we can’t help but wonder one thing; will we ever see Katie with her baby? The topic has sparked the interest of the public when Katie made her first appearance since the birth of her daughter at Tom’s Mission Impossible 3 premier on May 4th.

Although we’d like to believe that Suri Cruise, born on April 18th, is left at home for protection from the media, it’s still a questionable topic that has been receiving more and more attention with each appearance of Tom and Katie.

Katie’s most recent appearances have taken place at Jim Carey’s house for a Memorial Day party, the Malibu park, Tom’s son’s baseball games, and the Aberdeen screening of Mission Impossible III.

Many new celeb moms, such as Brooke Shields, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Denise Richards, have been seen out and about weeks, and sometimes even days after giving birth to their newborns. The only difference that makes Katie stand out among the rest is that her bundle of joy is never with her. New mom, Jennifer Garner, did a fantastic job of keeping daughter Violet Affleck’s face out of the lime light for quite some time, but was still seen in public with little Violet in tow.

Since hooking up with Katie, Tom is suddenly Mr. Publicity.  However, it’s probably safe to assume that Tom and Katie desire a smidgeon of privacy, at least where Suri is involved.  Some say it’s part of the deal, being a famous, million dollar making icon, but does that give everyone the right to dig into the personal lives of them and their families? Some celebs are so private, that we don’t even know that they’re pregnant or have given birth, while others announce not only the gender but the name on talk shows and in magazine interviews.

Basically, it all comes down to the celebrity themselves, and whether or not they chose to include the public in their everyday lifestyles. Some make deals with certain magazines, such as People, in order to keep the hounding press away. If they don’t, they find themselves being bombarded by the paparazzi, having their every move watched, video taped, and snapped, usually setting the bar for invasive photos that are attached with brutal gossip and lies.

How long did you wait before leaving your newborn at home?

Comments

Maybe my husband and I are strange, but we didn’t go out without our daughter with one of us (home with mom or dad or out with mom or dad) until she was 7 months old and it was our wedding anniversary.

- comicbookchick on June 2nd, 2006

My daughter was 6 months old before I left her anywhere for more than 15 minutes. And I only left her with my husband. She was over a year before she was with a babysitter.

It’s thier own business whether to bring Suri out with them or not, but that would not have been me.

- rachel on June 2nd, 2006

We never left our children without one of us until they were 6 months old.

I figured Tom would never want Katie to leave the baby’s side. But then again, Tom has left me pretty confused this last year. *shrugs*

- BabyBliss on June 2nd, 2006

I had to attened a family wedding when my daughter was 10 days old, and 5 days out of the hospital. I didn’t leave my baby for a day with anyone until my mom took her for one night when she was 3 months…

I still – okay..never mind.. Something is just fishy about this whole thing…

- Yonni on June 2nd, 2006

I meant to say..I had to take my daughter with me to the wedding.. I was not comfortable leaving her with anyone.

- Yonni on June 2nd, 2006

With all 3 of my kids they were at least 5 months, and even then I only leave them with my mom (or ofcourse my husband). I was kinda wondering the same thing about Katie never having Suri, but everyone mothers differently. I hope who ever is watching the baby that Katie knows and trust very well!!!

- kaylamc on June 2nd, 2006

I am still speculating on whether or not Katie actually HAD a baby or if they just adopted one and they don’t want you to see it. I just find it quite odd for someone who exploited his relationship and his kids so much not to exploit his new child.

- Karen on June 2nd, 2006

I agree that we haven’t the right to dig into the private lives of celebrities and their family.
Katie and Tom have chosen to keep their baby out of the spotlight. Given the level of curiosity and vicious gossip that sorround them, i respect their choice. I dont’t think that a People photoshoot would solve anything in their case.
The post above mine, with the usual speculation that in reality is just a straight insult, it’s a proof to me that this baby needs to be protected from “speculation” like that.
Katie and Tom have done their mistake in the way they presented their relantionship, but people have crossed a line in hating them. And i see nothing wrong with Katie going out. In the last month and half we have seen her just four, five times. Other celebrities moms went out sans their baby very soon. Shields, for example, attended a premiere just a week after her baby birth, looking amazing, and nobody said a thing about leaving her newborn at home.

