Home Videos Photos Shop
PerezHilton CocoPerez Kim K. Rihanna Taylor Swift Barcelona PerezTV

Surprise! Nicole Kidman & Keith Urban Announce Birth Of New Daughter Via Surrogate!!!

| Filed under: Baby BlabberAustraliasticNicole Kidman

Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban have a new baby daughter

Nicole Kidman and her husband Keith Urban were displaying some serious PDA last night at the Golden Globes.

Maybe the newest addition to their family played a part in their blissful happiness!

The couple revealed today that they are the proud parents of a baby girl who was born via a surrogate!

Faith Margaret Kidman Urban arrived Dec. 28 at Nashville's Centennial Women's Hospital.

She was born through a gestational carrier and is the biological daughter of Kidman and Urban.

The family said in a statement:

"Our family is truly blessed, and just so thankful, to have been given the gift of baby Faith Margaret. No words can adequately convey the incredible gratitude that we feel for everyone who was so supportive throughout this process, in particular our gestational carrier."

Congratulations! We're so happy for you!

[Image via WENN.]

Celebs Who've Been Candid About IVF!
This Week In Celebrity Twitpics & Instagrams!
Beyoncé's Pregnancy With The Twins In Photos!
Celeb Dads Celebrating Their First Father's Day!
Worst Dressed Celebs Of The Week!
Best Dressed Celebs Of The Week!

35 comments to “Surprise! Nicole Kidman & Keith Urban Announce Birth Of New Daughter Via Surrogate!!!”

  1. 1

    late again.

  2. 2


  3. 3

    Im so very thrilled for Keith Nic and Sunday

  4. 4

    Beautiful name!

  5. 5

    they nicknamed her Bo Tox

  6. 6

    I kind of lost all respect for Nicole Kidman after she pulled back her face so much she can't even smile…I find it so unattractive to be that fake.
    However, congrats on the baby! What a beautiful name!

  7. 7

    Aww congrats keith and Nicole!

  8. 8


  9. 9

    Wow, another girl.

  10. 10

    Congrats!!! love the name!! :)

  11. 11

    Why didn't she carry the child?

  12. 12

    Re: JJOfficial – I think she has always had issues with her reproductive parts. I know she has miscarried before and I don't think having Sunday Rose was easy. That's just a guess, though.

  13. 13

    Beautiful name! Congrats to them!

  14. 14

    Re: JJOfficial
    LESBIANS don't want those things popping out of their vagina. And Keith is as GAY as a picnic basket! Another FAKE HOLLYWOOD ROMANCE!!!

  15. 15

    Well Im surprised. Congrats to them.

  16. 16

    Re: bongo – LOL

  17. 17

    I love Nicole Kidman, I think she's beautiful, and a very talented actress. But, I really hate it when celebrities lie. She didn't have to say that this is her "biological" child. It probably is not. She is 43, and would likely have carried this baby if it was her own. When celebrities do this, they give false hope to older women, implying that you can conceive at any age, and you can not!

  18. 18

    if she wasn't going to carry the baby, why didn't they adopt?

  19. 19

    Gestational carrier? I'm sorry, thats just rude to call a woman that carried your child for nine months.

  20. 20

    Re: barbados789 – Since she used a surrogate is actually an easy process. Pretty sure something in her doesnt work reason why she choosed to do this. I believe them when they say is their biological child. Doctors just take something from her and him and they make the child into someones else womb. Now at days is like easy. Just that most women of 40-45+ prefer to choose the other type of pregnancy processes just cause they want to carry and yes it doesnt grant them to all that they will get pregnant, but since the whole technology in medicine advanced more than 4 million children have been given birth by women older than 40 years old who couldnt have children.

  21. 21

    she's fucking creepy looking

  22. 22

    Wonder if this is the same woman that she used for Sunday Roast. Guess she did such a piss poor job of pretending to be pregnant the last time she decided to be honest for a change and admit she used a surrogate this time. Hope this one takes after Keith cause Kidman is butt ugly and Sunday Roast looks like her.

  23. 23

    I agree idknow … why not adopt? A slap in the face for her adopted children that she doesn't see while living in Australia. She already has one (that she supposedly) carried to term (… I am suspicious now) but I guess they have the money …

  24. 24

    She went the adoption route once with Tom and those kids don't ever see her. They spend all her time with him and don't ever want to go to Australia to be with her. She said so herself in an interview a few weeks ago. After I read that, I lost all respect for her. She and Keith made their own little family down under and left the adopted kids in the dust.

    I don't understand why she did't carry the child herself. She had Sunday biologically, so this confuses me. But whatever. He's talentless and annoying and she's so fake.

  25. 25


  26. 26

    Biological daughter? Doubt it. Gave birth to Sunday Rose, beginning to doubt that!

  27. 27

    Wow.. i don't get this why did she use a surrogate? She carried her other daughter naturally not too long ago.. the only reason why i don't really like or respect her is because she never spends time with her adopted kids.. i know Scientology people are scary but their must have been something she could have done.. hmm : /..idk surprised they kept it under wraps for so long though.. this shocked me..

  28. 28

    It's impossible for Nicole Kidman to be a biological mother - she's genetically male. The medical fraternity in Australia has known this for years, especially as most of them provided her hormone treatment well into her 20s.

  29. 29

    ugh you people are all so disgustingly mean. she suffered numerous miscarriages in the past and has every right to use a surrogate. Angelina Jolie can carry kids herself too but still adopts and i dont hear anyone having a whinge fest about her. i say congrats to Nicole and Keith.

  30. 30

    Re: xunbrokenx – I agree-congraulations guys! :)

  31. 31

    Re: barbados789 – she proabably had problems concieving again - your stament is presumptous an inaacurate in general

  32. 32

    Re: Natashja Owens – you're full of crap

  33. 33

    Re: jennycakes – none of us actually know how much time she spends with her kids and to make that statement as a fact is so unfair and proabably far from the truth - just beacuse some tabloid needs a tory and writes one about someone - it certainly does not make it true

  34. 34

    Re: idknow – probabaly wanted one that is biologically theirs

  35. 35

    Re: tbizzle – you are taking a piece of an interview and rewording it - it's been done numerous times and always to make her look like an absentee parent - None of us know the arrangment she has with Tom and we probably never will so how could we judge?