Saturday, June 30, 2012

Lets Talk Tom & Katie


So, now that I have had a whole 24 hours to make some calls and talk to some people, this is what I know. The key here is Suri. As you have probably read, Katie filed for sole custody. Not joint. It can't be joint. Yes, I know that Tom and Nicole had joint custody but how did that work out for Nicole? Yeah, you think she even gets calls from her kids? I don't think so either. Joint custody can't work with Scientology. How can Tom Cruise tell all those broken up families they can't talk to their kids or ex spouses because they are SP, and yet continue to see Suri unless she is with him all the time. Now, here is where things get interesting. Is Tom going to fight? Probably not. We wouldn't want to see the real reason he can't have joint custody. Not just Scientology, but also a DNA test might come into play too. The time was now to end things. Suri starting school in the fall and a complete brainwashing was going to be inevitable. It is also no coincidence that the announcement was made while Tom was filming in Iceland. Pretty tough to pap him or ambush him there. If your spouse was asking for sole custody don't you think you would fight that? Today is the day to show my all time favorite photo of Katie & Suri.

166 comments:

MrWolf said...

I don't really care for Katie Holmes, since to my mind she had a pretty good idea what she was signing up for and did it anyways for fame.

On the other hand, her legal team pulled off kind of a coup here. So in a way, I have to admire her resourcefulness.

It's like reading Not Without My Daughter, but in blog form.

mynerva said...

If Katie really wants to go for the jugular she should sue for full custody of Tommy's lifts.

strawberrygirl said...

Get that money, honey!!!!

FSP said...

@mynerva - yes!

angel said...

@MrWolf, does any new to Scientology exposure really know what they're in for? You better believe the 'finer' details of what this cult is all about were never mentioned prior to the marriage.

This is the news story of the year and will have a life entirely it's own until the whole thing is sorted out and settled.

I love that Katie caught Tom unawares regarding her determination to keep Suri Scientology-free, and am convinced that Tom is not the bio dad or I don't think she'd have the will or nerve to laser train her focus on sole custody in lieu of more money.

Lisa said...

You go, Joey! Take that kid and run!

MrWolf said...

@angel -

If I accept that Katie was completely ignorant about Scientology, then am I to assume that she only married Tom Cruise because he's a rich man and she expected him to uplift her career?

That really doesn't do anything more to endear her to me, to be honest.

And while I'm sure once she got in she found out she was over her head with the Cult, I can't believe she'd be so stupid as to NOT know that she was getting involved in a Cult.

angel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vicki Cupper said...

I love that photo.

strawberrygirl said...

Is Josh Hartnett or Chris Klein the dad? I think she looks like Chris, but I'm not sure...

iheartgoss said...

The real victim in all of this is Suri, if Katie wins full custody she'll have to walk.

farmgirl said...

I am pretty sure we will have many more wonderful pictures of happy Katie & Suri in the coming years.

ONTD just posted the list of questions that CO$ asks kids Suri's age. How can any of this be legal?

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/70067638.html

chachi said...

Poor Brad and Ang - how are they going to compete with this story in the coming months??? I predict Ang will declare that Shiloh's come out of the closet just to get some face time in the rags.

angel said...

@strawberrygirl, to me Suri looks like she falls right in the middle between Katy and Chris Klein. That Katy was engaged to Chris for years just prior to getting involved with Tom really makes me wonder.

Sarah said...

I think Katie made bad decisions, but I hope she pulls this off. This is about a child, not a principle.

Agent**It said...

See the full article at Village Voice :

"What Katie Holmes is Saving Suri From: Scientology's Interrogation of Children"

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/katie_holmes_scientology_sec_checking_suri_tom_cruise.php


B.Profane previously mentioned actor Mike Farrell, here is a link with his experiences with Co$, check out also JFK Jr's remarks about his meeting with David Miscavige.Kind of interesting. Hope it all ends with justice for those that were murdered by Co$.

http://www.factnet.org/celebrity-critics-scientology

Vicki Cupper said...

Google Hartnett and Suri. The eyebrows and nose convince me.

Jodell24 said...

Just out of curiosity how come we don't think that Tom is Not the father?

K said...

I always thought Suri was the spitting image of Cruise's cousin, the actor William Mapother. Scientologist and sperm donor?

Elizabeth said...

I posted this in yesterday's link but TMZ posted that Katie has been establishing residency in New York since last August. How funny is that? If her dad told her to start a fight and have Tom give her the NY apartment to win her back, it's brilliant.

"But here's the thing ... TMZ has obtained documents which show Tom deeded their NYC apartment to Katie last August and our sources say it was done specifically for tax purposes. Point of fact ... the deed lists a transfer to a trust, but TMZ has confirmed it's a trust established for the benefit of Katie. Sources say Katie is using the apartment to establish residency in New York for the purpose of the divorce -- something we're told can screw Tom tax-wise."

Jodell24 said...

I mean how come we don't think he is the father? Is this a conspiracy theory that I missed?

luckylass said...

You really don't know what you are in for with Scientology. So I guess that is why I am rooting for Katie. Plus she seems like a caring mom.

I fully believe that list of questions from the Village Voice. As I wrote in the comments, I only had a brief experience with Scientology 15 years ago and they interrogated me in a very similar way.

strawberrygirl said...

Even if Tom isn't Suri 's biological father, he is her Dad and no DNA test can say otherwise.

Henriette said...

@Jodell24
Mimi Rogers, Tom's first wife, implied Tom was sterile once. Also, Tom and Nicole did not have biological children together.

RJ said...

I have a feeling that Tom legitimately romanced Katie during their very brief and very intense courtship. He is, despite all of his other shortcomings (pun intended), a very, very good actor. She was young, and no doubt, quite swept off her feet by one of the biggest stars in the world. Then after they were married, things got steadily stranger and less "romantic". For what it is worth, I think that she was probably artificially inseminated for she was told at the time were "fertility problems". The sperm that was used may or may not have been Tom's, but I think it was his and that Suri is his daughter. However, I think Katie is smarter than anyone has given her credit for and has been quietly gathering damning information on Tom and the CoS for a while now. If Tom doesn't fight for custody, we'll know that she's got the goods on him and them.

angel said...

@questions regarding Tom's bio dad status, we'll never see medical proof, but the Hollywood grapevine has swirled for a long time with rumors that Tom is sterile.

OMAMA is BROKO said...

Even though Holmes is right to want Suri to live a more "normal" life, hasn't the damage already been done??? I mean, how do you go from allowing the kid to run everything in their life from birth to 6 and suddenly you're like, no now you must behave like a kid, which means the adult is the one who says what is going to happen. The adult is now the rule maker.

Holmes is going to need to dough for some behavioral modification therapy for Suri. But I guess, better late then never. either way, good for her.

and for the kid not being tom's, idk...I kinda think she looks a bit like him. But what do I know, most people would never guess my adopted parents weren't my birth ones.

Agent**It said...

My Dearest Enty, if you would just read the comments on your own blog from yesterday you would not have to call anybody for the info.Really ! Also, thanks to another reader, you could have had it on your Facebook and Twitter pages at 10:08 not at 10:38.
30 minutes earlier.............

Bubbles said...

Well she seems like she has all her pawns on the board and knows how to play, but again this is Scientology we're talking about so I hope she doesn't meet an untimely end and if she does, hopefully she will put something stating that he is not to have custody of the child if that's even possible to do. I'll assume that if he's not the father of Suri, he at least adopted her, so she is his kid and would have rights to her if something happened to Katie. I'm hoping she has many more aces up her sleeve and stays safe

Snowstorms said...

Supposedly the baby was born before and not papped til she was much older. I just saw Rock of Ages yesterday and loved it. Tom was surprisingly good!

Back to Suri - I like to think she is their bio child. I also don't know of any reported Tommyboy same sex flings - but he has been called gay for years - oh God - I am sounding like a certain Tom fanatic...