- charlie65 on June 2nd, 2006

We waited 6 months, but it is just us, not a lot of family around to help and friends have their own babies, etc. I’m guessing Tom and Katie have lots of trustworthy support around them – long term assistants, security, family. Tom is very close with his sister, I have read in magazines, so they could leave the baby with her with absolute confidence.

The cynic in me says the baby will appear when Tom’s next movie is due in theaters. Does he have another one coming out this summer? Though they do seem private and even seeing the child might be a la Garner/Affleck – covered car seat shots. They must have to be very careful because the first Suri Cruise shot is such a paparazzi “get” and the ensuing frenzy would be so scary to be in the center of with a tiny infant. They really should follow the Gwyneth example and have a controlled photo shoot because it defuses the curiosity factor.

- lulululu on June 2nd, 2006

I agree with Karen. I don’t even think Suri Cruise-Holmes exists. Either they are still genetically engineering the baby in some Scientologist compound, or they are waiting to trump Shiloh. I vote for the compound. Call it mean spirited or whatever, but they were so excited to be having this wonderful and amazing baby, and yet no one can see this wonderful and amazing baby. I understand they want privacy, but they should have thought of that before he jumped on that stupid couch.

- staceymay on June 2nd, 2006

Maybe because this wonderful baby matters to them, not to the public. So they are enjoying her in private. I don’t think that they owe anything to people who write things like you are writing here.

- charlie65 on June 2nd, 2006

The first time I left my daughter with someone was about 1 1/2 weeks after her birth (but onlu for about an hour). After the first time she was about 3 months old before my hubby and I left her with her grandparents to go to a movie. Layla is now almost 8 months old and we go out maybe once every month and a half. She has yet to stay the night anywhere with or without me.

I would think she wouldn’t want to leave Suri. Maybe Tom is pressuring her to make public appearences. I bet Kate would much rather be at home with Suri.

- Layla's Mommy on June 2nd, 2006

I barely let my son out of arms reach nor did I put him down for the first three months.

- Moonmoth on June 2nd, 2006

I only ever left my son with my parents, whom I completely trust. Unfortunately I was a single parent at that time… I certainly wouldn’t have left him with a babysitter.

I mean, I’m sure when Tom and Katie go out Suri is not with some stranger but with people (probably close family members), whom they 100% trust. Doesn’t Tom’s sister and her husband and kids actually live with them?

- pink.lioness on June 2nd, 2006

you know what they say- to assume makes an ass out of U and Me.

Tom trumpeted and made a big deal about Katie, not his child. He showed Katie off, but he doesnt want to show his child off. so what? Katie had a choice and AGREED to be showed off, Suri has no choice.

I dont think we’ve seen them that much. and who cares if we have? I’m sure when tom’s two other children were born, either he or nicole had SOMETHING going where they had be places without their child.

I think people are just expecting Tom and Katie to make a big deal just because Suri is BIOLOGICAL. so what? blood doesnt mean anything. Tom and Katie had a baby. they werent diagnosed with the bird flu, or AIDS!! going out in public without your child, when that is your JOB, is not a big deal!!

- MuffThumb on June 2nd, 2006

I also cant believe anyone would be so naive as to believe Suri was PLANNED. what couple PLANS to have a baby right when they’re getting wedding plans together, and a movie to complete, and promotion to do? and furthermore, what couple plans to have everything at once- be able to balance a movie AND a baby!

Suri was born late, and tom thought he’d have more time with her, before he left to promote MI3. but i think it’s very ridiculous of people to think they planned to have a child, when they knew they had other things to worry about and attend, and didnt have the time to fully devote to a child. I’m not saying Suri was an accident, but I DO think they’re doing the best they can in juggling everything.

