Tom Cruise sues L&S for ‘abandoned by daddy’ story, hasn’t seen Suri for 13 wks

Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise is finally pissed off enough about his destroyed reputation (which, by the way, is entirely his own fault) and has decided to do something about it by suing the hell out of Life & Style. The tabloids, naturally, are what Tom sees as the source of all of his problems instead of the real culprit, Scientology. Never mind that Tom doesn’t mind using the tabloids for his own purposes, such as that time he invited a Star reporter to witness his bittersweet reunion with Suri in mid July. Speaking of Suri, Tom hasn’t seen his youngest daughter in nearly thirteen weeks. THIRTEEN. It was late July when he and Suri visited Disneyworld together, and he hasn’t seen her since then. That’s about three months and sort of speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Well, this issue is the precise matter that is getting under Tom’s skin at this point. He doesn’t understand why people are so disgusted that he’s not hanging around his daughter. He’s working, okay? And raving in London nightclubs on the weekends and whatever else he’s doing to avoid getting on that private jet of his and seeing Suri. But Tom is angry that anyone would claim that he doesn’t have anything but his daughter’s best interests at heart, and it should be just fine (perfect, in fact) that he calls her on a regular basis. Tom just doesn’t get it, but someone will pay for thinking he’s not the ideal father, and Life & Style getting sued to that effect for $50 million plus punitive damages, and Tom is demanding a jury trial as well. Like that wouldn’t turn into a sh-tshow, right?

TMZ has a copy of the papers filed by Tom’s attorney, Bert Fields, and the language in the article is pretty hilarious. Not only are defendants supposedly “wholly unconcerned about the truth of what they publish and what harm it causes,” but they are also guilty of “vile and reprehensible” conduct. Further, “plaintiff is not a litigious person and has not sued them before. But to falsely accuse him of abandoning his child crosses the line. Enough is enough.” In addition, “the true facts are that plaintiff loves his daughter dearly and would never abandon her. Whenever his work has taken him on location away from Suri, he speaks with her every day.” The thing is — this lawsuit is about the July 30 issue of Life & Style. The portrait of Tom’s absence in Suri’s life is much, much worse now, and he is oblivious of this fact because it only angers him that the term “suppressive person” has entered the conversation. Here are the details from TMZ:

Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise just filed a $50 million lawsuit against Life & Style and In Touch magazines, claiming the mags defamed him by reporting he had abandoned 6-year-old Suri.

In the lawsuit, filed in L.A. federal court, Tom takes issue with the July 30th cover of Life & Style, which reads, “SURI IN TEARS, ABANDONED BY HER DAD” — as well as the October 1st cover of In Touch, which shows a picture of Suri above the headline, “ABANDONED BY DADDY.”

According to the suit, Tom claims the mags’ headlines are FALSE — insisting, he “loves his daughter dearly and would never abandon her.”

Tom is suing for $50 million plus punitive damages for defamation and invasion of privacy. In Touch and Life & Style are sister magazines owned by the same publishing company Bauer Publishing.

Cruise’s lawyer, Bert Fields says: “Tom is a caring father who dearly loves Suri. She’s a vital part of his life and always will be. To say he has ‘abandoned’ her is a vicious lie. To say it in lurid headlines with a tearful picture of Suri is reprehensible.”

Fields goes on: “Tom doesn’t go around suing people. He’s not a litigious guy. But when these sleaze peddlers try to make money with disgusting lies about his relationship with his child, you bet he’s going to sue.”

Fields goes on to bash the mags, saying, “These serial defamers are foreign owned companies with their global headquarters in Hamburg. They take money from unsuspecting Americans by selling their malicious garbage. Having to pay a libel judgment may slow them down.”

Fields says any money Tom gets from the mags will go to charity.

[From TMZ]

Notice that while Tom is allegedly “not litigious,” he threw an absolute fit and threatened to sue over the Enquirer’s “Tom is a monster” story that detailed how he screamed at Katie for four straight days over the CO$ and kept Suri in a windowless room for the first several months of her life, but he never went forth with that lawsuit. Nor has he taken any measures to sue Vanity Fair for their tales of Tom’s incisor-filing wife audition process. Because, you know, those things are all true, and Tom has no proof to the contrary.