The guy went over the top while dating his darling Kate - certifiable for awhile - but now I am finally softening towards him some. His COS beliefs though - oh no - still running the other way there...

KZoeT said...

@farmgirl, I gasped as I read that list of questions. Just ... wow.

If Katie is indeed concerned about Suri's safety in regards to the Co$, I love how she's handling it. Instead of hiding away in some secluded place in fear she's been out in NYC with Suri. They're smiling. They look like they're having fun together. Happy Mom! Happy Child! It's a big, fat F U to Tom and the Co$.

Henriette said...

She sure did not last as long as Nicole! She also did not get the career breaks Nicole did. Nicole was better off without Tom. Mimi Rogers pretty much disappeared.

Henriette said...

I wonder why Katie chose NY though. Their divorce laws are so draconian! In CA everything can be kept hushed up with "irreconcilable differences." Maybe I answered my own question.

Snowstorms said...

Well, I am a product of infertility...then again Rielle/Lisa Jo claims Frances/"Quinn" is too...Lolol

Maybe Mimi's eggs and his sperm were not a good match?!? I have a friend who was told that she and her hubby never stood a chance to have a natural baby - sluggish swimmers and not the best eggs - yet after many unsuccessful IVF treatments, they had their twins and miracle baby.

I also look at mom's and dad's differently, having so many adoptive family members - but I believe Suri is their child more easily than say Beyonce ever carried hers...

Liz said...

Somehow I don't think Tom was blindsided by the announcement. Recently they were not together as often for publicity events. It's possible they were working out the details of custody, etc.

In his divorce with Kidman he came off looking like the bad guy, so it's possible this was planned to make him look like the victim.

At the VERY least, he saw it coming.

Liz said...

While I agree Katie married Tom for money, publicity, etc. Tom married Katie to be his beard, publicity, and to have his child.

Sometimes when one applies for a job, they make it sound really great, then when one begins working, one finds out things are not as rosy as they were made out to be. Katie vastly underestimated how difficult it would be to give up 7 years of her life to live a lie with a controlling man.

anongkhla said...

Doesn't Enty have a day job? So he can't necessarily be checking twitter, facebook, and comments here 24/7, right? And most of the entries are written ahead of time and posted during the day at staggered times? Which I assume is why is often takes a while for breaking news to get posted here.

I've long assumed that he doesn't check the comments very often, if at all. There are 100+ entries every week! I can barely keep up with the threads that interest me and I have more spare time than most (no kids, can set my own hours, can visit any sites I like whenever I want.)

Felicia said...

Tom mentioned in a very early TV interview that he had had mumps as a child and was sterile as a result.

And then you have scores of Tom's boy toys, many of whom have lived for long periods of time at his L.A. "play pad" (a friend of mine was bummed that he came THIS CLOSE to getting invited but didn't get to go).....and these fellas swear up and down that Tom's junk has never been defiled by a female's junk. He thinks girl parts are icky and entered into his "marriages" for power/status/bearding etc.

Maja. With a J. said...

In more recent pictures, Suri really looks a lot like Tom. So if the biological fatherhood would come into question, I can only assume that William Mapother provided the sperm. But I agree with whoever said that Tom is her dad.

Agent**It said...

It's posted within the comments and if you maintain a blog you have an obligation to read it. And that Enty is a 'he' is up for grabs. It's not meant as a slam , it's meant as a big tip to Enty. And a compliment to the readers :)

Agent**It said...

I know that divorce is not funny, but if you need a laugh..It's a T Shirt that states:

Free Katie Mission Accomplished...


http://shop.cafepress.com/scientology-mission-accomplished

Lisa said...

middle aged attractive successful man married twice before, always told everyone he could not reproduce and did not in many years of marriage. Starts seeing much younger woman who gives birth at unknown time in future. Months later, middle aged man marries much younger woman after birth of baby.

As far as I know, unless Cruise legally adopted Suri, Suri "Cruise" is not legally Tom's child. Suri was not born of the marriage, so absent an adoption, is a child of unmarried parents.

Me said...

mimi rogers gave an interview to playboy right after she and tom split. she said they had sex 2 times, because tom wanted to "save his seed". dude doesn't like sex (with women anyway).

i don't think katie went in with blinders, but i do think she was swept up in the moment. she's fortunate that her dad is a divorce attorney and wrote the prenup, knows the ins and outs.

however much of an idiot you want to say katie is, suri should not have to suffer because of it. i hope if tom tries to fight for 50/50 the judge orders a custody evaluation. all the crap will come out in that. they are in your life, talking to neighbors, friends, coworkers, people in your community (read people at your place of worship). no where to hide.

i read on some other site that new york courts don't favor 50/50 like california courts do, and thats why she filed there.

when its a surprise to one party, i always think there must have been a "moment", where the leaing person kind of freaked and said "no more". and that they knew saying they were unhappy would be of no use because the other person fully knew this and just didnt care.

this makes me feel sick. tom is so well connected and has so much money. katie is in for the fight of her life.

Tru Leigh said...

Tom and Nicole adopted two children, presumably because they could not have bio kids together. Then Nicole announced she was pregnant right after she filmed Can Can. Tom pitched a fit and then divorced her. Why would he do that if the baby was his?
Remember how TC sued a German magazine for saying he was sterile? Nicole went on the have bio children with her new hubby. Curious, don't you think?
Then there were lots of rumors that KH was not preggers by TC, but by her ex bf. I give Tom credit, I think he really loved Katie. Enough to be a surrogate Daddy to another man's baby. A DNA would bring out the truth. I glad to see a Hollywood mom doing the right thing for her child for a change.

Unknown said...

I have always suspected that Tom had a low sperm count and wasn't actually sterile. As for the wait before they showed Suri off too the world--if you look back at the cover she first appeared on there is a mark on her forehead that could have been a scar left over from a facial tumor removal.

Frufra said...

Agent**It - thanks for the tip about the Village Voice article. Very interesting. It's crazy to think so many get sucked in to that whole world of bullshit. But, hey, lots of crazy stuff has happened in the name of religion (understatement of the century :-).

MISCH said...

Both Mimi and Nicole had biological children after they divorced Tom...I think deeding the apt to Katie was part of her settlement...but this is not how or when Tom thought the separation would play out....and he never thought Katie had the balls....
I think her family made her strong...yeah for the Holmes clan....

Comma Chaser said...

All cattiness aside, I'm wishing Katie the best of luck on this. I'm watching my sister go through a nasty divorce of her own, after a year of pretty choppy emotional waters, so I am hopeful that Suri will wind up with Holmes' family for a relatively normal upbringing.

With or without CoS Tom Cruise is a pretty solid actor with the right material. I loved him in Magnolia and Tropic Thunder. That said, his beliefs are absolutely wacko - religion, depression, autism - and he has no business raising anyone's child, his or otherwise.

CandiCanee said...

Honestly I dont understand why everyones talking about this like its a real divorce. Its a contract, that ended. Nothing more or less. I believe Katie knew exactly what she was doing, she did it and now shes free. He'll move on to the next guy I mean girl. But from what Ted has said, the reason Nicole doesnt see those kids is because shes an ice queen not because of scientology. Now Im going to need Brangie to get married or Jennifer Aniston to get pregnant so we can have real gossip. Not this staged crap.

GrowFarmington said...

whether or not Tom is Suri's biological father, he is her Dad and to insist otherwise is unfair, IMO.

btaim, FREE SURI!

Carrie L. said...

I'm sure Katie's dad was instrumental in this since he's an attorney who specializes in divorces. I'm sure Tom thought he would be the one in charge as to when the exact date would happen, but Katie took charge of the timing, media and message. I definitely believe she had some strong, smart people behind her, but it's good that she turned the tables on Tom. I agree that he won't fight for full custody or even joint. As soon as the news was announced yesterday he had lost.