- MuffThumb on June 2nd, 2006

I didn’t leave my first child until she was 10 or 11 months old, and then I only left her with her father. Our second is 11 months now and I’ve left her with her dad four or five times. We do attachment parenting (and love it).

I’m with Karen and staceymay – the whole thing is weird. I don’t think there has been a more publicity-happy couple in the history of Hollywood, and suddenly they are all about protecting their daughter? Give me a break. But don’t misinterpret me; I don’t hate them. Why would I? I don’t know them. I’m just amused by their antics; thanks, Tom and Katie! On with the show!

- Elizabeth on June 2nd, 2006

A baby brings a whole different dimension.
I guess two celebrities can stand insults and nasty gossip for themselves, but gossip about their baby is different. I don’t see the relation between how they handled their relantionship and to expose their baby to the media. I don’t see anything weird if they feel the need to protect Suri now, regardless of what Tom said and did more than a year ago on Oprah.

- charlie65 on June 2nd, 2006

I think Suri is a figmant of everyone’s imaginations LOL…..okay okay in all seriousness maybe they don’t want to be out and about having their daughter exposed yet. It doesn’t matter. The only baby I am interested in seeing is Angelinas!

- joy on June 2nd, 2006

Maybe Tom and Katie don’t want the kind of feeding frenzy that happens each time Britney steps out with Sean (I’m bringing her up soley as an example not as a criticism.) Maybe the thought of that scares the living daylights out of Katie? Britney/Brooke/Gwyneth – they’ve all had years to get used to cameras intruding so heavily into their lives but Katie has really only had it since she started dating Tom.

- meliciousgirl on June 2nd, 2006

I don’t know. I personally didn’t leave my daughter until she was 3 months old. And that was for 4 hours. I nearly had a heart attack and called like every 3 minutes. Lol. After that it was about 5 more months until I left her again, partly because she hated everyone but me or my fiance, but mostly because I didn’t trust anyone else to do a good job. She is 9 months now, and I leave her with her grandma 3 times a week for about an hour to go work out.

But on the subject of Suri, I’m astonished that she gets left at home so often, especially since she’s breastfeeding(that we know of). I don’t really get when any mom does it. I never ever wanted to leave my baby. I personally just see how any mom doesn’t commit herself to being with her new baby all the time if she can.

- Mommyx1 on June 2nd, 2006

I had two weeks before I had to start college. All the other Freshmen were scheduling their classes around their favorite soaps. I was scheduling mine around my son’s nursing schedule!

- wildviolette on June 2nd, 2006

I’m not really sure what to think…Tom and Katie mystify me sometimes. I don’t dislike them or anything, but I do find some of their behavior to be a little odd.

I would love to see baby Suri. While releasing official photos of her wouldn’t eradicate the paparazzi, I do think it would help ease it some. The “bounty” on Suri pics would go down, and thus, some of the harassment.

I don’t believe there’s a right or wrong time to leave your child in the care of someone else. It’s a personal decision and one that probably has a lot to do with each person’s individual situation. I left my child with close family members only, and not until he was about 9 weeks old.

- gargoylegurl on June 2nd, 2006

I’m sure the baby is with someone they really trust. Let’s just say every new mom is overwhelmed with the needs of a new baby, not to mention her own fluctuating emotions. She may be coping by stealing away for a few hours a week without the baby. And maybe it is a good thing for her mental health and it may even make her a better, happier parent.
My husband and I left our son at 6 months on New Years’ Eve. I can’t seem to remember how old the other 2 were. I do think it’s good for a baby to get used to other people- family members, friends, neighbors. It takes a village.
I’ve seen some children scream and freak out when their mom is out of sight. I don’t think that’s good for a mom or baby.