However, Tom really feels like he’s doing nothing wrong where Suri is concerned. He really was absent on Suri’s first day of school but detests that In Touch (in a subsequent companion article named in the lawsuit) printed, “‘Was Suri’s dad there for her first day of school?’ No — Katie’s family friend.” Tom’s also apparently incensed that IT merely recounted the days (44 at press time) that Tom had not seen Suri in person and pointed out that “Katie has been there for her,” “Katie’s doing it all,” “Tom’s agreed to shot five more back-to-back movies,” and has been “amping up his social life” in London bars, which he has most certainly been attempting to do. What has really irritated Tom though is that L&S illustrated its Suri story with the infamous photo of Suri crying at a pet shop. Once again, the implicit message here is “bad Katie” for making Suri cry over a puppy. Further, Katie must really be the awful parent, while Tom is the wonderful father who calls her every day and takes her to Disneyworld when the mood suits him.

I also find it highly amusing that Tom claims all the proceeds from this suit will go to “charity” when we all know it will merely go to a CO$-affiliated organization. Tool.

Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and Pacific Coast News

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

99 Responses to “Tom Cruise sues L&S for ‘abandoned by daddy’ story, hasn’t seen Suri for 13 wks”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lady D says:

    Won’t he have to prove he was there for her in order to win the lawsuit? Is the onus of truth on Tom or L&S?

    • Bad Irene says:

      Good question, would love to know the answer too, if any lawyer types are here.

      Also as the parent company that owns l&s are Germany based does that affect the case/standard of proof at all. Like when David Beckham sued them over the allegations that he slept with a prostitute I have vague memories that he had to show that the story was untrue rather than it was published with malice and intent to harm his reputation.

    • bluhare says:

      If he’s suing them for libel, he has to prove that what they wrote is patently false. It isn’t. It’s verifiable he hasn’t seen her.

      The lawsuit hangs on the turn of a phrase, or the word “abandoned”. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think the use of that word in this situation is libel.

      • Janet says:

        Legally, it very well could be. In New York State a parent’s rights can be terminated on the grounds of abandonment if there has been no contact (face/face, mail, phone call, text, etc) for six months. Thirty-one days do not add up to six months.

        I can’t stand Cruise but I hope he sues the hell out of L&S and wins. I hate the tabloids even more than I hate him.

      • bluhare says:

        I read one of those articles, and it said he talks to her over the phone. He just hasn’t bothered to actually visit.

      • Rux says:

        Worked in a high profile law firm for sometime so be forewarned this will not be pretty. The definition of abandon is:
        a·ban·don (-bndn)
        tr.v. a·ban·doned, a·ban·don·ing, a·ban·dons
        1. To withdraw one’s support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble.
        2. To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat: abandoned the ship.
        3. To surrender one’s claim to, right to, or interest in; give up entirely. See Synonyms at relinquish.
        4. To cease trying to continue; desist from: abandoned the search for the missing hiker.
        5. To yield (oneself) completely, as to emotion.

        By L&S stating he abandoned Suri, they would have to prove that he let go completely and does/did not have contact with her. If they speak on the phone once a week or on Skype, etc. because he is continuing contact AND financial support for her, this in legal terms is not abandonment.

        Tom has a case, which I hate to admit.

        I am not part of CoS or a troller or whatnot. I do not agree with how Tom is handling his relationship with Suri, however, I have seen these types of cases before and know what the judge will qualify as abandonment.

      • Janet says:

        @bluhare and rux: I worked in child welfare for decades and went to court innumerable times representing the agency on abandonment cases. The rules are cut and dried. If there is no contact at all of any kind for at least six months prior to the date of the petition, then you have an abandonment case.

        If Cruise talks to her over the phone, he has not abandoned her. If he texts or e-mails her or writes letters or sends cards, he has not abandoned her. L&S has no case and their ass is wide open to a libel suit. As I said above, I can’t stand Cruise but I hope he takes L&S to the cleaners on this one.

      • Apples says:

        Devil’s advocate: It’s possible for celebrities with their security teams and $$$$ to fly under the radar. He could have seen her for dinners or whatnot…?

        Or should we assume that he would made sure the public knew about ?

      • flan says:

        The horrible thing is that if he wins that suit, all that money will go to Scientology.

  2. dee says:

    “Tom doesn’t go around suing people. He’s not a litigious guy.”

    Now you know that’s a lie.

  3. mln76 says:

    So now we can safely assume that those far worse stories about you hitting your staff,using slave labor,and punishing your girlfriends with Scieno torture are true(as well as this one since you haven’t seen your kid in months)

    Thanks for the heads up Tom

    • The Original Genevieve says:

      Well said, min76.

