Brooke Mueller was ‘extremely combative’ with Denise Richards in DCFS meeting

wenn4069341Denise Richards and Brooke Mueller with their kids in September, 2012

This story is based on two competing reports about what went down in a meeting between Brooke Mueller and Denise Richards at the CA Department of Child and Family Services. Denise has been caring for Brooke’s four year-old twins with their mutual ex, Charlie Sheen, since May. In a recent letter to DCFS, Denise said she could no longer care for the boys due to their random violent behavior, which puts her daughters and pets at risk. We’ve heard that “former” meth addict Brooke Mueller is due to regain full custody of the boys, because DCFS is “impressed” with Brooke’s improvement after a whole seven months of sobriety, counting the time she spent in her 21st and 22nd rehab. (She switched rehabs, it was her 21st rehab stint overall.)

So Brooke and Denise met yesterday to have an emergency meeting at DCFS called by top agency officials. The objective was to agree on a plan to transition the boys into staying with their mother full time. God help them. Charlie Sheen is not stepping up at all, which is probably a good thing. According to TMZ, the boys currently get three days and two overnights with their biological mother a week. Brooke is angling for full custody, and the $55,000 a month check that goes along with that. Max and Bob will gradually stay with their mother full time, but it will be a whole three weeks before that happens. Denise has to agree to let them stay with her in the meantime, and judging from her letter that will be no easy task. The little guys have regressed quite a bit since they’ve been seeing their biological mother.

TMZ presents the meeting like it was tense but productive. Radar Online claims that Brooke lashed out at Denise in a way that was obvious, inappropriate, and shows that there are cracks in the facade she’s trying to present – as if her entire life up to this point wasn’t a huge red flag. Here’s Radar Online’s report and you can read TMZ’s claims on their site.

“Denise told the head honchos of of DCFS she just wanted a smooth transition of the twins back to their mother, Brooke Mueller. Officials were extremely impressed with Denise and her genuine concern and love for the boys.

“However, Brooke was extremely combative and lashed out at Denise. It came out of nowhere and was extremely inappropriate. It was probably the first time DCFS saw cracks in Brooke’s previously cool demeanor. Brooke was having a temper tantrum because she felt Denise was making her look like a bad mother. Nothing was accomplished at the meeting, except for Denise maintaing that it was time for the boys to leave her house, but she wants it done with the help of the department so all of the kids have closure,” a source told exclusively.

The Los Angeles County of Department of Children & Family Services called an emergency meeting between Mueller and Richards to determine if a peace deal can be struck regarding custody of the 4-year-old boys.

“The meeting has been called in hopes of convincing Denise to keep the boys for at least another three weeks until Brooke is scheduled to get them back,” a source previously told Radar.

[From Radar Online]

Assuming Brooke was wildly inappropriate like this, it’s doubtful that Brooke’s behavior will change the custody plan one bit. She’s on track to getting her boys back and DCFS seems hell bent on making that happen. One of the reasons the meeting was called was because DCFS officials doubted Denise’s sincerity in her letter describing the very serious ways the boys were acting out. Of course they did. And of course they think that Brooke will be a fabulous mother.

So this begs the question: who is TMZ’s source and who is Radar’s source? Radar is the first outlet that had the full contents of the letter that Denise sent to DCFS. TMZ had extensive interviews with Charlie Sheen, which led to Charlie being slapped with a gag order by the custody judge. So I believe Radar, assuming that their source is either the much more sober Denise Richards or a DCFS insider. Plus, just going on Brooke’s past behavior, is she going to try and play nice with the woman who has selflessly cared for her kids while she tried to quit drugs for the umpteenth time?

There was a report earlier this week that Brooke filed papers with the child dependency court claiming that Denise was trying to “bribe” the boys with “toys and candy” and that she was trying to turn them against her. Brooke believed that Denise was telling the boys to misbehave and act out. Brooke only cares about herself and how things affect her. She’s blocked attempts by Denise to get the boys the professional help they so desperately need. That might interfere with her gaining back custody and Charlie’s monthly checks.



All photos are from September, 2012. Credit:

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

153 Responses to “Brooke Mueller was ‘extremely combative’ with Denise Richards in DCFS meeting”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. mk says:

    Yeah, if she had truly changed, she would be thanking Denise for her help, not pointing fingers at her in a tantrum. I really believe the boys’ behaviour is behaviour they see their mother exhibit.

    • Dinah says:

      Agree fully. Moreover, if the boys are lashing out physically, they are demonstrating what they are seeing/experiencing. That type of response does not occur without reason.

      Those poor babies. Genetically predisposed to instability/addiction, and now the environment they are being thrust into virtually guarantees a strife- filled life. So sad.

    • Liv says:

      Look at the pictures, Brooke seems really crazy, so creepy.

      Denise cared for the boys without any hidden agenda or benefit and all Brooke does is blame her for turning them against her? It’s only Brooke who is to blame for this mess. And of course Charlie Sheen who was stupid enough to make her a mother.

    • KC says:

      I am no Brooke apologist but I can see DCFS perspective here. First, Charlie and Denise insist on broadcasting this horrible situation with the constant leaks. I havent seen any leak that doesnt appear to have come from their camp.

      Second, if her contention is that they are trying to erase her from the kids lives then it makes sense that she would refuse any doctors connected to Denise or Sheen. It would also under those circumstances make sense that she is angry at Denise. Also, the allegations over the boys behavior are being treated as fact when really they are being made by one party in a dispute. We dont know if there are behavior issues. We dont know if they are caused by Brooke.

      Finally, I never understand the choice to use drugs recreationally. However, I do know that addiction is real disease. A woman who is ill may want to quit during her pregnancy but struggle. It doesnt make her evil. Just very ill. She shouldnt have that thrown at her for the rest of her life.