Agent**It said...

@ GrowFarmington , I concur !

Henriette said...

If Tom Cruise is on Suri's birth certificate, then by law he is her father whether biological or not.

Cases like this, especially in CA, come up time and time again. A guy finds out he is not biologically a father of his kids and tries to get out of child support. The court says, "so what?" A father cannot fight it after the fact.

There are many trying to change those laws though.

Ingrid Superstar said...

Okay I don't want to sound to sound like I'm defending Tom, but this whole STERILE business, where did he admit this? Is it in print? Is it from a TV interview? Press Junket? Because people say he is with such certainty but there are never concrete sources given.

Talha Aziz said...

Wow after 5 years of dealing with his crap she's finally getting some payback! Yea i know she knew what she was grtting into but thay doesn't excuse him for being such an overcontrolling freak

auntliddy said...

That Wld be mind blowing in tom not bio dad. Mb katie learned from nic. I think she can see conner and bella are unhappy and under equipped for life. She prob doesnt want that for her daughter.

auntliddy said...

*if tom not bio dad*

CandiCanee said...

Sorry I just cant get on board with this poor Katie deal. If Suri isnt his daughter then shes keeping her from her biological father and taking her from the only dad she knows. Getting her away from that cult is good, but maybe dont bring your child into it for a chance at fame.

Agent**It said...

I don't think this is for fame, not at all.

This is about this child , and it will cause a very negative affect on Co$ if it is not handled with discretion and with favor to the mother and child .

I think it's about mental health.

misspoppypants said...

Unless the biological father challenges it and asks for a DNA test, claiming ignorance because she was supposedly cheating on him---whatever---bio father trumps all if he didn't sign away his rights or come from a sperm bank.

misspoppypants said...

Unless the biological father challenges it and asks for a DNA test, claiming ignorance because she was supposedly cheating on him---whatever---bio father trumps all if he didn't sign away his rights or come from a sperm bank.

Jason Blue Eyes said...

Sofia Vergara ran for the hills when she dated Tom in early 2005. Three weeks later he was with Katie. Oh, he calls her "Kate." No Katie allowed. Probably because Spielberg and J.J. Abrams were both married to Kates's. Makes Tom feel like one of the big boys. Katie disappeared for two weeks in her early courtship. Nobody know where she was. Her family, friends. None of them. When she emerged she had a new best friend. A Scientology mentor. They were at the house all the time.

I was watching Lainey last night and she bet that Tom would have a new girl by the end of the year. I'd take that bet. Lainey is right on there. When Tom starts dating a new woman he is like Bill Pullman in "Mr. Wrong." Constant calls, texts, emails - limos filled with chocolate and flowers appearing at the woman's front door. He is a
F R E A K.

I was thinking about how great Katie was in the first half of the 00's. That "Pieces Of April" movie? She was incredible in that. Could it be that Katie was observing Michelle Williams's career and feeling her career was slipping by her? Possibly. It seems "Dead Eyes Katie" has finally come back to life and I hope she comes back big.

Cancan said...

Misspoppypants, this is true, but there is a two year statute of limitations. It's the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002. You'd think Enty, being a lawyer and all, would have mentioned it.

ellapetal said...

My favorite comment on this story so far "Harry Potter gave Katie a sock".

Ingrid Superstar said...

Pieces Of April is a sweet movie, Jason. Deffo Katie's best (so far).

MadLyb said...

Sadly, I thought Katie had a great career. She didn't need Tom. Perhaps she'd be an indie actress and not hugely successful as Nicole has been, but she had talent BT (before Tom) and could've gone far.

bflogurl said...

Tom Cruise is in Iceland? Rumor has it he is in Buffalo, NY this weekend, no joke!

Scandalous Candice said...

I am pretty sure a DNA test is complete bullshit. Suri looks exactly like Tom! That part is as absurd as Justin Bieber being a baby-daddy with his ovaries.

urban chaos said...

I really believe this contract has run it's course and while Katie may have held onto an ace or two up her sleeve (thanks in part to the guidance of her dad)it's all going to more or less play out as they agreed.
Perhaps, with a few extra perks!

I don't believe Katie knew the full scale of what she was entering into and I do believe TC 'romanced' her or courted her to make their 'union' seem fantastic and appealing.

I agree with those that said, TC will stay known as the dad of Suri to the masses and he will claim to see her privately- as in, it's a private matter. ie: no papping..then phase out of that relationship..the secrets will remain as such, it's leverage.

Oh, and I am shocked by so many people I know who are sad over this ending..I mean, WTF?! Really?

GladysKravitz said...

Enty is an entertainment attorney, not a divorce attorney. Having gone through a divorce, I can tell you that Tom's "religion" will not be an issue because it is no more pertinent to a judge than if Tom were Catholic or Buddhist.

If what the CO$ did to children was illegal, it would have been shut down a long time ago. It's just immoral. THat doesn't make it better, but it does make it pretty untouchable in a divorce.

On the other hand, as Enty points out, joint custody with Katie is just about the same as no custody, since Tommy Boy won't be able to interact with Suri if she's not a Scientologist.

And, no, a paternity test won't come into play. Tom is Suri's dad, whether he is physically or not. He has acted as her father for five years and that is enough for most courts.

Scandalous Candice said...

@ Ingrid Superstar I always thought that the reason Tom and Nicole adopted was because she was the one who was infertile at the time or had difficulty with it. It wasn't until years later with the aid of new IVF treatments and all that stuff now that she got knocked up. I could be wrong but I remember at the time it was about Nicole and not Tom.

As I mentioned above, I seriously doubt that Tom is not the father of that baby. She is his spitting image. I know that doesn't make it a slam dunk case, but I think that's a pile of conspiracy theory bullshit.

I am not a defender of Scientology, but I hope Tom does fight for joint custody. His religion may be bat shit crazy and a scam but it's not different that any other organized religion. Scientology has a lower body count. Sorry but that's true. The point is, it might be a crazy religion, but Katie can always seek rules for her daughter not being apart of their indoctrination. She can set the rules however she wants and still not have to keep her daughter away from Tom. He has never done anything wrong to that child and is in fact a good father to her and his adopted children. If there is something else wrong in the picture, then I will back Katie 100%. But for now, I am not impressed with the covert nature of all of this and the attempts to paint Cruise as a bad father. I need more evidence that there was some real shady shit going on.

angel said...

I found this at Radar Online and don't know what to think of it. Isn't Katie's father supposed to be a divorce expert attorney?

"Team Cruise does appear to have the the law on his side about where the divorce proceedings will take place. Under New York law, the residency requirements for divorces to take place in that state, "The marriage ceremony was performed in New York and either spouse is a resident of the state at the time of the commencement of the action for divorce and resided in the state for a continuous period of one year immediately before the action began. The couple lived as husband and wife in New York and either spouse is a resident of the state at the time of the commencement of the action for divorce and resided in this state for a continuous period of one year immediately before the action began. The grounds for divorce occurred in New York and either spouse is a resident of the state at the time of the commencement of the action for divorce and resided in the state for a continuous period of one year immediately before the action began."

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/06/tom-cruise-file-divorce-california-exclusive

car54 said...

I like that picture of Katie and Suri.

I know she's had cameras in her face almost since birth, but you don't see many happy pictures of that little girl.

I hope this change puts her into a life that lets her have a happy childhood.

captivagrl said...

The contract expired. He's busy auditioning a new wife and she's relieved. No way she anticipated how long those 5+ years would feel. She's beautiful when she's happy, it's been awhile.

Agent**It said...

@angel, not sure if dad is specifically a divorce attorney, but I'm pretty sure Kate's legal team would have anticipated this . Will be interesting.

Henriette said...

They got married in Italy. Where was the marriage license taken out? New York or California?

Henriette said...

My first marriage was overseas and recognized in the states.

Agent**It said...