      He’s been so worshipped and screwed in the head by CO$, he probably DOES view his own innocent child as a SP. CO$ has effed up so many families and ripped them apart, all with the tacit knowledge and approval of Tommygirl; why should his own flesh and blood be any different to him? Witness John Brousseau’s account of how the highest levels of CO$ destroyed his marriage, and he is only one of MANY.

      The “Church” is Tommygirl’s one true family, don’t you see?

      I give him another few weeks before he swoops in on Suri for 24 hours or less, just to prove to his few remaining fans that he’s still got his “Daddy mojo”. Pffft. What-the-f*ch-EVER.

  4. Tapioca says:

    Pish! Suri hasn’t been “abandoned by her daddy”, he’s just protecting himself from a Suppressive Person so he can retain his abilities to fly, shift time and space and get divorced over and over.

    Ditching his kid is for the greater good, people, because if there’s a car accident or other trauma “as a Scientologist you are the only one who can help…” Screw those Thetan-ated paramedics, right?

    @Lady D:

    Since he’s suing in the US he has to prove that the article was written with “malicious intent”, not that it was necessarily untrue – which is why the Beckhams lost against that woman who said they’d bumped uglies.

  5. Snowpea says:

    Every time there are pics of Tom, he is always surrounded by small people! Look at the two dudes above! They make him look huge.

    Anyhoo, this geezer is just digging a deeper grave for himself by doing this. What a loser. All the photos I see of him now reveal how socially inept, awkward and completely brainwashed he really is.

  6. Apples says:

    I find the addition of the mag being “foreign owned…taking money from unsuspecting Americans” in their statement fascinating.

    American Tom against the evil foreigners? Is he making a play for middle America?

    • Saphana says:

      as far as i know the owners are german/its a german company. in germany $cientology is considered a cult and its not treated like a religion.
      Quote from wikipedia:
      “The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion. It views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution. This stance has been criticized, most notably by the U.S. government, which recognizes Scientology as a religion and has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists”

      Plus you cant sue them for as much money as he wants, its only america with those crazy sums.

      edit: looked it up, the owerns are bauer media group, a german company.

  7. Seagulls says:

    I worry about the high heel wearing ladies when they’re carrying their babies and little kids. Now, I realize, I must also worry about Tom and his pre-teen darter when he carries her once a quarter.

  8. Guest says:

    Good for him, I hope he wins.

  9. Mia 4S says:

    There’s a hilarious almost contradiction in the lawyer’s fullstatement, “He’s not a litigious guy.”…and then he goes on to say Tom will give any money won to charity because he always has. Umm doesn’t that imply he has been through this process a few times? Such BS. Hey Tom, why not just take your private jet and go visit your kid?

  10. Chatcat says:

    The perfect storm … Tommy the Narcissist joins CO$. 30 years later, body bags and victims galore, NOW he is going to sue who he has used repeatedly over the years for HIS/CO$ glory? He is a mental health professionals dream patient. To the rest of humanity he is just a POS.

  11. vvy says:

    I respect him even less now that I did before, if that’s even possible. He treats all the ‘lowly’ people around him like sh-t, and now he expects the tabloids to be nice to him? Tool is putting it mildly.

  12. emmie_a says:

    Here is my totally crazy theory: Maybe Tom isn’t Suri’s biological father and doesn’t have the lenient visitation rights that we are to believe he has???

    • Amelia says:

      It’s actually not totally crazy, it’s still a legitimate theory in some circles. There are rumours that Suri is actually Tommy Davis’ kid. Although, as brilliant as that would be for the midget’s ego, the realist in me doubts it.

    • Jaded says:

      I agree emmie_a: My theory is that Katie agreed to a turkey baster to get pregnant due to Tom’s slow swimmers, but what she thought was Tom’s seed was someone else’s and she found out.

      Couple that with her increasing disgust with Co$ and Tom’s obsession with it, she got the surgically quick and clean divorce with no push-back from him for a total confidentiality agreement. I think Tommy Davis could be the father, the resemblance is eerie, hence Tom’s stand-offishness with Suri, especially now since she is officially a suppressive person.