      I would like to see her sober for a longer time frame before she gets the kids living with her. I would also like a thorough investigation on accusations from both camps. But before then I wish we would all exercise caution. Remember how black and white the Denise and Charlie divorce seemed? And how we now know that we had the wrong villain?

      • Red32 says:

        According to the letter, the boys have been hitting teachers and students at their school and the administration is concerned, too. I doubt Denise would lie about something that is so easy to factcheck. All CPS has to do is talk to the school. So others are noticing the boys’ behavior.

      • Bridget says:

        There actually have been plenty of leaks about Brooke… They’re just not about anything to do with her being with her children. She’s a mess, and any licensed, competent mental health profesional won’t ‘turn children againsther children’ because Brooke has done an excellent job herself. This jumping up and blaming Denise like this, instead of taking responsibility for the fact that Brooke’s children aren’t with her as a result of her own actions, doesn’t bode well for her parenting and sobriety.

      • KC says:

        The fact that Denise is claiming third party confirmation but the Department is reportedly siding with Brook could mean many things. Perhaps the school dont think the behavior is part of a change. Perhaps D was being hyperbolic and the school isnt especially concerned. Or maybe D is spot on and the department arent exercising dilligence. We just dont know and afew leaked stories from one side are by no means conclusive.

      • Kiddo says:

        I completely agree. What is testimony is not direct evidence until it is investigated and proven. I wouldn’t doubt that there are behavior issues, but the extent and the precise cause has not been determined. I think that an independent therapist, not chosen by either party, should be installed. They may determine that permanent placement with Brooke can not be achieved. But they can’t make the decision based on rantings by Charlie Sheen and statements made by someone who may be acting as an advocate for him without delving further.

        They obviously don’t want to hand the children directly over to Brooke, at this point, if they are asking Denise to be a guardian for additional time. They may want the lag time to sort things out, investigate the children’s mental state, and proceed from there.

      • MollyB says:

        According to the letter, the doctor the boys see is the one that Brooke chose and the psychiatrist Denise wanted to take the boys to was the one that their (Brooke’s) pediatrician recommended. Denise makes a point of saying that she did not choose any of the medical professionals herself.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        Yes, but as anyone who has worked with the system in a custody issue can attest to, despite what a POS the mother is, the system seems always hell bent on placing them back with the mother, despite the facts. Facts be dammed, just put the child back with their mother. We are in a situation with our grandson, where every time he has visitation with his mother, his behavior noticeably disintegrates, so I can believe this is the case here.

      • Skeptical At Best says:

        But she never provided an alternative for psychological evaluation/treatment. An evaluation which was ordered/requested by DCFS. In this case, credibility is an issue and Brooke has none whatsoever.

        If I was so effed up on drugs and in life that my kids were taken from me, I would do everything in my power to see they don’t go thru that again. To me that would be more important than getting the kids back so I can feel better.

      • Hakura says:

        @Skeptical At Best – I think the only ‘feel better‘ Brooke is after is that 55k a month child support check. =\

      • Kerrboom says:

        @Zwella: I get what you’re saying, but the courts don’t always push towards the mother having her child(ren). My parents went at it for custody over me back in the late 80′s and early 90′s and the courts were advocating for my father to have custody. When you take into account the time this happened, this was/is extremely rare, but it does happen. My father was a 100% more stable parent than my mother at the time and in the end he got full physical custody of me. He allowed my mother to have visitation every other weekend and every holiday except Christmas and Easter.

        I feel so, so bad for the boys in this case and my heart just breaks for them, Denise, and Denise’s daughters. As far as I’m concerned, Brooke is a POS. She should be down on her hands and knees kissing Denise’s feet and thanking her for caring for her sons this whole time because if Denise hadn’t stepped up, those boys most likely would’ve gone into foster care. Brooke has to be one of the most selfish, self centered, ungrateful turds I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing and reading about.

      • Stormsmama says:

        SHE’S a meth addict and a SH@T mom.

        This is AWFUL.

        THERE IS NO EXCUSE!!!! These boys absolutely should NOT be near their bio mom unsupervised until she’s been sober AT LEAST a year. WTF??????

        This WILL NOT END WELL :-(

      • Debbie says:

        I am loath to be sympathetic toward a DCFS (LA) which has let 68 kids die and God knows how many more suffer in the last few years due to their pathetically lax handling of cases.

    • Jane says:

      Hopefully, this mess may be on the way to being worked out. TMZ is reporting Brooke’s brother is going to get custody of the boys. He is said to have a good reputation, that of a family man. He also lives hours away from Brooke and Charlie, so it won’t be convenient for visitation, which is probably a good thing. Where he has been until now, I don’t know. Maybe the present arrangement was made because Denise was willing and she lives right there where Charlie could see boys on a regular basis.

      • jwoolman says:

        The brother was promoted by Brooke before when the twins were placed with Denise. At the time, it was widely thought this was a way to funnel the child support money to Brooke. Hope that’s not true if he’s being seriously considered. But he doesn’t seem to have an ongoing relationship with the twins so it will be like an entirely new foster home to the boys. Heaven help anybody who takes them at this point, though. I do not believe Denise was exaggerating or influenced by Charlie. She’s been keeping him on the straight and narrow in front of the kids, making it possible for him to be a father within his limitations. She has been his monitor, supervising his visits. He depends on her, not the other way around.

      • cyndi says:

        Andddd…he’s moving in with her. Today. So essentially, BM has custody again. They didn’t want the boys going to a different school.
        Anyone think *THIS* was planned? :/

    • Hakura says:

      @giddy – So basically, what you’re saying is that you hope the woman *kills herself* to benefit her sons? I’m sorry, I know she is the definition of an unfit parent & a horrible, dangerous influence on her children, but *that* is disgusting.