@ Scandalous Candice re this:
"Scientology has a lower body count. Sorry but that's true."

There is another way to look at that.

Add into Co$ body count numbers the yearly documented murders and the "missing"of Co2 and you'll find that Co$ finally wins something:

"Most Murdered Members Award"

angel said...

@Henriette, they married in a private ceremony in Los Angeles first, then had a civil ceremony in Italy.

captivagrl said...

Oh, and I don't think he has any long term interest in her child. A few photo ops in the beginning (I'm still a great dad), then nothing...unless it benefits Tom in some way.

Naomi said...

Now maybe Chris Klein can stop drinking

Renoblondee said...

This should be interesting to see what happens for sure.

lookylou7 said...

Long time lurker, first time commenter...@ Agent very interesting read by the Voice...Although this is not surprising to me about CO$. I'm originally from Los Angeles and years ago I had a neighbor with 3 children. She was a long time member of CO$ and was very invested within the "organization" and apparently smelled the coffee and left the "organization". These CULTISTS..Followed her children to and from school. Showed up at her home at all hours of the day and night to the point that the girls would sneak out of their windows and pound on my backdoor to sleep over because they were scared. My neighbor even disappeared for a few days and I took her children in till I could contact her next of kin while not answering my door to some STRANGERS inquiring if I knew where her children were. I know this all sounds like a bad Lifetime Movie plot. But I lived it and witnessed this with my own eyeballs and it was traumatizing to this family as well as my own. This is a very EVIL and VILE Organization. It should be exposed for what it is. My neighbor came back and went into hiding and I've never heard from her to this day. I've always wondered what happened to them.

True Story...I say good for Katie...

Kara said...

Enty -- I didn't read through all the comments so I don't know if this was mentioned, but I don't think a DNA test would come into play here.

I remember from law school, a US Supreme Court case about parent's rights where a woman had someone else's child while she was married. She left husband and lived with baby daddy for awhile then went back to husband. When baby daddy sued for custody, California said nope. Not gonna do it. The child is the husband's. He is the putatitve father because she was married to him at time of birth. And the timeframe for disputing that is over.

US Supreme Court said bio dad did have rights but it was perfectly legal, to cut down on confusion for the kid, to have binding timelines for establishing yourself as the father.

I thought that was still the law in California? So DNA would simply be irrelevant. He's the putative father and it's too late to change it. Am I missing something? Because you can start that rumor however you want, but without a court allowing it to happen, it would still just be a rumor anyway.....

Patty said...

Sorry, but COS is not a religion. It is a science fiction cult. The fact that so many refer to it as a religion is proof that we have all be indoctrinated to a certain extent.

Roxxx said...

@ Agent**it:
I never heard of CoS being associated with murders until I read your post. I then did a google search and read the wikipedia entry about the death of Lisa McPherson. If this is anything to go by, then this is some seriously disturbing sh*t.

I thought CoS were a bunch of crazy, power hungry, control freak nut jobs - didn't realise they had homicidal tendancies on top of that. I feel somewhat scared by this for Katie, I do hope she'll be alright. I think another poster mentioned that Katie might be in danger, which initially I thought sounded a bit dramatic, but in view of the new information you've given, well it doesn't seem quite so ridiculous after all.

That village article blog also mentioned that 2 other key people have left: Roanne Leake, who is L. Ron Hubbard's granddaughter, and David Miscavige's dad. And now Katie has filed for divorce, it doesn't bode well for CoS and as an ex-boss once said, "Desperate people do stupid things." I think there's much worse to come. I just hope Katie will be alright and strong enough to cope with it.

Agent**It said...

@ lookylou7 , now that is an interesting (and disturbing) experience ! The witness accounts that are out there are astonishing in number. What's so pathetic is that we are silently witnessing it in the present moment. It's not like these murders or disappearances happened hundreds or centuries ago. And that it happens within the USA just guts me.

lookylou7 said...

@ Agent .. Disturbing INDEED..Makes me wonder who in higher elected services are involved with this so called "RELIGION"...

Dangerous D said...

I always suspected that Suri was short for "Surrogate Daughter."

Me said...

we don't know how long katie is saying she has lived in NY. the apartment was given to her last august, but she coud be claiming that ahe lived there before that. her legal team has likely been working on this since they got married. katies dad, who does specialize in family law but is not her lawyer, was not big on the whole marriage thing.

and fyi, a court can order parties not to talk shit about each other, not talk about church, all they want. means nothing. a parent does real damage with the wrong words.

Agent**It said...

@ Roxxx ,
CDan readers have previous given out some interesting links on this subject (I want to say Hunter, I think others but I cannot remember:) and from that start, whew....


This is link to info that does not appear to have been updated since 2010, but it's interesting.

http://theyshouldnothavedied.wordpress.com/


Read the comments /articles

Anonymous Why We Protest : https://whyweprotest.net/anonymous-scientology/

Operation Clambake :
http://www.xenu.net/

Connie151 said...

I think Katie has the fight of her life ahead of her. I think it will help her, though, that because this divorce will be so well-publicized, CO$ may not get away with pulling their intimidating tactics. You would have thought she could have figured out what she was in for when they had a "minder" following her around everywhere when she first started seeing him.

B. Profane said...

OK, I thought I cleared this up yesterday...

"As far as I know, unless Cruise legally adopted Suri, Suri "Cruise" is not legally Tom's child. Suri was not born of the marriage, so absent an adoption, is a child of unmarried parents."

Wrong.

"Cases like this, especially in CA, come up time and time again. A guy finds out he is not biologically a father of his kids and tries to get out of child support. The court says, "so what?" A father cannot fight it after the fact."

Wrong.

"Unless the biological father challenges it and asks for a DNA test, claiming ignorance because she was supposedly cheating on him---whatever---bio father trumps all if he didn't sign away his rights or come from a sperm bank."

Wrong.

People, I have fought a paternity action (to establish paternity, not to deny it). I know the California law on this backwards and forwards. A child born to a married couple is automatically the legal child of the father, regardless of whether or not his name is on the birth certificate. The father has two years to dispute his paternity, after which he is the legal father until the child reaches maturity.

It doesn't matter whose sperm was used to conceive Suri, or, frankly, whose egg. She's a child born to a married couple and long past the age where any third party could contest paternity. Someone could file, yes, but the paternity suit would be quickly thrown out. Her biological parentage is a non-issue, legally.

Further, I think one of the ghosties is writing the TomKat divorce entries because the actual Enty would realize that Suri's biological paternity is a nuclear bomb that neither side would dare use in a divorce scuffle. What parent wants to tell their six year-old that their daddy is not their real daddy? What would every other parent in the world think of a mother who would reveal that to their six year-old just to get a PR advantage in a divorce fight?

The public sympathy for Katie would evaporate overnight if she did that, so I don't think you'll hear a word about paternity from either side.

As to filing in New York, I'm still pretty sure that their prenup will define where any divorce must be adjudicated and that stipulated condition will eventually determine the venue (presumably CA). However, I can see Katie's team claiming that by buying Katie an apartment in New York, Tom was effectively endorsing her legal residency there.

If Katie has enough cause for claiming residency in New York, her team will be able to drag out the change of venue fight for quite a while, and during that time any initial custody order that a New York court will make (which will probably favor Katie) will be in force. I think that's how the procedure would work. Generally a change of venue fight gets settled quickly but with enough grounds and enough money a party could probably drag it out six months. That's six months for Katie to fully establish a non-TC influenced support structure around Suri. Plus that means that the initial rounds of the battle will take under the noses of the Post and Daily News and tons of other media who do not fear COS.

MLE said...

@Kara, interesting info. Would it matter that Suri was born before Tom and Katie married? Because she was born before their lavish Italian wedding.

B. Profane said...

She was?

Lizzie du said...