      • emmie_a says:

        Amelia & Jaded: I love these conspiracy theories! One reason I think this is a crazy possibility is how easy the divorce settlement seemed to be. TC could have used Suri as a pawn to get everything he wanted – but it doesn’t seem he did that. Granted, he could have just been looking out for Suri’s best interests — but in his mind, that would be a life of Scientology. I don’t know, something just doesn’t add up!

      • Apples says:

        @ Jaded: Awesome theory!

        @ Emmie: Reason so easy for Katie’s divorce was her father’s work on her prenup agreement (8 bankers boxes worth of papers, reportedly). once she got married, rumor has it he started researching Cali and NY state divorce laws and started paperwork immediately. So, there was nothing left to hash out.

        LOL, father of the year IMO!

    • Lem says:

      That’s how I’ve read it. He wants us to believe; so he’ll never say otherwise. I’m not sure Katie gave him whatever visitation terminology was reported.
      I think she probably agreed to one photo op per NYC movie opening.
      Don’t think I buy the Tommy Davis angle but I can totally see this being the reason Chris Klein went so hard, so fast, so far off the rails exactly when he did.

      • CF98 says:

        No Katie/Chris broke up because of his drinking problem he was busted for a DUI shortly before they ended their engagement.

        Personally I think Joshua Jackson is the biodaddy if you look at pics of him as a kid(he was a child actor) and Suri the resemblance is uncanny especially the nose. Plus Katie went to see him in London shortly before she got with Tom and after her broken engagement from Chris

  13. lucy2 says:

    London to NY is what, 5 hours? He could go there and back in a day if needed. There is no excuse. He’s not working 24/7.
    He’s sued before. Sad that it’s the tabloids that upset him, not the fact that he hasn’t seen his kid in 3 months. And now when he does show up sooner or later, it won’t be about spending time with her, but about proving the tabs wrong.
    Sadly, she probably is better off without him in her life so much. He’ll just fill her head with poison and crazy.

  14. MJ says:

    My parents split up when I was just slightly older than Suri, and I remember that first six month period like it was yesterday. If either one of them hadn’t made it a priority to make me feel loved through that difficult, confusing time, I would have felt completely abandoned. Maybe he should focus his energy on taking a quick flight to spend the weekend comforting her instead of splashing more bullsh*t on tabloid covers. Actions speak louder than magazine headlines, even to a six year-old.

  15. Bored suburbanhousewife says:

    The Tiny Terror of Tinseltown strikes again!

  16. atorontogal says:

    He just keeps solidifying the fact that I made a good choice when he fell out of favour with me by the way he handled his divorce from Nicole. I feel very sorry for his children. This story is all about Suri but I’m betting his other kids didn’t get a whole lot of attention from him either. He is a POS who kept Nicole from her children and turned them against her. He just doesn’t get it.

  17. dorothy says:

    Oh please…everyone knows he’s limited to the amount of time her can see Suri per the “suppresive people” thinking by Scientology. If he want’s to sue someone, sue COS.

  18. ojulia123 says:

    I stand by my belief that Suri has been declared an SP and that Tom can’t [won't] see her anymore. Very sad. I hope eventually Katie finds a nice guy who loves Suri like his own.

  19. lower-case deb says:

    Tom Cruise! Please don’t make me defend the tabs instead!

    btw, this whole #TomKatIsNotUnbroken debacle is three-months old? how time flies!

  20. Julie says:

    This only reinforces my belief that everything in the Vanity Fair article was true. He never did sue, only threatened. And Katie still has him by the balls. If he has visitation rights it must be by her permission only. What does she have on him?

  21. TG says:

    I love that comment by Ole Berty “They take money from unsuspecting Americans. . .”. Sounds a lot like what the co$ does. Maybe he shouldn’t have worded it that way. What he is trying to get at is Germany hates the Co$ and threw their rear ends out of the country. Go Germany!

  22. Zorbitor says:

    If we hate him so much why aren’t we happy that he doesn’t see her?

  23. Green is Good says:

    Tommy-Girl is ruining Xenu’s reputation! Sue his ass Xenu!

  24. wilkie.collins says:

    I haven’t read the comments yets so I hope this hasn’t already been pointed out but why does he only love his daughter Suri he has other children this is not the first time the lawyer has made a statement that basically excludes the other children. Those poor other children. This just makes me mad and I already don’t like him. grrrrr!

    • Miss T says:

      I can’t stand him these days, and I don’t buy his excuses for not seeing Suri. But to be fair, his older kids have visited him in London. He mentioned Suri, because the tabs are accusing him of abandoning her. The media is not accusing him of abandoning Bella and Connor, so there was no point in mentioning them here.