- spindoctor on June 2nd, 2006

My child is 18 months old and I have never let her alone with anybody else besides my husband or I..but you know why? Because our families don’t live here, and since we moved recently we don’t have close friends or relatives around. Plus- we are not celebrities. None of us knows what it is to be in the public eye 24 hours a day, and I think we are intolerant when we judge them by our standards and norms. At least when it comes to their babies.

- ali686 on June 2nd, 2006

Makes me wonder if something is um, wrong with Suri.

Alot of relatives were saying “She’s GOING to be a beautiful baby.”

So either they’re saying a) she’s a typical freaky looking newborn or b) something is up

- Stacey on June 2nd, 2006

And with comments like this, you wonder why Tom and Katie are keeping Suri from the public? And as to the original post that started this thread, Jennifer Gardner was seen without Violet a few times before we started seeing her and even then we didnt see pictures of her for a long time. Violet wasnt seen for months too and nobody batted an eyelash.

Tom and Katie keep Suri away from the public for a month and a half and the vicious and nasty rumours and innuendos begin. It is their right to not have their child in public as need be.

And so what if they were a public couple? Katie is not Suri as another person said. Katie and Tom cant learn from their mistakes and not want their child subjected to the same nastiness they have? Are they going to keep paying for what happened in 2005? And the amt of times Katie has been seen without her newborn is extremely misleading. I would say its been about 5 or 6 times since Suri was born in April. And we see a pic of them like every week. Whats the big deal with that?

And the interest in Suri is much higher then Brooke’s child or Jennifer’s. Brooke I can bet will not be taking her child to the IVY, paparazzi central, if her pregnancy was as closely watched as Angelina’s or Katie’s. She is the most watched child except for baby shiloh. You can understand why they would want to protect her.

I am sure when they go out, they’re leaving their child in capable hands. Tom is very close to his family, I’m sure he’s probably leaving Suri with his sister or his mom or someone.

And its not right that just because we’re seeing like one sighting of them a week that people are now insinuating that she’s not a good mother or she loves leaving her child. Or even worse that Baby suri is a figment of their imagination. So who did they deliver in the hospital? Who has friends and family been visiting? Her baby doesnt have to be attached to her nipple twenty four hrs a day.

I hope Katie and Tom keep her away from prying eyes for as long as they can because I just know comments above are tamed compared to what will happen once a picture is released.

And btw is their a timetable as to when a picture should be released? We do know this child was only born on Apriul 18 right? And
I just know that if they had taken her everywhere with them people would say that they’re exploiting their child.

- mystique on June 3rd, 2006

My husband and I left our daughter with her grandparents for a couple hours when she was two months old. It was our anniversary and though I didn’t want to leave her yet, I did also want to get out for a while. So we went out to dinner…

- Dakota on June 3rd, 2006

Tom has no movies in the pipe. And has said he is taking some time off to spend with his family.

I am just really amazed though not really at the double standard here. Go back and look at many celebs who were seen without their babies in public and none of them are closely watched like Katie’s.

It oh so easy to say look at so and so, well Denise doesnt have like 15 paparazzi at her son’s soccer game(at one point Tom did. Do you think Katie will take her baby to a soccer game, in that atmosphere? Its hot, and uncomfortable for a newborn not to mention, can you imagine the frenzy it will cause? It would be unfair to the other parents.

And all of the places Danielle named above if someone would be fair would see that those places are not the place for a newborn? A big memorial day party? A fan screening in Aberdeen? A public park in the sun?

At best she’s away for a few hrs but again so misleading. We are not seeing pictures of them out everyday, its like every week. that’s like a few hrs a week. Whats the harm in that?

Katie made her first appearance three weeks after suri’s birth, she wasnt seen anywhere. I would think Katie’s with her child the other 6 days a week and some odd hrs on the seventh day when she dares steps out without her child.