I totally agree n with tom's older children it ws nicole who slowly started not to see them in the beginning when they first got divorced. They were pap pics of her with the children slowly she started not seeing them bcs she lost interest and bcs they were adopted kids like alot of celebritys do. It has beem Tom that has raised those kids and to me they look like ok kids. Not out doing drugs n partying like most celebutards kids.

angel said...

@ B. Profane, yes.. they married after Suri was born. Suri was born in April 2006. Tom & Katy were married November 2006.

B. Profane said...

If Suri was born before they were legally married...well, I have to believe that Tom's lawyers have already done whatever it would take to securely lock up his legal paternal status as her father.

The tenet of paternity laws is to establish paternity in the interests of the child. Past a certain point, it is in the best interest of the child for the legal father to be the person with whom they have the strongest paternal relationship. That's why most paternity laws have sunset clauses, beyond which paternity cannot be contested. I'm 99% certain that whatever paternity laws and precedents apply, they will endorse de jure the de facto truth that Suri thinks of Tom as her dad.

the camel said...

Question: Didn't the man who was writing a bio on TC get sued for getting it published, then had the publisher pull out and months later he was found dead?!

Also, the timing of the pregnancy was continually scrutinized throughout it's "9 months" when paps began to photograph her in different belly sizes, if I remember correctly. Suri clearly looks like Katie more than anyone else we've mentioned, but I believe it to be Chris Klein's, who was obviously battling some alcohol addictions which made Katie leave him. She was raised catholic and was probably told to not abort and found an easy escape with Tom. Quick courtship with over the top Hollywood romance to give the public the idea that they just couldn't help themselves. She's very tall and lanky and probably didn't begin showing until several months, so it was easy to fake a trimester here or there....

Agent**It said...

The fact that she was born before the marriage was the reason that I thought yesterday that the DNA was important (as a trump card only, but not to be used in court unless necessary).

I believe Tom's name is on the birth certificate, so would it really matter when she was born, B.Profane?

Roxxx said...

@ Agent**it:
Wow - that's quite a list! I've not gone through it all, but there's clearly a strong link between CoS and "suicide".

What I don't understand (and please excuse my naïvety) on this, is why the CoS have been able to get away with this for so long? I know I'm stepping into conspiracy theory territory here, but are they so well connected, that they'll always be protected, no matter how many deaths or illegal activities they're implicated in? I am genuinely bewildered that they can get away with it.

@ lookylou7:
That's incredibly frightening. Thank God that woman had you as her neighbour. It all sounds a bit ominous - one can only hope that this woman and her kids are alive and well.

the camel said...

Also, although he loves his readers believing every non-fact about him, Enty is in fact a man.

Also, Suri's Burn Book is amazing: http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/

Yesterday's post:

Official Statement:

Please respect my privacy during this difficult time. (Just mine though — everyone else is fair game.)

I will be vacationing in the Cayman Islands for the Independence Day holiday with my financier, and going over my plans to seek sole custody of myself.

I appreciate the concern and the warm wishes.

B. Profane said...

If Tom's name is on the birth certificate, that's an acknowledgement of his paternity by the mother at time of birth. So yes, it means a lot.

Lack of father's name on birth certificate doesn't mean that much either. I still haven't gotten around to having my name added to my son's birth certificate, but I'm his legal father.

Agent**It said...

@the camel,

You should have been here yesterday. We had every angle covered, from Suri's Burn to "Free Katie- Mission Accomplished" T shirts.

Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography by Andrew Morton was published in 2008 - was there a newer attempt at a book?

I think that the Entities are not what they collectively were back in the day. Enty's voice is consistent... when its there... but it is heard amidst a lot of other chaotic voices. Unless, of course, Enty has MPD ?

AliB936 said...

I'm interested to see if Nicole will have a role in this. Connor and Isabella are 18+ by now. Isabella has mentioned recently being in contact with Nicole. Will Katie subpoena Nicole in regards to being branded an SP the CO$?

B. Profane said...

"Will Katie subpoena Nicole in regards to being branded an SP the CO$?"

There would be about a bazillion grounds on which Tom could get such a subpoena quashed.

Like it or not, COS is recognized as a religion. Family law codes and family law courts are extremely loathe to cite religious practices, per se, as grounds for anything. You have to cite specific acts or aspects of/by specific people as being detrimental to the welfare of the child. You can't indict an entire religion.

lookylou7 said...

@ Roxxx, yes, I like to believe that all of them moved far away and lived happier lives. I tried contacting the relative I had contacted when I had her children with me to see if I could get in touch with her but she seemed pretty vague to where they were. I kinda had the impression she was not about to give up their whereabouts which at that time which was understandable given the crazy circumstances. It just blows my mind to think that such things like this happen in this day and age. When I first got to know her she kept telling me all these storis of CO$ and I personally kinda thought she was a whack job. But then I witnessed the harrassment first hand.

Well cdaner's.. I have not accomplished one thing today due to reading all the links to this post....I said it before and I will say it again .. CO$ is an EVIL & VILE Organization and I pray that it will be exposed for what it truly is.

Due to the media nature of Katie and Tammy Cruise's impending divorce, I don't think Katie will experience any of the before mentioned harrassment that my neighbor had to endure.

I'm just thrilled beyond the moon that it seems that this so called "RELIGION" is unraveling at the seems.

Scandalous Candice said...

LOL! @Agent**It The Most Murdered Award?? Sorry that would belong to the Catholics and the Islam.

COS is a cult, but that's how Christianity started out too don't forget that. And if you compared rituals and exaggerated claims from the bible, it's just as bogus and full of shit as COS.

I am not here to defend COS. But there is brainwashing and pedophilia and other rampant shameful acts in just about all religions. But it's okay when that happens because you all believe in Jesus too. Or a similar deity. People act like a money making scam is far worse than thousands of years of cult activity, murders, lies, false claims, corruption, wars based on religion ect....

All I am saying is that too many of you sit on a high horse when it comes to COS when all of this shit is batshit crazy. If you have religion it's almost fair to say you can't say shit about someone elses. No matter how cray cray.

Agent**It said...

No, I am not comparing historical religions/myths. I am comparing what happens right here and now in terms of murders by a recognized church in the USA in 2012. Can't do a damn thing about the past. I do not believe in a deity and the only Jesus Christ I know is the one whose name I like to take " in vain" on a daily basis. I personally belong to the Church of Fred Mertz.

Stay in the present moment with your facts. This is death occurring here. Say hi to Steppy.

B. Profane said...

"But it's okay when that happens because you all believe in Jesus too."

You're being too conservative. For instance, Judaism, Islam and many Christian sects also practice formal shunning, not just Scientology.

"If you have religion it's almost fair to say you can't say shit about someone elses."

What shit can you say about Buddhism or Shinto? Not all organized religions are cray cray.

astrogirl said...

I have always liked this quote from L Ron Hubbard whilst he was still a Science Fiction author.

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

B. Profane said...

Hubbard made that famous comment a couple of times, once in the presence of Robert Heinlein. It has been speculated that the loony cult in Stranger in a Strange Land, his most famous novel, is a satire on both Mormonism and Scientology.

Agent**It said...

I used to investigate church connections to financial fraud.

I have been screamed at in tongues by a church in TX(on a speaker phone,no less)for inquiring as to why so many parishioners of 1 church were allowing the head 'god' to transfer his debt via balance transfer to their accounts(1.5M).

And then there were a couple of Catholic priests (Google Rev. Francis Guinan and Rev.John Skehanvof FL).It's quite a story.

Then there was the head of some damn religion in Nigeria who lived in a mansion in LA and was wanted by the international courts.

But the Co$..the Co$ - ah, the Co$.

Their accounts had to be handled by a dedicated TEAM to review. I had to fill in on occasion. The intimidation that they would attempt to use over the phone while merely validating charge activity and/or asking for financial dox was intense. Think money laundering and fraud. They had their script (intimidation) and we had ours. We were allowed at that time to not reveal our true names because of the harassment that previous co-workers had experienced.