      • wilkie.collins says:

        I understand your point but this is not the first time the lawyer has made the statement Tom is a good father and then only mentions Suri, I feel bad for the other children. I almost commented on the last story when the lawyer did it I couldn’t hold back this time. If your going to make a statement that Tom is a good father it should be worded to include all his children

      • CC says:

        I always had this thought that the other 2 kids are less important to Tom because they’re adopted. That he just has to win at everything and took them from Nicole. But then he gets a “better” (in his eyes), and since she’s the one the press cares about, it’s the image with her he has to defend.

    • Fatkid says:

      All three are adopted, not literally I just mean that none are his biological product. I mean obviously Katie was pregnant, but what if Tom and Nicole adopted because of Tom’s fertility issues? You know he would never admit to that and the blow to his rep the he perceives that would cause. Nicole was able to get pregnant in her new marriage (even at AMA). I don’t think it’s far fetched that Katie was artificially inseminated. She my have even thought it was Tom’s at the time (as someone unthread theorized) and uses knowledge that he was not the biological donor as leverage.

      That shouldn’t mean that they are treated differently, biological or not your child is your child. Love and attention should not be contingent on genetics. (need to add that lest anyone think I am defending his lack of involvement)

  25. marc says:

    What’s more is that not oly is the German government critical of Scientology, the COS has a big presence in Hamburg, and some of their most outspoken opponents are in Hamburg.
    Ursula Caberta for example.

  26. skuddles says:

    If I were Katie I’d be DELIGHTED by the fact he never sees his daughter anymore. I know it’s usually in the best interest of the child to see both parents but not in this case – the further away Tommy and his creepy cult stay, the better. I’d love to see Katie meet and marry a really decent guy who can be a proper father figure to Suri. Cruise is a write off.

  27. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    “Abandon” can mean to leave or give up control of. People commonly use it even though the time of “abandonment” isn’t forever (for example, someone “abandoned” their date at a party). I don’t think he will win the suit.

    However, courts like to pressure parties to settle. I think what will happen is the parties will “settle” for a nominal amount (like $100) and Tom will claim he “won” the suit.

    Of course, it doesn’t matter because the public already know the truth about weirdo Tom and his devotion to Co$, and his lack of good parenting skills

    • Janet says:

      Legally, abandonment means to leave a spouse or a child for x amount of time without any contact or any attempt to contact. Under NY State law, it’s six months minimum. But contact under the law doesn’t mean only face-to-face contact; it also includes phone calls, letters, birthday cards, e-mails, etc.

      As much as I can’t stand Cruise, he’s got a good case for libel if he wants to pursue it.

      • Mrs.krabapple says:

        He does not have a strong case at all. How can he ever show that the tab intended to use the word in the “family court law in New York” sense, and not some other sense? He has the burden of proof, and he can’t show that the tab DIDN’T mean it in a casual, non-family court law sense.

  28. Lem says:

    I would love to see TMZ (ugh) do a days he’s seen Suri vs. Days he has not chart. After Suri’s *cough* first 3 months, of course.
    Katie, Tommy & Suri have each been photographed nearly every day of the child’s life. I’m sure you can make a very definitive, photographically accurate case for her entire life. I would be very interested in that data!

    I honestly don’t believe he is seeing her any less post divorce, than he ever did whilst married.

  29. kelley says:

    Janet ^^^ above says she hates tabloids more than she hates Tom Cruise…while leaving a comment on a tabloid-like website. Ironic much?

  30. blonde on the dock says:

    The little girl obviously is attached to her father. Regardless of what the real story is this child doesn’t deserve to have her father trashed in the tabloids. Does anyone know for sure she hasnt seen her father in 13 weeks?

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Doesn’t deserve to have her father trashed in the tabloids?????? If the tabloids are only reporting what Tom is or isn’t doing, then whatever harm you think Suri is suffering is all caused by Tom’s own actions or inactions. If Suri doesn’t deserve that, then maybe Tom really is a bad father? Because he seems to be the root of the underlying problem (not seeing her for 13 weeks), NOT the people who simply reported that he didn’t see her for 13 weeks.

      Tom shouldn’t try to use a little girl as a shield (“you can’t criticize me or it will upset Suri”).