- mystique on June 3rd, 2006

I am not a parent…but I did use to work at a daycare in the infant room. I soon began sitting for some of the children outside of work. One family I sat for had me watch their 2 week old and 2 year old because they had something they had to do. I felt confident that I could do it and they trusted me and I was only 18 or 19 at the time. I think what it comes down to is how important the event is that needs to be done, how well you know the person and how well you trust them. Leaving your child with someone else that young does not make a parent “bad”…after all it is better to leave them with someone you know rather than cart them around town with their low immune systems and risk them getting sick.

I am still very hesitant about the Katie/Kate baby situation…even after seeing the “stretch marks.”

- Brandy on June 3rd, 2006

I left my first child at about 2 weeks old for 2 hours with grandma. I needed a break from the trials of being a first time mom, with basically no help as my first husband wasn’t really a hands on dad with a newborn. I didn’t mind leaving her, I felt if I needed the time to myself it was good for me and good for her and I was much more relaxed when I got back home to her.

I think they are just protecting Suri for now. I would too, if I were them. It is their child, they can do what they want for the sake of their child.

- tink1217 on June 3rd, 2006

My twins were 2 weeks old, a week out of the hospital, and I left them with my mom to run out and buy more diapers and breast pads. My youngest is 5 months old tomorrow and I’ve HAD to leave him twice to take a test at school but I wasn’t gone more than 2 hours on both days.

- Amber Smith on June 3rd, 2006

I do want to see her. I am not judging them but I think they should be with her more, I mean she’s probably always going to look at them and be “Where the heck have you two been?” lol

- Cole on June 3rd, 2006

I cant find the post right now, but someone said they keep the baby out of the spotlight as long as possible. THAT i agree with. however the person went on to say something like “you dont see Brooke Shields going to a paparazzi filled place like the IVY with her baby, do you?”.

I know you meant well to use Brooke as an example, But Brooke WAS seen at the Ivy with Grier a week or so ago. Paparazzi were all over her, trying to get a picture of the baby.

just wanted to clear that up.

- MuffThumb on June 3rd, 2006

Brooke I can bet will not be taking her child to the IVY, paparazzi central, if her pregnancy was as closely watched as Angelina’s or Katie’s.

*****

That was me Muff and I said the above because she did take her baby to the Ivy which made me wonder. And thats why I said if her baby was as closely watched as Katie’s or Angelina she would have thought twice.

- mystique on June 4th, 2006

I personally think it is perfectly acceptable for Katie and Tom to leave Suri at home. We have only seen Katie about 5 or 6 times since the birth and each time i think she would only have been out for 2 hours max. So little Suri was probably asleep.

Everyone is probably just anticipating over the pictures of Suri that they want to see. We didn’t see Jen Garner out with Violet until around February, i think.

I guess it just depends on each mother and what number child it is. My mum said she didn’t leave my older sister until she was 6 months old, but then her youngest, my brother, who was the 4th child, she left after a week to go shopping and then to a friends 30th. I also guess it depends on the amount of anxiety you have (that is not meant to be offensive at all – just alot of people worry).

I looked after my godson for the night when he was 3 weeks old because his parents were absolutley exhausted. He came and slept at my house in his Bugaboo basket/stroller and i got up and fed him the 4 times during the night and had him all the next day. So from 3pm one day til 7pm the next day. Both his parents just needed a break and i guess they were more laid back because this was their 3rd child. And they even trusted a 16 year old with him!!

- Shannon on June 5th, 2006

Mystique, Katie made her first appearance two weeks after Suri’s birth. She was at the premier of Mission Impossible III with Tom.

Everyone was just as curious as to when we’d see pictures of Violet Affleck, but we didn’t see Jennifer around (atleast not at public places like the park and premiers) as much as Katie has been. I think that’s where the difference comes in.

As for the timetable of when Tom will be releasing photos of Suri, it’s only been rumored that he’s selling them for a million dollars. I’m not sure if that’s changed over the past few weeks or not.

