Jon Cryer's Wife is a Gold Digger

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You'll be told it's not fair to characterize BPD people as craaaazy!

It isn't. But that doesn't mean she couldn't have it. BPD exists but not in a vacuum, and people with it aren't crazy.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting case. Highlights how differently men and women are still treated in family court.

Jon and wife divorced in 2004 - child was 4 at the time and custody was split 60/40 - mother/father, with Jon paying $10K/month. At the time of the divorce Jon bought Sarah a house. Over the next few years Jon went to court a couple times at least trying to get sole custody due to safety issues when the child was with Sarah. The court reprimanded her (i.e. do not leave children alone) but did not change the custody agreement. In 2009 she was investigated for child abuse against her younger son (with then ex-boyfriend). Investigation led to custody of both boys being given to their respective fathers. Jon now had full custody, and she had very limited supervised visitation. Court required him to continue to pay $8K a month to maintain her home as it was not a hardship to Jon and in the best interest of the child to have that home to visit / live in again down the road. Sarah had argued that as her only income was child support, she needed it to keep the house. He also had to pay her legal fees.

Jon went back to court a number of times over the next couple years trying unsuccessfully to get various financial matters related to lawyer fees and custody finances changed. He wanted the money to be put into a trust fund for his son instead until Sarah regained custody. At one point Sarah was investigated for hiring a hit man to kill Jon but I don't think that was ever substantiated.

In 2011 Jon went back to court to ask to have custody payments reduced as the child was with him for 351 days a year x 2 years. Court said no - he still had to pay Sarah to ensure she didn't lose her house. Sarah actually wanted more as she said her expenses were $13k a month and the $8K child support was still her only source of income. None of that $8K went o the child - Jon has paid all child related expenses on top of providing the child support.

Since 2011 Sarah has slowly had more visitation and is according to her lawyer was recently granted 50/50 custody. She is now asking for $88K/month instead of $8K.

[Anonymous]

That's not a "man versus woman" scenario, PP. That's a "ridiculously wealthy Hollywood actor versus freeloading woman" scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll be told it's not fair to characterize BPD people as craaaazy!

It isn't. But that doesn't mean she couldn't have it. BPD exists but not in a vacuum, and people with it aren't crazy.

Well, they process reality different.y.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll be told it's not fair to characterize BPD people as craaaazy!

It isn't. But that doesn't mean she couldn't have it. BPD exists but not in a vacuum, and people with it aren't crazy.

PP here who first mentioned BPD. Didn't mean to be insensitive, sorry. I actually know very little about BPD.

[Anonymous]

If he bought her the house then she wouldn't have 8-13K in payments to make so that's at least not fully true.

That sucks for him big time. I don't know where the balance is when you are with an unstable person. I'm in the exact scenario minus the huge amounts of money and change the genders.

Family court is TRYING to help the child have a relationship with both parents as long as she (or he) is no longer a danger to the child. On the same tokin, if she is proven safe and has more custody then typically the support amount must increase if s/he gets a job making more. It seems crazy because none of us can fathom that wealth. Would you opinion change if we were talking about $80 to $800 rather than 100x that amount?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's not a "man versus woman" scenario, PP. That's a "ridiculously wealthy Hollywood actor versus freeloading woman" scenario.

Do you know of any cases where a woman has had to continue to pay child support support to an unemployed husband who lost custody due to child abuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he bought her the house then she wouldn't have 8-13K in payments to make so that's at least not fully true.

That sucks for him big time. I don't know where the balance is when you are with an unstable person. I'm in the exact scenario minus the huge amounts of money and change the genders.

Family court is TRYING to help the child have a relationship with both parents as long as she (or he) is no longer a danger to the child. On the same tokin, if she is proven safe and has more custody then typically the support amount must increase if s/he gets a job making more. It seems crazy because none of us can fathom that wealth. Would you opinion change if we were talking about $80 to $800 rather than 100x that amount?

The 8-13K is her entire living expenses. She still has to pay utilities, household help, buy new things, her shopping, groceries. etc.. She has NO income other than his payments so without them she would lose the house. She isn't paying a mortgage - she is paying day to day household expenses and her living expenses.

No my opinion wouldn't change. I think she should get a job of some sort and be expected to contribute at least a paltry amount to her own expenses and even perhaps her son's expenses. Seeing as she has chosen not to get employment even though the court order was that she was to try and gain employment, I don't think she is entitled to almost a million dollars a year of his money to spend on herself. I think her excuses about not giving the child nice enough things are ridiculous. Jon has had primary custody and still pays all expenses and I am sure makes decisions about camps, trips etc that he feels are appropriate. If she wants to do things above and beyond what he already gives to the child's expenses directly, I think she should finance that out of her $8K or maybe her own income. Also I really don't think the court works this hard to give custody back to men who are arrested for child abuse and to make sure they are able to maintain a safe home while unemployed after losing custody so that when they regain visitation / custody the child will have a home with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not a "man versus woman" scenario, PP. That's a "ridiculously wealthy Hollywood actor versus freeloading woman" scenario.

Do you know of any cases where a woman has had to continue to pay child support support to an unemployed husband who lost custody due to child abuse?

Don't know of any cases where a man has had to either, other than this ridiculous Hollywood scenario. It's not exactly common in "regular" family court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he bought her the house then she wouldn't have 8-13K in payments to make so that's at least not fully true.

That sucks for him big time. I don't know where the balance is when you are with an unstable person. I'm in the exact scenario minus the huge amounts of money and change the genders.

Family court is TRYING to help the child have a relationship with both parents as long as she (or he) is no longer a danger to the child. On the same tokin, if she is proven safe and has more custody then typically the support amount must increase if s/he gets a job making more. It seems crazy because none of us can fathom that wealth. Would you opinion change if we were talking about $80 to $800 rather than 100x that amount?

The 8-13K is her entire living expenses. She still has to pay utilities, household help, buy new things, her shopping, groceries. etc.. She has NO income other than his payments so without them she would lose the house. She isn't paying a mortgage - she is paying day to day household expenses and her living expenses.

No my opinion wouldn't change. I think she should get a job of some sort and be expected to contribute at least a paltry amount to her own expenses and even perhaps her son's expenses. Seeing as she has chosen not to get employment even though the court order was that she was to try and gain employment, I don't think she is entitled to almost a million dollars a year of his money to spend on herself. I think her excuses about not giving the child nice enough things are ridiculous. Jon has had primary custody and still pays all expenses and I am sure makes decisions about camps, trips etc that he feels are appropriate. If she wants to do things above and beyond what he already gives to the child's expenses directly, I think she should finance that out of her $8K or maybe her own income. Also I really don't think the court works this hard to give custody back to men who are arrested for child abuse and to make sure they are able to maintain a safe home while unemployed after losing custody so that when they regain visitation / custody the child will have a home with them.

WHAT!?

$8-13k in living expenses? I pay about $300/month in bills... even if I multiply that by TEN (given my small apartment versus her assumingly giant home), that still leaves at least $5,000/month in 'extra'. Seriously?