      I have my doubts, but if she *has* been sober thus far, you’re wishing a relapse on an addict, as well. I know she shouldn’t be part of their lives until they’re mature, emotionally stable adults (who can then make their own decision regarding their relationship), but hoping she *dies* is not the way to go about it. That’s just horrible. =(

    • yolo112 says:

      Since I’m a Cali resident, I can totally agree with the morons in charge of kids well being statement. And TBH, I can even support your other opinion too. It’s SO sad to say, but really…thes kids don’t stand a chance as long as whatsherface is in their lives. They are still young enough that with A LOT of work, they might have a sliver of a chance at being ‘normal’ and the only way Brooke will ever leave these kids alone is…an unfortunate outcome. Brooke doesn’t give a damn about them, just the $$$$… I see this ending very badly… I feel bad for all parties involved…except Brooke…she can burn in hell for what she’s doing to these kids…and Denise for that matter…

    • TG says:

      Can just anyone apply to Charlie for $55K a month? Because if so, which court is it again? Got to go file the paperwork.

    • Mc says:

      Lets not forget Charlie’s bad behavior too. The way the kids were acting out felt like the way Charlie use to strangle Brooke and throw a lamp at her, didn’t he put her in the closet too?

  2. marina says:

    Brook is a hot mess. I was never much of a fan of Denise but for her to take care of her ex’s kids as she has says a lot about her character. Charlie is such a loser. Why does Hollywood keep giving him jobs? Emelio must be so bitter.

  3. Eleonor says:

    If someone will give those poor children back to Brooke that person should be checked for drugs. I can’t believe those children can’t get the professional help they need because some crackhead say NO. Their mother is ruining their lives, but even social services are helping her.

    • T.C. says:


      What sober adult would give those boys back to their drug addicted abusive egg donor when they have a loving home instead to go to. Now the department is asking Brooke to keep the boys for 3 more weeks with their heads up their butts. Those poor boys are going to be so messed up.

      • Evelyn says:

        TC spot on calling her an egg donor. She’s not a mother, a mother cares for and loves her children because they’re her children, not so she’ll get a fat check every month. I really do hope CPS will see how detrimental it is for the boys to live with her, because once they’re there full time all they’ll have is each other

      • the original bellaluna says:

        The only reason she even had the boys is because of a rider she had put in the pre-nup that she get AT LEAST as much as Denise or more in the event of their inevitable divorce.

        THAT’S an egg-donor if ever the definition had a face.

  4. MeowuiRose says:

    Brooke is disgusting. I know I’m being harsh but anyone who drinks and drugs during pregnancy has no sympathy from me. Her boys were damaged from the start and will need so much help… she is unwilling to get them. This woman can’t even take responsibility for herself let alone young children. I get so mad at social services. They have an outdated approach. A lot of the time the best thing to do is to remove and keep the child away from the toxic family members.

  5. Maria T. says:

    This just breaks my heart. I have 3 boys – an 8 year old stepson, and 2 and 1 year old biological sons. The amount of work it takes for us to negotiate transitioning my stepson (who has ADHD and major behavioral problems) back and forth is immense. And we all get along. His mom, dad and I compare notes every week and attend all meetings together with teachers, doctors, counselors, etc. And it’s STILL hard and he still struggles. No matter where he is he misses someone. We all sacrifice and put his needs (and the needs of our other sons) first, even though the divorce was acrimonious and there are still hurt feelings. Those poor, poor boys and their poor sisters. I am holding out some hope that Denise’s letter was a strategic way to get Brooke out of the picture, because I don’t know who else they’ve got.

  6. QQ says:

    Lemme guess DCF wont even test this asshole before handing her those little paychecks for drug mon..err kids?! Yes?

    • yolo112 says:

      …we are talking about the California system… it’s a hawt gawddamn mess… I cannot tell you how many stories I read (because I live here) about children dying at the hands of abusive parents that have been under the “watchful eye”, sometimes for YEARS, of the DCF. It’s heartbreaking.

      • sam says:

        Give me a break, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the state of CA, ANY state would try to bend over backwards to keep children with their natural mother.

      • yolo112 says:

        lol.. ok. lol.. Sam, way to be a super bitch about this..but I actually DO know what the hell I’m talking about. I KNOW any state will bend over backwards and side with the mother…that’s not what I said OR implied. I made an intelligent and truthful statement about how kids die at the hands of their abusive parents while being monitored by people like CPS or DCF.

  7. TG says:

    Has this woman ever taken a photo looking normal? Every pic is of her making the strangest faces and gestures and many of them with a see-thru top showing her gross nipples. She doesn’t even know how to hold her children. She is ugly also.

  8. serena says:

    Brooke Mueller is such a dumbass. She makes me f_king angry, I just want to slap her endlessly.

  9. MrsB says:

    Why even have an agency like DCFS if this is how they conduct business? They are failing these little boys big time, and it makes me ill to watch it happen.

  10. brin says:

    Why is DCSF “hell bent” on giving the boys back to Brooke? This whole situation is crazy!

    • LakeMom says:

      I don’t get this either…especially given the media attention this case has gotten.

    • A~ says:

      The system is set up to favor biological parental rights. That’s just how it is. If the parents show efforts to improve, they are supposed to get the kids back.

      Which, in this case, is a tragedy.

    • Ok says:

      Because ultimately when you have children, they are YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE.

      They are not the responsibility of your husband’s ex-wife. Not the responsibility of your parents. Not the responsibility of a bunch of blog readers on the Internet.

      Ultimately DCFS is only a government agency. They are not meant to police. If the pendulum swung the other way and kids were removed from homes with minor infractions or invented situations, then what?