- KrisGams on June 5th, 2006

I have never considered that the baby does not exist but now….. I have a few concerns/question. One, Miss Holmes has never really been seen with a baby. Two, Couch- Jumping Cruise on the Ellen Degeneres show actually included sideburns in “drawing” what the baby looks like. Hmm..Hmm… I now have my doubts. But on the other hand, it might just be an attempt to protect the baby cause truly folks if there is no baby, there are two people who needs to be committed and institutionalised. And the optimist in me refuse to actually believe that such a charade could actually be carried out in the public eye. It would be like a house of cards likely to crumble at any time. Nothing like that would actually stay a secret in Hollywood for long. Therefore perhaps there is a baby belonging to Tom and Katy and it is their biological child. Cause if this is not the case- the guys in the white coats need to be called pronto!

- motyy on July 8th, 2006

I left my daughter alone for the first time when I went back to school and she was 4months old. She stayed with her grandparents.
As far as the cruise crew goes. I find it weird that he was so excited and telling everyone about the birth and then when the baby is born no one sees the little one. Maybe he was happy about the baby but he doesnt want the baby to be a part of the public eye. I dont blame then the Papparazzi can be vicious when it comes to taking pictures.

- Kytacha on July 10th, 2006

I read somewhere, what I would call the best explaination yet, as to why we haven’t seen Suri.

Tom Cruise has gone paranoid (no joke here)

Think about it. He is a control freak to begin with, and loves publisity, but is so in awe of his first bio) child, that he is protecting her from the world in paranoea perportions!!

His control is backfiring on him! He is afraid she may get germs or hurt or anything! I’m serious here.

People who control; are always obcessive by nature. Why people think Katie was never pregos is beyond me!! All you had to do was look at her face and the rest of her body to see she had gained plenty of weight.

my opinion is Tom has gone off the deep-end. It happens all the time.

I believe Tom has become obcessed about this child!!

- Neva on July 15th, 2006

It’s like people who homeschool their kids.

They don’t want them touched by the world. They want to keep them safe and pure. Of course, this is not reasonable but, obcessive, controling people, don’t understand this. The think they have the power and money to do as they please, for whatever reason.

I truly think Tom is a sick man. No joke here. I am serious. Tom has become over-protective of his new daughter, Suri.

I feel for this poor child. She more than likely will never have a free moment in her life. Unless Tom gets some help for his controlling issues, this situation will get worse before it get better.

These are only my opinions but, I mean them sincerely from my heart.

- Neva on July 15th, 2006

As for friends not having seen the baby; I think that is total bull-shit! The press loves to add to everything. (To sell magazines)

I believe friends of Tom’s have seen the child but, not the public. I think this is very selfish on Tom’s part but, then again I believe Tom is sick and simply can’t put things in perspective.

His daughter comes first, to him, I’m sure so, the public can think whatever they want of him. All he cares about it protecting Suri.

I think Tom has Control Issues and Obcessive Compulsive Issues. I know, cos I’ve been there and it is NOT fun.

But there is help. Only the sick person must first realize (FOR HIMSELF) that he is sick, before he can get help and be at peace.

Neva

- Neva on July 15th, 2006

I may not have made myself clear so I will try one more time.

What I am really saying here, is I think everything would be ok and settle down if Tom would just put out 1 only 1 picture of Suri for the public to see.

That is all it would take. One picture of the 3 of them together. And the price should not matter cos Tom is very rich anyway.

He could give the money to some charity. The idea would be to Respect Your Fans!!!!!

Tom has a career here and Fans abound. I think he OWES his fans the RESPECT of at least 1 photo of Suri.

What is the big friggin deal!!! It’s just a picture! Then everyone can go home and shut-up!

He could keep Suri locked up till he thinks she is old enough to fight germs and pollution, but at least the Fans and the Public would have seen Suri and this fiasco would end!!

NEVA

- Neva on July 15th, 2006