    • Tapioca says:

      Her father is second in command of a glorified pyramid scheme that makes millions of dollars a year for the guys at the top by brainwashing vulnerable people into spending thousands on science fiction, splits families, denies the mentally ill psychiatric treatment, forces it’s lowest-level followers into slave labour, videotapes confessionals in order to blackmail adherents into staying in the cult and illegally spies on its critics.

      At this point the tabloids are being effin’ LENIENT in their reporting on Tom Cruise.

  31. jwoolman says:

    Nowadays it’s easy to set up video calls via computer from just about anywhere he’s likely to be. If he’s been doing that, she would hardly feel abandoned. The technology is great for non-custodial parents. But in the olden days, phone calls also worked. I also can see why having him fly in for the first day of school would have been counterproductive for a lot of reasons. Don’t know if it’s really worth a lawsuit, though. Those mags are always exaggerating and making up stories out of whole cloth.

  32. mugsy says:

    Wait a minute isn’t this the same man who used this child and her mother to become relevant again? Now he’s complaining because people have called him out as a liar… this is too funny

  33. RobN says:

    He’s going to wish he hadn’t done this. Lawsuits come with a little thing called depositions where people get to ask you all sorts of uncomfortable questions about things like suppressive people and whether Katie and Suri are s.p., you are legally required to answer, and it’ll all get leaked. Not going to look good.

  34. Amy C says:

    LOL all his peeps are here commenting it seems but setting up vedio cameras, talking in the phone is Not the same as visting your kid physically.Wouldn’t he be running back to US if he has a PR thing he has to attened or hash ? but can not able to visit his kid for a couple of days? We saw him going out clubs in pictures for PR or whatever time.But he doesn’t have time to come and see his kid couple days? That is what the private jets should be for. He didn’t see her physcially for 3 months. That is the TRUTH. no?

    My take is …He wants to look good dad when he does promotion. We soon will see him all over her with set up phots etc. (that would have been fine if he were seen or known to be around her Phycially in other times ). JOB is number one thing for him. Him kind of people shouldn’t start a family or start to have kids to begin with. I didn’t read the magazine but unless they didn’t say something else too, I don’t see what is the false report with that personally.

  35. Moreaces says:

    I really don’t care who sues these rags over the many lies they make up about people..

  36. peabody says:

    ….so we’re just gonna ignore the fact that tom tom has abandoned his other two children yeeeears ago… forgot about them, havent you??

  37. lisa2 says:

    I think he should sue. I can’t stand the rags. Mainly because of how out of control they are. Yes gossip is fun but some of the stories on those covers are just sick. Suri is out and about more, going in stores. She can read and she understands. She is 7 and I’m sure she could be aware of this or she will be one day. Imagine her reading that crap.

    My biggest TOM YOU ARE A DOUCHE is I recall when he was promoting his movies he would be on a plane going from country to country. And the fact that he has not been in the same place as his daughter.. to hold her and just be with her is inexcusable. Nothing to say about that. Tom is very wealthy and has a lot of Hollywood Power. He can get time off.. Totally off topic but not, Ridley Scott shut down his movie for 2 weeks to be with his family after his brother’s death. No no died.. but that child’s life was turned upside down. Tom could have given her a few days or weeks. I think being your daughter deserves that.

  38. Vesper says:

    The papers filed by Tom’s attorney, stated, “Whenever his work has taken him on location away from Suri, he speaks with her every day”.

    When is he not on location? Doesn’t he typically film back to back?

    I believe Tom feels he has done nothing wrong because this is the way it has always been for Suri. He spends a couple of days with her, and then goes off to work for five months.

    It is likely that this is one of the reasons why he wanted Suri home-schooled, so that she could visit him. Didn’t he mention as much in an interview?

  39. Suzie says:

    TC has enough cash, and 13 weeks is a l-o-n-g time for a child. OK he didn’t abandon Suri as such, but he was pretty insensitive. To her it probably felt a bit like abandonment by daddy. But he spoke to her on the phone constantly didn’t he?

  40. Smurfette says:

    For God’s sake he’s not her real father so that is why he doesn’t make the time (with his private jet he could) to see her. Katie probably likes him out of her life anyway. I would not want him and his Scibot crazy a** around my kid. Seriously, if he was her real father he would make the time to see her. The fact that he doesn’t speaks volumes to me.

  41. Bubbaang says:

    As a parent, I could NOT go 13 weeks WITHOUT seeing my child.