      She had the children, and short of killing one of them (which might actually happen I am fearful about) she really does hold all the trump cards because she is the parent (and moreover, she is the mom)

      • Diana says:

        Unfortunately, this is true. They are a government agency, and out-of-the-box, critical thinking is not a strong suit there. Everything at Social and Family Services is almost always by rigid mandate, policy and rote — a bureaucratic, red-tap mess, usually. And they have SO MANY cases that move through the system every day, month and year. A lot of why it is so rigid is a very nuanced and complex issue, some of which is that this system is mostly peopled by burned-out, front-line workers who get zilch for pay and are discouraged (sometimes even punished) for working overtime. The upper administration are basically like everywhere else — often totally out of touch and clueless about reality.

        A lot of kids are failed by this system. Horribly. Which seems to be what is happening here.

    • jenirow says:

      Because she uses the money she blackmailed Charlie into paying her to hire a team of attorneys to intimidate CPS and because of their abysmal record of failing to protect the best interests of children in their care they are scared to death of them. A mother from Compton or Inglewood would have had her children taken away a very long time ago and if she continued to relapse as repeatedly as Brooke has, her parental rights would have been terminated by now with her kids given up for adoption. It is a pretty screwed up fact that the famewhore clown medical director “Dr,” Charles Sophy is a neighbor of all the parties who all reside in multimillion dollar mansions in exclusive Mulholland Estates (all purchased by Charlie incidentally) and his compulsion to kiss celebrities ass is not exactly a secret, either…you may have seen him on RHOBH accompanying Taylor to some party. Bottom line, NO ONE gives a damn about those kids which is beyond sad.

  11. bammer says:

    So Brooke is not even denying the children are acting out. She just blames Denise for “telling” them to misbehave. Jesus. Something very very bad is going to happen and when it does, everyone needs to lose their jobs. Biological reunification is so archaic. It’s too bad that celebrities like Berry & Garner didn’t try to use their star power for changing these kinds of laws.

  12. LetsBeCivil says:

    This is SO sad. Brooke is only receiving $25,000 a month. Once she has the boys full time she immediately gets $55,000 again.
    That’s all she cares about. DCFS is Not protecting these children.

  13. Tig says:

    In a way I see Denise’s point- if things are so great with Mom, go ahead and send the boys back to her. Clearly, the agency is hesitant to do that, hence the “transition”. Meanwhile, the boys come back to Denise and act out. I believe every word in her letter, bec I’ve witnessed the same scenario, and that usually is how it plays out. As cruel as it sounds, Denise needs to get out of this mess.

    • Applapoom says:

      I agree, it is so harsh, but her daughters need a safe environment to grow up in. They have tried their best and it just sounds too dangerous. The only way it would be safe is if Brooke has zero contact with the boys and allow the boys to develop normally, but not this shared arrangement.

      I hope that Brooke’s mom will be a stabilising influence (I read that she has moved in with her).

      It is so bloody sad. Charlie Sheen needs to be neutered so he does not have more kids because he is an unfit parent. Yes he is rich now but money can run out quickly with huge spending. Even super athletes with hundreds of millions have gone bankrupt, most notably Mike Tyson who is just as nuts as Charlie.

      • KWM says:

        Brooke’s mom is just a mess. This is a women who had a party the day her daughter got out of rehab, she planned the party before the rehab stint with Brooke as the guest celebrity bartender. So like any good mother, she had her daughter come from leaving rehab to work as a bartender for her party.

        Yeah not much hope for her to be a stabilizing presence…..

    • bluhare says:

      I agree. Denise has three children of her own; one of whom is only 2 and could seriously be affected by all this.

  14. eliza says:

    All that crack head mess sees is $$$$$$$$ from those two boys. Once she gets those boys back, the child support reinstated and gets lost in the drug court shuffle of infrequent drug testing, she will be back to her addict ways. Buying dope on city streets, doing craft projects at 3a.m and neglecting the children. It is going to take some awful tragedy to have someone, anyone in California wake up and see this catastrophy in the making for what it really is.

    Sheen at least has the awareness he is NOT good for those boys either. I am not sure what the solution is for this situation but there has to be one better than Brooke Mueller becoming a full time parent again. These agencies claiming they are ONLY concerned with the welfare of the children are useless. They ignore time bombs like Mueller because of money and race and go after real women who are genuinely trying to get their children back and are doing well. The hoops they make some go through and not everyone go through are ridiculous. They ignore truly tragic cases and concentrate their efforts on numbers. Truly sad for the children in peril in this country.

  15. Vee says:

    This whole situation is desperately sad. There are no winners.

  16. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    I wonder why the other family members – grandparents, Charlie’s siblings or adult daughter are not in the picture? Denises and Bob Geldofs of the world are extremely rare and usually in the situation when both parents can’t take care of their children or are dead, the other family members step up if they are present and capable. Martin Sheen is in his 70′s but Emilio Estevez and Charlie’s other brothers and sister seem to be capable and certainly have financial means to take care of those poor boys. If there would be someone blood-related and sane to help, the officials wouldn’t have to think about giving the babies full-time to this psycho.

    • GiGi says:

      It doesn’t matter who else wants them, the point of the entire system is to have them reunited with Brooke. Charlie is not a custodial parent, so Brooke is it – simply because she birthed them. There could be a thousand more satisfactory parents lined up waiting for these boys (and maybe there are), but the court will give them back to Brooke. It will have to become much worse than it already is for her to have her parental rights terminated.