Ah, the good old days .

zeldafitzgerald said...

Mimi Rogers plays poker now.

I can remember reading an interview Rolling Stone did with Katie and her family. Her brothers and dad all mentioned her massive crush on Tom Cruise she had as a kid. She was horrified. It was hilarious.

Doesn't seem so funny now.

Vicki Cupper said...

Meh. Over it.

Unknown said...

Whispers at the time suggested Katie was already pregnant when she and TC launched their public relationship.

Lila said...

I think this is all staged, that the details of this divorce and custody were decided long ago. The fact that TC changed the NYC apartment to Katie's name many months ago supports this. This manufactured drama and speculation is designed to make it look like a real breakup, and most of America will fall for it.

There are so many similarities with this divorce and the Kidman divorce. One of them was "blindsided." Quotes from onlookers from a recent family outing that said they looked SO happy together. Blah. Blah. Blah.

By Tom being the victim in this breakup, it will illicit a bit of sympathy for him from the minivan moms. (He's losing his kid! Poor guy!) For Katie to be the spouse dumping him, it makes her look strong and smart, an image she once had but lost quickly 7 years ago. These roles benefit both of them, and this has all been worked out by publicists.

The contract was up. She fulfilled her duties to get her payout. Now she can go back to being Katie Holmes, only with a lot more money and a cute kid that is set for life. Unfortunately, she didn't get the great roles she'd probably hoped for from the marriage, but she's got her clothing line (LOL) and her kid.

Also, I bet Katie's probably had a steady boyfriend on the side for quite some time. Maybe we'll know who he is when they go public in six months, just like Reese W. with her man after the fake Jakey G. "breakup."

Kara said...

@ BProfane & MLE - I'm not a lawyer in California. Just Oregon and Maryland. But the US Supreme Court case about which I was talking and with which BProfane seems at least familiar, says that any child born of the marriage is the putative (meaning presumed) child of the husband. Unless and until proven otherwise within a statutory timeframe.

The messed up part about the supreme court case is that the baby daddy was LIVING with his girlfriend when the child was born, but because she was married to her husband when the child was born, it's was technically her husband's child. Baby daddy didn't establish paternity because he was living with child and mother. Mother later (years later) went back to husband and refused visitation. Baby daddy was SOL.

I *think* but am not completely sure (see above - not a lawyer in Cali), that if you were together at the time of conception and birth and later marry the same presumption applies. So they'd still be outside the time period for her to try to say he has no rights because he's not the bio dad.

That being said, I bet she knows enough to know how to keep him from fighting too hard by threatening to spill the beans. And he doesn't have the same kind of pull he had when he divorced Kidman.

Jamie said...

@Agent**It: You're a Treasury agent?
No wonder you don't like the Co$ (nor do I).

@Anyone who's an actual lawyer, preferably a NY divorce lawyer:

KH is not short on cash and her divorce settlement, whatever it is, would hire her the best legal talent to represent her.

Why would these legal eagles file NOW in NY when, with an extra six months, Katie could much more easily argue she's a 12-month resident?

Why would they file at all in NY if the pre-nup says a divorce will be adjudicated in CA and that clause can't be defeated, as some people have said?

I'm just curious. Are they the dumbest lawyers ever, or is something else going on?

@Everyone. Suri is 6 yrs and 2 mos old. Does she go to school? Is she home-schooled? I've seen so many photos of her in the last twelve months, it's impossible to believe she has been attending an outside school five days a week. However, if she was, it would surely be a factor in establishing residency for either parent.

Mojees said...

I sort of think she had to know what she was getting involved in. Remember when he was on Oprah and jumped the couch, he went to bring Katie out and she didn't want to come? She was so embarrassed. She knew he was over the top and ridiculous.
But could someone fill me in on the pregnancy with Suri timeline? It's been a while, and I remember it was weird, but can't remember why.

Mojees said...

That's incredibly creepy. I can't believe this organization hasn't been called out for its bullshit yet

Jamie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henriette said...

@B. Profane
I was not "wrong" about my statement. You essentially stated the same thing I did. I too know the laws of paternity in CA "backward and forward" due to suing my father 36 years after I was born.

Please stop being such a dick. You are not the only person who has experience with CA courts.

Jamie said...

@Henriette: B. Profane was actually interesting and helpful to me with his comment.

You sued your father when you were 36? Shouldn't you have been a self-supporting adult by then?

If you call B. Profane a dick for apparently wanting to claim paternity for his child, you lay yourself open to claims of being a See You Next Tuesday for wanting "retrospective child support" long after you were a child.

B. Profane said...

@Lila--Interesting theory. Not implausible. The only hole I can poke in it is that I doubt that Katie wants Suri to be indoctrinated with Scientology and I doubt that Tom is willing to let Suri be raised outside of COS.

@Kara--If you can remember the title of that Supreme Court case, I'd be interested to read it. There have been a couple of significant paternity cases decided by the California Supreme Court, and I've read those decisions.

Anyway, I think it will quickly become clear that the paternity issue is moot, both in terms of legality and PR. I think the key issue will be contesting legal custody on the basis of conflicting religious practices by either parent. There is a significant California Supreme Court decision about that that would pertain if the dissolution were moved to CA. I'll have to look it up again.

But consider this: if Katie dabbled in Scientology while married to Tom, she may be compromised in now claiming that COS would be detrimental to Suri's welfare. If Katie did, to what extent? Did she participate in what could be claimed to be a ceremonial religious practice of Scientology, such as auditing?

Jamie said...

Suri Cruise is the most papped child in the world. I see more photos of her in the Daily Fail than any other child. Six more than all of Brangelinas kids in group photos.

I think it has been a great deal more frequent in the last 18 mos.

IIRC, the great majority of the photos were in NYC, or on location in Miami.

Is it possible that Katie was establishing a photographic record of being with her daughter and rarely near CA?

We all know that certain starlets sustain their lifestyles by alerting the papps to where they will be, for a fee. Not news.

But Katie never needed the money. She could have avoided all the photogs. She had to have a pressing need to get those photos broadcast.

/Just saying.

angel said...

@Jamie, I read somewhere over the weekend that Suri has been home schooled by Tom's two sisters up to this point.

And thanks for asking the questions you posed. If if particulars of how a divorce will go down are spelled out in an agreement with Katie's signature, filing in way that contradicts those terms could only backfire, unless she plans to claim she was coerced.

Great discussion among you legal eagles. Really enjoying it and learning a lot.

Unknown said...

Not many calls to make - Katie holds all the cards since Suri is not Tom's baby, It's Chris Klien's kid but he signed away his rights.

Agent**It said...

No, not a fed agent, and now retired (as in a corporation forced retirement).

Kind of mean but I can't help it:

Joan Rivers: "Tom & Katie are divorcing. This is the most talked-about separation in Hollywood since John Travolta's ass during a massage."

god forgive me...

B. Profane said...

@Jamie--Good point! There would be dozens of other ways to establish continuity of residency in NYC, but pap. photographs would be an immediate and impartial record.

Agent**It said...

I wondered about the plethora of pix as well. I thought maybe it was kind of an "in the face" to Tom message. Documentation makes, of course, makes the most sense.

Jamie said...

@Unknown: Did you bother to read any of the comments above about whether biological paternity mattered before you posted? You're completely wrong.

Chris Klein is irrelevant to a paternity case, and completely irrelevant to a divorce case. Tom is Suri's father legally. Did you notice that Katie is claiming appropriate child support from Tom and not from Chris?

smh

angel said...

omg Agent**It, I sprayed my keyboard with a soda I've been drinking, lol.

and oh yes.. Katie and Suri have been photographed a lot in NY in recent months.. good catch.

Agent**It said...

