Blind Item #7
This Academy Award winner/nominee actress is not allowed to be alone with her children for fear that she might hurt them.
This Academy Award winner/nominee actress is not allowed to be alone with her children for fear that she might hurt them.
Posted by ent lawyer at 9:00 AM
Labels: blind item
Catherine Zeta-Jones.
ReplyDeleteif she's CZJ,it's untrue (you can find some pics with her and her kids without nannies recently )
ReplyDeleteThe nannies might just be outta camera range
ReplyDeleteHalle Berry
ReplyDeleteHave there been any Halle sighting since the birth of the baby ?
ReplyDeleteseriously?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not halle. Her ex would be all over that like white on rice if she was deemed unfit to raise her kids. I got no guesses.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness someone, somewhere in Hollywood, has put the children's well being first. Much better to have supervision & keep the mother in their lives then to keep her away or put them at risk. I personally think this is a kindness blind.
ReplyDeleteDubious. For someone to not be allowed to be alone with their kids requires a court supervision order. If there was a court order it would be in the public domain and as such the cess-pit of Hollywood reporting would be all over it.
ReplyDeleteIf there is not a court order then it's just rumour and unenforceable. Said parent could easily say "fuck you" when told she can't be alone with her kids.
can't deny someone their basic rights as a parent without legal enforcement.
Hey Craig - Hollywood is way different than our world. I could see someone easily agreeing to only have supervised visits without a court order to avoid having to PUBLICLY go through the court system.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps the husband has threatened to withhold money and make life generally miserable for her if she doesn't agree to his conditions for visitation. He might might have some powerful friends who will make it impossible for her to get work, even if she does have an Oscar.
ReplyDeleteWell, it should be Brooke Mueller, but its prob CZJ. And didnt we have this already?
ReplyDeleteYou know what tho, Sharon Stone is batshit, maybe its her. I dont even know how she got kids!!!!
ReplyDeleteMaybe Angie. I can definitely see her losing control.
ReplyDelete@auntliddy:
ReplyDeleteshe's adopted her kids
French, thats what i meant, i dont know how she passed muster!!
DeleteI was going to say "Angelina" as a joke, but after seeing the above and then thinking about it, it could be her.
ReplyDeleteFrenchGirl, what does that mean? They are still her kids.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, she was a cutter, and if she sees her children as an extension of herself, and is still abusing substances, that could be a problem.
ReplyDelete@MadLyb Makes sense. I'm changing my guess to St, Ange
DeleteI keep waiting for ange to flip her lid and go all mommy dearest. I hope its not her tho. I think she would sooner kill herself than hurt her babies.
ReplyDeleteDidn't we already have this blind a few months ago, just after CZJ and Michael took a break? She was the popular guess then
ReplyDeleteThe wonderful Mariah Carey seems unable to walk without assistance in those heels and tight mermaid dresses she wears, so maybe everyone is fearful she will topple over and spill the babies down the stairs or onto the tile floor if she tries to walk and hold them at the same time.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Shes not a mom u will EVER see on a school run!!! When you babies i thought you may have meant those huge blowups on her chest. Lol
DeleteMy vote is for Mariah, she seems to be a boozy idiot all the time. I doubt she's been sober in years.
ReplyDeleteAs for how Sharon Stone got her kids, I think pretty much every Hollywood star who adopts kids gets them the same way and that is with $$$. The only time I can think of a celebrity running into any problems with adoption was when Madonna was initially denied her youngest, and then the court went back on that anyways. (I remember reading that when he judge said Madonna was denied she screamed "WHAT?" at the top of her lungs right there in court.)
"Dubious. For someone to not be allowed to be alone with their kids requires a court supervision order. If there was a court order it would be in the public domain and as such the cess-pit of Hollywood reporting would be all over it."
ReplyDeleteWrong in just about every aspect. Custody orders are almost always sealed, and one parent is often able to get supervision ordered temporarily for fairly small cause. It's sleazy, but it's quite common. A long-term supervised-only visitation order would take substantial proof of possible harm, but any kind of serious drug use or psych diagnosis would be sufficient.
Agree B Profane but the blind may also just be figuratively saying that she is not allowed to be alone with kids, as in another family member or nanny has been instructed by non-crazy parent to watch out for her behavior and avoid leaving kids alone with her for any length of time.
DeleteYes, it could be informal supervision of course.
ReplyDeleteCZJ due to all the pill popping??
ReplyDeleteNot CZJ. Her daughter takes dance with my friend's daughter and she takes her to dance class and waits with the other moms.
ReplyDeleteNot CZJ. Her daughter takes dance with my friend's daughter and she takes her to dance class and waits with the other moms.
ReplyDeleteIf it is CZJ, I think this blind is inappropriate. It isn't like she uses and abuses like Mueller. She has a legitimate illness from which she suffers. It is sad for everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrooke Meuller certainly can't be alone with her children and she would either hurt them or neglect them to the point they would be a danger to themselves because she's evil and broken, her only interests are drugs and money. One parent can use the threat of going to court and making something public to keep another parent away from kids. This would be easy to do with most abusers whether you were famous or not. Can you imagine the company keeping you employed if something like that became public? It's a powerful threat if you have evidence that's irrefutable.
ReplyDelete