    • Renee says:

      @Norman Bate’s Mother:

      I was wondering the same thing yesterday. Where were Charlie Sheen’s parents, and/or his siblings for that matter, and never mind Brooke Mueller’s family? Why would Denise Richards, who is not a relative, be allowed to care for the boys but there actual family members have not stepped up?? I don’t understand this or why they seem to be determined to reunite the boys with their mother who doesn’t seem to have it together (understatement of the year). The cynic in me thinks she just wants the kids so that her support payments will increase to $55 000/mth – DUH!! says everyone else. I have never made that much in my life per YEAR never mind per MONTH and I have held three jobs at one time on more than one occasion. Also, I think that all of us who are bothered by this should write to DCFS or start a petition, not that I think that DCFS will listen but you never know…

      • the original bellaluna says:

        Brooke’s mother (whole family?) is enabling her and Charlie’s parents are in their Golden Years.

        Sometimes, and this hurts to say, a family has to let go of an addict and let them find their own way, because the addict will lie, steal, and milk you dry emotionally and financially. Thankfully, a year-long stint in rehab (with parents footing the bill) following her arrest helped my sister recover. She still doesn’t have custody of my three nephews, and it’s been several years since her arrest.

      • Nina W says:

        Parents have rights to their children, grand-parents or aunts and uncles do not. Our government is not in the job of placing children in ideal situations and our laws are written to protect the rights of parents, not the rights of grandparents or other family members. No matter how many family members line up to take these boys the law favors their parents.

    • bluhare says:

      I’m a cold, heartless bitch, but if what Denise says is true, would anyone really want to take this on? I wouldn’t risk anyone (or animal) in my house getting attacked by two out of control children.

      • another nina says:

        No, you are just being objective. What Denise wants is to have kids evaluated, which would most likely reveal organic damage to nervous system and possibly brain. She has clearly expressed that she is scared of dealing with unmedicated kids, which clearly express sociopath behavior. Brooke suspects damage as well but she does not want them to be medicated – for whatever reasons. In this situation, I think being un-medicated is probably better for them because they would skip meds while in Brook’s house and take them while in Denise’s house and this would make even more damage. Bottom line, Denise is not suited in dealing with adoption of two boys with organic damage to their nervous system, it’s a huge burden, and I can’t blame her.

  17. AMA1977 says:

    This breaks my heart, as a mother of two who thinks every child deserves a stable, loving home. I’m sure Denise must be heartbroken too, and I give her nothing but praise for trying to help Max and Bob. I hope that somehow the boys get the professional help they need to overcome the sad start they have been given.

    I also wanted to note that this very public case is illustrative of a reality that thousands of children live every day. The DCFS system is far from perfect, and children are often subject to terrible living conditions under the pretext of “family unification.” I think the system needs to be weighted in favor of the right of children to have a stable, safe, loving home, not (as is currently the case) in favor of adults who continue to make poor choices and put their selfish desires ahead of their children’s safety and security. Brooke should have lost rights to those boys years ago, not been given chance after chance to mess up their lives. It’s a travesty, and their are thousands of other kids living in similarly horrible conditions all over the country…we just don’t read about them on TMZ.

    • GiGi says:


      250,000 kids enter the foster system EACH YEAR. And only 25% will ever become available for adoption. Which means the others are either reunified with their bio parents or live in foster care indefinitely. Almost 30,000 kids age out each year. We have all these kids, many of whom have bounced from foster placement to foster placement, at 18 with a check for $1600 and no family, no support. It’s horrific. It is a mess, everyone knows it, but it’s so complicated there are no easy/quick fixes.

      I know that group homes and orphanages are passe these days, but I do think they provided a valuable service and should be looked at with fresh eyes. It may not be “family” in a traditional sense, but they could perhaps provide much more love, support and sense of belonging than many of these kids ever see. is a great resource for anyone considering foster, foster/adopt or adoption from the public system.

  18. qtpi says:

    Brooke has a very strange style sense. Countdown is on for her od. Matter of time.

  19. janie says:

    This is the biggest mess! I’m beginning to wonder if DCFS feels this is a win for them? I don’t understand why she’s getting the boys back? Is she a success story? Can anyone explain any of this? She was rehabed twice during the pregnancy?? At this point, not even family can step in? I read she refuses to let any of Charlies family near them. I pray the next time she’s busted that they won’t find these little boys hurt severely or dead. It’s just so sad.

  20. Audrey says:

    It’s so sad how much more those boys will go through before she loses custody again

  21. Murphy says:

    Just give Brooke the $$ without the kids and she’ll let Denise do whatever.

    • lucy2 says:

      As much as I hate the idea of her getting $, I think you might be right. I honestly think if Charlie handed her a big enough stack of cash, she’d give up her rights and let the boys be raised elsewhere. And as gross as that is, it would probably be better for the boys.

  22. Paloma says:

    This proves the DCFS is not interested in the children’s welfare. They want to expose Denise’s children to potential harm for the next 3 weeks? Then, when (not if) Brooke starts using again, will they ask Denise to step in?
    Also, if the 2 boys are set up for counseling, they should make sure they actually attend. I have major doubts Brooke would follow through.

  23. Kiddo says:

    I don’t know if I was moderated out for my opinion, or if my link was flagged, I’ll try again, but as to the meeting, I think the truth may lie somewhere in between both accounts by different media. It’s interesting that Sheen was invited, but didn’t show.

  24. Bodhi says:

    My admittedly negative prediction is that Brooke will eventually OD in front of those boys & Charlie will go beg Denise to care for them again.

    EVERYONE in this situation needs professional help STAT.

  25. Anon says:

    If Brooke was truly progressed in her recovery as addict, one would think she would be all for any and all counseling help for her boys. A parent interested in breaking cycles of abuse or addiction would lay their soul on the line for their kids’ sake, so the cycle of insanity is broken.