Jamie,

I think Unknown was referring to holding a trump card psychologically, not for court use.Maybe it's a female thing, I feel the same way. But Unknown also knows that for all intents and purposes that TC is Dad.We all had quite the conversation about this yesterday . It's actually exhausting !

angel said...

It's challenging to discuss anything related to Tom and the law because he's such a pretentious control freak with a battery of legal hot shots at his disposal. Anything's possible really, but as Jamie suggested, for Katie to file in NY as she has, there's more going on here than meets the eye.

ghost said...

With regard to Co$ being a "church":

Yes, all religions can be categorized as cults. However, when one goes to confession as a Catholic, it is voluntary and the priest does not write down your sins to use them against you over and over in the future. You don't have to pay to confess, either- unlike auditing, the Co$ equivalent to confession, which is mandatory to "move up" in the "church". These are sold for over $3k in 12.5 hour blocks- non negotiable. There are also the costs of all of the required books, tapes, courses, seminars, additional auditing, and the $4500 e-meter that members are required to purchase.

Any other religion does not charge exorbitant amounts of your cash to "advance" within the religion. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of Co$ books that members are required to obtain and read, and most of them cost a few thousand dollars a pop. In contrast, most other religions do not require you to to give them your money- tithing is a choice, and the nominal amount is usually no more than 10% of your income, or whatever you feel comfortable enough to donate.

Another thing to keep in mind that any and all information that you disclose via auditing, coursework, whatever, is documented and retained in a personal file about you that the "church" keeps- should you ever try to leave and/or denounce Scientology, they will not hesitate to use the contents of your file against you, and you can guarantee that even the most trivial, mundane things about you in it will be warped and twisted in an attempt to make you look really bad.

Below is the price list for Co$ books, services, etc.:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/prices.
html

As for the "church" and their official stance that they don't label people SPs or condone disconnection of loved ones: their denial is utter and total bullshit. I don't speak about it often, and certainly not to the length that I have now because yes, frankly the organization itself is creepy and they employ any and every dirty tactic imaginable to harass and terrorize detractors. But I have first hand experience in this. My father was a member of the cult for a long time. My mother was not as immersed, and when she woke up and realized it for what it is, my parents split. I spent over half my life not having any contact with my dad, let alone a relationship. It was only a few years ago, well into my twenties now, that he and I reconnected as he has been out of the "church" for a few years. The Co$ does far more irreperable harm and damage than many people like to admit- maybe it's rose-tinted glasses, maybe it's not witnessing firsthand their greed and the power they wield over members of their flock. There is so much collateral damage due to them.

CandiCanee said...

@B.Profane I think Im finally starting to understand you. Youre just a lawyer through & through and will take any oppurtunity to argue your case. I must say youre pretty good at it. Hope youre a defense attorney because you have a way at poking holes into perfectly logical arguments ( I actually agree with most of what youve said today ) This thread has become increasingly fascinating for someone just beginning law school. Cdan has more then just pretty readers you guys are very smart too!

angel said...

A couple new pertinent facts which hopefully are correct:

The Daily Beast reports that although Katie converted to Scientology in 2005 before she tied the knot with Tom, she hasn’t been seen inside a Scientology Church for quite a while and even enrolled Suri in a Catholic pre-school a few years ago.

And this comes from a Radar Online source:

“Tom and Katie will have joint legal custody together but she will have primary physical custody of Suri, although Tom will have very liberal visitation rights.”

The source said the split is not going to turn nasty and that Tom and Katie.. are committed to doing what is best for their daughter.

B. Profane said...

I'm not a lawyer!

Really, I just thought it would be helpful to rule out some irrelevant digressions at the start. If Tom and Kate don't settle and fight it out on religious grounds, it could be a landmark case.

Also, the outcome could portend the future of COS, at least in the celebrity world.

angel said...

Attorneys from both L.A. and N.Y are suggesting that it would be unconstitutional for a judge to involve him or herself in issues pertaining to Suri's religious upbringing.

Also, if Katy has particular examples of (Co$) practices that she may believe to be detrimental to Suri’s wellbeing that Tom uses, then those should be highlighted before the judge rather than specifically using Scientology.

lunarkitty said...

i love you, agent**it ;)
no need to send greetings to steppy tho, we have lizzie du for the dutiful defender today

NavarroForPres said...

Am I the only one who thinks Tom and Katie resemble each other? They could be brother and sister if you didn't know any better. Maybe that's why he wanted Katie to be the egg donor. Looking like Katie would make the kid look like him even though it wasn't his sperm.

Agent**It said...

@ghost, that was interesting. Thanks for sharing directly what a lot of us only read about.

@ lunarkitty - back at you !

__-__=__ said...

Katie must have freaked out seeing Tom's other kids being raised by COS. Sounds like she's getting Suri out just in time.

B.J. said...

Have there been any new developments besides tom being :( in a helicopter?

Lizzie du said...

Thats the point that i allways try to make as well, yet i always get branded a cos " defender" . Well said couldent agree with you more.

Jamie said...

@angel, I doubt you will read this. Katie had made a lot of money herself before she married TC. Sure, she was nowhere near as rich as TC, but she was well over 21 and "independently rich". Independent enough to live in Ohio without ever working again.

There is no way anybody will or can prove in court that Katie was "coerced" into marrying a man who gave her A-list visibility and a tax-free multi-million dollar pay-out in a pre-nup. She wasn't a minor and she wasn't poor. Nobody held her hand while she signed.

Team Suri. Free the child from the Co$. But let's be honest: at over six years, there's probably no way to rescue her. The Jesuits have a saying, something like "Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man."

That saying was never meant to be pervy. It's the basis for the great documentary series, 7UP.

Katie's marriage to Tom Cruise sounds about as romantic as an escort call. A very well-paid one! Sounds like a million dollars per escort call, tax-free. Property settlements are tax-free.

And while I don't support Katie's career choices (converting to a cult as a basis to be A-list-by-marriage), I admire her complete sluttiness. I hope she uses the incredible money to give that child a Co$-free education.

Roxxx said...

So much for good intentions; after spending a good part of last night reading everyone’s comments, I promised myself I’d be more productive today. Well that’s gone to hell. I think I actually enjoy reading all your comments than Enty’s posts. You guys definitely provide some interesting and informative insights.

@ Agent**It:
I’m pleased that Co$ were investigated. Hats off to your colleagues for having the balls to do it. They’re far braver than I would have been in that situation.

@ Scandalous Candice;
It’s true (unfortunately) that an awful lot of wrong is done in the name of God, and that people within the Church have used their power and influence to protect themselves. This is not what Christianity is about; in fact it couldn’t be further from what Christianity is about.

People who engage in pedophilia, brainwashing or other morally and criminally repugnant activities, are not Christians, irrespective of what they may claim. I honestly don’t know anyone (Christian or non-Christian) who claims that when these kind of things happens, it’s ok, because the individual who’s guilty of these crimes said they were a Christian. Christianity did not come into existence to be used as “Get out of jail free” card.

I understand your point about hypocrisy, but regardless of whether or not one has religious beliefs, I think that everyone has the right to express concern over, questionable (at best), to down right wrong, behaviour.

I also second everything Ghost said.

@ lookylou7:
That was good of you to follow-up and try to find out how your neighbour was doing. Hopefully they would have left her alone. Hopefully.

angel said...

@Jamie, I did read your last comment, and thank you for responding. I always follow the meatier discussions to the very end ;)

I agree that for Katie to use a coercion argument would be an implausible stretch. I used it to underscore that her filing in NY suggests to me (and I think you) that the terms of precisely how and where a divorce will occur may very well not be specified in any legal document Katie signed.

Even though she was an established, independent actress in her own right when she married Tom, it's my understanding that he's held her career back to a large extent, including influencing her to abandon her starring role in the highly lucrative Batman movie series. For that reason alone, I think she deserves a generous settlement because you KNOW there's no way Tom would have done the same for her.

lookylou7 said...