    Did Brooke lose her child support while the boys were in care of Denise? Hard to imagine that she is spending/saving that support instead of snorting or injecting via drugs into her body. IF, she did lose support….explains a lot why she would stay sober long enough to reclaim her kids, cause those drugs beckon more than the welfare of her kids. Sad. Google Innocents Betrayed: A Times Investigation

  26. nicegirl says:

    I wanted to note that although this is happening to several families, I do believe that Brooke’s wealth is assisting her greatly in this mess – meaning, if you are under any type of government investigation (my dad calls them “IMPERIAL ENTAGLEMENTS”) HIRE AN ATTORNEY.

    This is key.

    The Court appreciates when regular folks PAY AN ATTORNEY to speak for them. The Court takes it as a sign that the situation is being taken seriously, and the Court knows that a lawyer is translating Court speak into layman’s terms. It is a real tactic in gaining a successful outcome. Her money is greatly assisting her in this mess – if she did not have such top notch legal representation, it seems likely the reunification process would take (much?) longer. I think DCFS also is aware that Brooke has rights as a parent and I would imagine her attorney is reminding them every step of the way. So much is done (or not done, or prosecuted) based on behind the scenes negotiations, and when a parent in these situations HIRES AN ATTORNEY (especially, again, A GOOD ONE – from a highly reputed and moneyed firm) things go better for them.

    Even for poor people. SELL EVERYTHING. Get an attorney. Every single time, folks.

  27. mercy says:

    TMZ source is undoubtedly someone with DCFS. They have the best law enforcement and hospital contacts in L.A., so it would stand to reason that they’ve infiltrated DCFS as well.

    Nothing new to add to what has already been said about this case, but some random thoughts that crossed my mind while reading about it…

    Why haven’t Charlie and Brooke ever been charged with child endangerment and neglect for being under the influence around their kids?

    At what point does the DCFS not make it their goal to reunite kids with their abusive, addicted, grossly negligent parents? Where do they draw the line?

    How much is the director of DCFS paid that he can afford to live in Mullholland Estates? Why do administrators always make such big salaries compared to the people working the front lines? Wouldn’t the money be better spent on hiring more social workers?

    Where are all the right-to-lifers when it comes to helping out foster kids? Supposedly about 30 to 40 percent of the U.S. identifies themselves as “pro-life” who want to outlaw abortion. Why aren’t they as vocal and enthusiastic about helping the hundreds of thousands of kids entering the foster system every year?

    • Lucky Charm says:

      You bring up some very good points. And I wholeheartedly agree with you about the “Right to Life” folks. They don’t want to spend any money on funding for the children currently in foster care, etc. yet if they succeed in making abortion unobtainable then there will be even more kids put into the system.

      • the original bellaluna says:

        Both of you ladies bring up excellent points. FCS is SUPPOSED to be an impartial intermediary between parents, and make recommendations to the judge as to what is in the best interest of THE CHILDREN.

        CPS as a whole in many counties is looked at as basically useless. Too many children (foster and otherwise) have wound up tortured or dead at the hands of their “care-givers.”

        Pro-lifers only care about children until they’re born. Once the children are actually here, they’re f*cked, what with all the cuts to food stamps, before- and after-school child care programs, school meal programs, and the list goes on. And Heaven help the child if it’s a girl!

  28. Original Me says:

    Someone tell Brooke Mueller to close her mouth every now and again. It’s bizarre, her mouth is literally hanging open in 99% of pictures of her.

  29. Lucky Charm says:

    Clearly my math skills are lacking, but what seven months is she including in her “Seven Months Sober” claim? Didn’t she go into rehab in May? Is she including the entire month of November, even though we’re barely a week in now? She must be counting seven months TOTAL, not the last seven consecutive months. Which in no way, shape or form should two children with behavioral issues and clearly needing therapy be allowed ANY unsupervised visits with, much less given back into the custody of, a drug addict parent.

    And having two scheduled drug tests each month, how difficult is that to test clean when you know when they are?! They should be randomly testing her three or four times a month. And testing her for at least twelve months with only limited, supervised visitation, before they revisit the possibility of her getting custody again. And the courts should MANDATE therapy for those poor boys AND Brooke, so that she can’t refuse them getting help for any period of time.

    I hope that DCFS gets their act together and takes a long, hard look at what is really in the best interests of those two little boys; that should be their main concern, not Brooke. And that goes for not only Californian,but everywhere. I read yesterday that a little ten year old girls burned body was found – her parents starved her to death, then burned the body to cover it up. She had repeatedly voiced concern about living there, and had tried to run away. Her grandmother had contacted the police, but they didn’t do anything. She had been removed due to abuse and neglect, and returned repeatedly. Her grandmother wanted to get custody of her but the state refused, because they felt she would be better off with her “parents”. Well, now she’s dead and they’re in jail. How can that possibly be in any child’s best interest to be returned to a parent that has proven to be unfit? Or the Stephen Powell case in Washington State. Even with a court supervisor, HOW could DCFS feel that it was okay for him to see his two little boys in his home, when he was suspect #1 in the disappearance and death of their mother?! We all know how that case turned out. And on, and on, and on…sometimes biology does not make you the better parent, it just means that your DNA is out there for another generation.

  30. Sunny says:

    The DCFS knows all involved persons in real. Charlie, Brooke, Denise and the kids. We don´t know them we know only what gossip sites tell us.

  31. anon says:

    Something to think about for sources is Mike the big dude slicked hair has a lot of family working in law enforcment (lots). And fact. Between him and Harvey the lawyer they have a pretty good inside track on stuff most dont see for a day someone will be revealed im sure..

  32. shellybean says:

    Brooke is despicable. The best thing that could happen to those boys is for her to OD and die. Maybe then they’d be able to stay with Denise and she could parent them the way she wants and the way they need. I feel harsh for saying that, but Brooke has proven over and over again that she doesn’t give two shits about her children. Charlie is just as bad, except he at least knows he’s a shitty parent and has asked for help from Denise. Brooke can’t even be bothered to show Denise any respect or thanks. If she truly cared about her boys she would let them stay with Denise for a long time while she continues to stay sober (at least for a year), work with Denise to get her boys the help they need, and slowly work to build the trust back up. Instead she wants it all now, with no regard to the welfare of Bob and Max.

  33. Fan says:

    How many times had they come up with these kind of decisions and the kids ended up dead later on?

  34. the original bellaluna says:

    Things with DFCS must have changed DRASTICALLY in the past 20+ years, because when I had to go through that with my sociopath abuser, I was told, and I quote “We give the child to the most cooperative parent.” Talk about terrifying; no one’s more charming than a sociopath.

    Yes, it was in CA and no, it wasn’t LA.

  35. NorthernGirl_20 says:

    According to TMZ Brooke’s brother just got custody of the boys.

    • mia girl says:

      Yup. The twins will be in his custody tonight.

      From a 2011 Daily Beast article… hopefully he can be a good influence…
      “Despite their differences—Brooke has been struggling with sobriety, while Scott said he has never smoked a cigarette or been drunk—the two have a tight bond”

  36. Sara says:

    I would force whoever is making decisions at DFCS truly accountable. Suggest that they sign a document saying that they will willingly resign their position and give up all of their pension and retirement benefits from the county if Brooke goes back on drugs or those kids are hurt as a result of abuse, mistreatment or lack of attention while in her care within the next year. I don’t think anyone really believes she’s turned over a new leaf and if you really hold the DFCS people personally accountable, there is no way anyone at that agency would give those kids back to Brooke.

  37. Viv says:

    On another note, what’s with this woman and her silly headbands? Is this to hold together what’s left of her brain?

  38. Carolyn says:

    So…DFCS is putting the children back with a drug-affected mother who only wants them because of the substantial monthly support payments. Great. Not.

  39. Kim1 says:

    I know from experience it will be easier for her to get custody in the future if a family member as opposed to a foster family gets custody now.I wonder if her brother has kids?

  40. anne_000 says:–hell-HER-wants-55k-month-Charlie-Sheen.html

    Daily Mail is reporting that Brooke’s brother is getting custody, demanding $55k/mo from Charlie, moving in w/ kids into Brooke’s home that Charlie bought for her in his community. and that Brooke was getting half of $55k/mo because she was not primary caretaker.

  41. Lucky Charm says:

    Well, not only does Brooke’s brother have temporary guardianship of the twins, but apparently he is moving in with her and demanding the $55,000 child support from Charlie for the boys. So Brooke will not only have the boys living with her (even though she technically doesn’t have custody) but will now also have access to $80,000 per month to blow/snort/sniff!!!

    Apparently the judge felt it was important for the boys to remain in the same school, because Scott convinced the judge agree to let him move from his “far away” beach house and into Brooke’s house. Like there isn’t a house near the school that’s available? It’s perfectly ok to uproot them from their home and stability, but would be detrimental to leave their pre-school where they’ve terrorized classmates??? What a complete custerfluck this is going to be…

  42. Obvious says:

    I sincerely hope Kaiser and the ladies will pick this up tomorrow. I’m happy for Denise that she will be able to raise her girls without the little guys terrorizing their sisters and pets, but horrified that the kids are moving in with Brooke. Unless there is a wing of the house COMPLETELY BROOKE FREE (as if) that they get to live in and only see their mother during her scheduled times-nope. not even then.

    I hope Brooke’s brother is a better person than Brooke is, but seriously…this is a disaster waiting to happen. Good going DFCS. You know, Brooke’s welfare above that of innocent children. really. good job.

    • Kiddo says:

      I tried posting this yesterday. I’m not sure how it is abuse of commenting rules, but maybe it’s an opinion that is not welcomed. I guess I’ll find out. I didn’t say I was advocating for the court’s decision, I was trying to understand the logic:

      The only way I see that this decision makes sense is that with the brother in her home, who is purportedly a sober person, there are now *no unsupervised visits* of the children with their mother.
      The brother being in the house will be able to gauge if she is falling off the wagon, as well. I guess if the trajectory is to have them back with their mother in a few weeks anyway, why not have them get settled into the home? I imagine the court wants continuity and input from the school for any drastic changes in the children’s behavior going forward.

      Charlie was ordered to $ 55K in the past. It’s not as if the brother is asking for more than the original judgement. If Charlie wants to raise good *ferrets and save money, he should take care of his own instead of treating the entire world as paid servants.

      * this was in reference to what Sheen said, ” This pig circus overflowing with buffoons, sycophants and heretics cannot be trusted to safely raise a colony of ferrets.”

      • Dap says:

        It’s not $ 55K for the brother in replacement for $ 55K for the sister. It’s $ 55K for the brother on the top of the $ 55K (reduced to $ 25K while she was in rehab) that BM already gets. And on top of the house, school fees and other expenses already paid directly by CS. Those poor kids are simply used as meal tickets.

      • Kiddo says:

        Well then I disagree, unless they can prove some extreme need for the change, which I don’t believe they can, outside of massive therapy. Just because he asked for it doesn’t mean it should or will be granted.

  43. qtpi says:

    Wow Charlie. Go back a few years and think back to your time with Denise. Was it worth it to torpedo that marriage? Because somehow you ended up MARRYING and REPRODUCING with this slug. News flash – when they want to get preggo right away and you have tons of money there might be a connection!