Good Morning.....

I spent the majority of my day way into the wee hours yesterday reading up on Co$ thru some links that was posted here on this blog. It was like watching a trainwreck and I couldn't stop reading! As I stated I know what C0$ is capable of but I could not tear my eyes away from link after link after link that shows just how EF'D up this organiazation is...DM is a little NAZI and completely off his rocker and Tammy C is either compeletly as insane as DM is or is so deliusional she can't see beyond the end of her big beak of a nose. Either way this is a good starting point for those interested in enlightening oneself of the so called C0$ religion:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/l_ron_hubbard_top_25_crippling_scientology.php

As for Katie and Tammy C's divorce...Personally, I don't care either way if her marriage was a sham or not. She had to know what she was getting into and quite frankly anyone who beards for someone else in this industry by my standards has no integrity. But then again we are talking about Hollyweird. I'd like to believe that Katie had been so caught up and star struck by Tammy C's couch jumping and professing her love for Katie that she was blinded by LOVE and so caught up in their courtship then became pregnant that she never really had time to rethink her decision to marry TC. I know sounds naive but a girl can dream can't she?

I think Katie knows exactly what she's doing and is well prepared to beat the GOLIATH full force for this divorce and might have Tammy C by the ovaries (yes I said it)no matter what the cost will be. She's done her homework and she is very aware what she is up against.

auntliddy said...

This is what I was thinking: is he really blindsided? Shes in NY, he's in Iceland- seems pretty well thought out to me. And when asked about nicole kidman being blindsided when he filed for divorce, cruise said ob you know things dont happen that way. Well right back atcha! I actually feel kind of bad fir him; 3 failed marriages, 2 going nowhere kids, one little kis he wont be able to control- quite the formula for a mid life crisis.

auntliddy said...

Scan, the thing with cos is its all or nothjng. You're either in and agree with all their rules or out. So suri wldnt be able to be half and half. Notice everyone in cos has huge huge issues- travolta, cruise, alley. I think they exchanged their problems by enbracing wacky ass cos. beyond pathetic.

yodelay said...

In California, if his name is on the birth cert., he is the legal father, irregardless of parantage.

Agent**It said...

@Jamie, I love the Jesuits.

Henriette said...

@jamie
I did not sue my father for child support, though the state of California could. I sued him to change my birth certificate.

I called B. Profane a dick because he did has a condescending tone and DID NOT comprehend what I wrote. He took my comment and said I was "wrong" then repeated what I wrote.

Henriette said...

@jamie
B.Profane also missed a lot nuances within the CA law about paternity. In my case, my lawyer went through a loophole, since my parents were not married.

There are many divorced fathers who try the "I'm not the father via DNA" route not to pay child support. Legally they have no grounds.

B. Profane said...

I assure you, I missed no nuances at all. I had what could have been a very complicated paternity case and pretty much memorized the CA Family Code on paternity, then read all the relevant CA Supreme Court decisions regarding paternity and a lot of the appellate decisions. Then I retained one of the top family law attorneys in Northern California to handle my case and he confirmed my understanding of CA paternity law to the letter.

You said:

"If Tom Cruise is on Suri's birth certificate, then by law he is her father whether biological or not."

That is not true. He may be presumed to be the father, but he has two years to deny paternity via DNA testing. Major difference.

The "fatherhood by ignorance" rule is one that is technically enforceable but has never really been challenged in court, IIRC. The idea that an unmarried woman could pick the name of any man out of the air and identify him as the father of her child, not inform him of her paternity claim, wait two years and then soak him for sixteen years of child support...is patently absurd. There have been a few egregious cases like that (again, IIRC) but the fathers didn't fight it out on appeal.

You may not like the tone, but the fact is that you were wrong about the law.

Kara said...

@ B Profane - Michael v. Gerald, 491 U.S. 110, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989)

I think I probably got some of the facts a little bit skewed, like I said I read this in law school and that was FIRST year (otherwise known as the dark ages). :) The point being - the statute referenced is constitutional and good law. I believe the same presumption about a child born of the marriage applies when the parents were together at time of conception and married after birth. But again, I can be wrong. There is probably also something about putative fathers and birth certificates and time limitations on anyone else wishing to claim the child.

In my opinion, this case is messed up. The guardian ad litem wanted the child to have visitation with BOTH dads. Mom was objecting. The bio dad, who had also been the psychological father at times, was denied.

@Angel - it's not unconstitutional for the religion thing to be addressed per se. Legal custody grants the parent who has it the right to make sole decisions about issues such as medical care, religious upbringing, and schooling. Clearly, no judge can tell the child what religion the child must be. Nor can the judge compel any religious attendance or anything of that nature. But I've had family law cases where religion has come up as one of the factors in the divorce. The child's connection and friendships within a church had influence on the judge's decision. Also, a parent's decision to put the child at harm (for instance, keeping the child in a diocese where the child was being abuse after the child made complaints of abuse or even if the parent didn't know - where it was causing PTSD symptoms to continue sending the child), can be considered. It's not about the religion itself, but the effect on the child.

The commentators are simplifying, but perhaps a little too much.

Mary Anne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henriette said...

@BProfane
This is my last comment to you. You stated I was "wrong" about another comment, which was about divorce fathers trying to deny child support after taking DNA tests, WHICH happens quite often in CA courts.

I can understand why your personal relationships go they way you describe them in these comment sections and why you had to deal with a paternity issue.

Unknown said...

Count down to Chris Klein getting a REALLY big role in 3...2.......

B. Profane said...

OK, Henriette, then you mean this quote of yours:

"Cases like this, especially in CA, come up time and time again. A guy finds out he is not biologically a father of his kids and tries to get out of child support. The court says, "so what?" A father cannot fight it after the fact."

Again, wrong. The legal father at birth (by marriage, presumption of paternity, whatever) has two years to dispute paternity on biological grounds. If the DNA test shows that he is not the biological father, he is not financially responsible for the child, even if he was married to the mother at the time of birth.

Most paternity denial cases fall under the two-year rule, so practically you're quite wrong in your definition of CA paternity law as applied.

I had to deal with this myself, because it was a million-to-one shot pregnancy and the mom was something of a gold digger. I was going to get a paternity test done but by the time his second birthday approached he was such a little xerox of me I didn't even bother.

Yes, there are a small percentage of cases where paternity is upheld after the two-year window despite proof that the legal father is not the biological father. In most of those cases the couple was married and I don't have a problem with the law as applied in those circumstances.

B. Profane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lutefisk said...

The clincher to all this would be if Katie and Suri ended up in the end with either Chris Klein or Josh Hartnett, and a big chunk of Tom's money.

djphob said...

Way tardy to this party, but I dont think either of them are going to fight. Tabs and gossip will spew lies and truth but I think it will pass like every other celeb divorce.

Also, I vote Hayden for next.

Kara said...

B. Profane - they can not get into the validity of the beliefs. No more about whether or not auditing is good for a child than whether or not a child should be taking sacremental wine.

BUT - if someone was doing things outside the religion that affected the child or if the child was old enough to have a preference - that might be considered. Certainly, the whole can't have contact with people that are not of the religion could have a problem. The trick is to separate the teachings and the tenents of the faith from what the parent or someone is actually doing.

I work in a VERY small community (there are less than 100,000 people in the entire COUNTY, only 15,000 in the largest town). The judges would address these issues by finding some other reason to hang their hat on to keep it unappealable. I don't know what CA and NY judges do. Clearly, if something isn't actually part of the faith (ie - Scientology won't admit it) then you can say - hey - the Catholic Church doesn't say hate your gay dad, it's mom doing it on her own. She's hurting the relationship with gay dad! Custody to dad!

See what I'm saying here?

Complex legal issues in a couple of paragraphs. Not my forte. Family law - also not my forte. I much prefer criminal.