    And Charlie is no better is a lot of ways – I understand that. But at least he is earning serious dough and could pay for amazing nannies, schools, etc.

    Would it be worth paying Brooke $20 mill to be rid of her? She stands to gain 9-10 million until these kids turn 18 off the payments if she gets the rest. Seriously. Have her sign off on all rights in exchange for 20 million dollars. And then she will promptly O.D.

  44. Kim1 says:

    @ Kiddo Us Weekly has new pics of her with the twins no brother in sight

  45. tekla says:

    omg, if this is brooke’s current streetstyle, she’s definately not sober :]

  46. sweetpea says:

    And why can’t Charlie Sheen be the guardian of his own children?????
    No one is mentioning this anywhere!!!! Why did his ex get them when Brooke went to rehab????
    oh, because we all know why

  47. Thiajoka says:

    Countdown to Charlie Sheen blasting Denise in the press or on social media because she decided to get out of this mess for the sake of her own kids and pets due in 3, 2, 1…

  48. jwoolman says:

    We’ll just have to wait and see what happens. The important thing is to get those kids proper medical/psychiatric assessment and care, which Brooke was previously blocking for unfathomable reasons. Maybe it was all just a power struggle for her, and now that she’s “won” she’ll be more willing to get them appropriate evaluation and treatment.

    I can understand children’s services point of view, though – with so few foster care slots for children with such problems, a parent , no matter how dysfunctional, who can and does hire a boatload of nannies probably seems a safer bet than a similarly dysfunctional person without those resources. It seemed odd that so soon after rehab she was getting three days and two overnights a week with the boys- even if she were an ideal mother, that in itself could be enough to throw those boys into a tailspin. Staying in one house all the time might help, although switching around caregivers (e.g., an army of nannies trying to keep up with them) might be yet another problem. I just hope that mom and Uncle Scott don’t decide to handle their little problems by locking them in a room most of the time… At least there are no other children or family pets in Brooke’s home, so Denise’s children and pets are safe now and no other children or animals will be endangered (except at school, if they aren’t expelled). At some point they may need to try separating the boys, though. They may be feeding off each other in a very dangerous way during their episodes.

    I do think Denise was prepared for this outcome. The boys are too dangerous for her to have in her home as long as they aren’t getting any treatment, and Brooke would continue to block that. At least now there is more of a chance they will get help. If not- Brooke better watch her back. She will very likely be a target of their anger at some point and they will become more and more dangerous as they get older.

  49. Kim says:

    No one knows whats going on and its too easy to criticize DCFS. They do have a very difficult job few would envy. My unpopular opinion is that its really shitty of Denise to take these kids in if she can’t hack it for the long haul. These are not the kind of kids you take in without knowing there is going to be severe behavioral problems and acting out. If everybody just calls them feral and abandons them, there is little hope for them. Yeah, you look all nice for taking in your ex’s kids but it isn’t so nice to jump ship when shit hits the fan. Do you think the kids have any idea why they are being kicked out of this home? How do you explain that to them? Everybody seems so shocked by the behavior and so quick to treat them like pariahs without understanding where it comes from. Presumably all parties involved have access to the best mental health treatment money can buy and no one can take a minute to try and understand these kids? They will be labelled bipolar and on Abilify so fast it will make your head spin. No one in this thing is a grown up

    • another nina says:

      I agree. I believe that Denise’s letter shows that she is unfit for adoption of kids (especially boys) with behavioral problems. But then again, to be fair, I doubt it’s possible to be in control of kids with organic damage of nervous systems unless they are medicated. And their birth mother sabatages proper evaluation. I’m puzzled why school does not insist on it.

      • Kim says:

        Yeah, i just think Denise’s conversion to saint status on this site and in the tabloid media is a brilliant stroke of her own PR and completely unwarranted. Is this the same saint that dated her BFFs ex and was papped doing lines with him on a beach–after she was a mom? She clearly has her motives too. The boys have attached to her for better of for worse and they see her as a mom and their sisters as their sisters. They probably are safe for the first time in their lives. They can only view removal as a punishment for being “bad.” How do they then feel in comparison to their sisters who are Denise’s “real” children. How do they then feel about themselves. Yes, if they were born to a substance abusing mother it gets even more complicated…

    • jwoolman says:

      They became unmanageable only after contact with Brooke started up again. I can’t fault Denise on this- the boys were recovering fine up to that point. Her hands were tied- she couldn’t even take them to a pediatrician because Brooke rejected their original pediatrician and wouldn’t select a new one. The pediatrician had recommended a specialist for assessment and Brooke cancelled the appointment. Brooke already had the boys half time each week and was slated for full custody in a month. Meanwhile the boys had no medical treatment, no assessment, and had become downright dangerous. They would have been removed right away if Denise tried to get them medical care without Brooke’s approval, assuming she could find a doctor willing to risk legal repercussions. What really would anyone do in such a situation? Her daughters were also at risk from the boys. Denise has no legal standing with Charlie’s sons other than what the DFCS granted her, and they were not willing or able to circumvent Brooke’s refusal to agree to a pediatrician or a specialist for them. And the boys were getting worse.

      • another nina says:

        I suggest that you re-read the letter. The boys have had problems from the beginning of their stay at Denise. Those problems have deteriorated once Brook got back into the picture. Denise herself is positive that problems are not related just to unstable situation, she insists that problems are likely organic. Her letter is very similar to the ones on the adoption forum, where they adopt kids from parents with drugs problems. Kids are adorable but their health problems are very complicated and not fun at all.

    • Dap says:

      “Do you think the kids have any idea why they are being kicked out of this home? How do you explain that to them? ”
      That’s quite simple really: “Mummy wanted you back and the judge says yes”

  50. TOPgirl says:

    Brooke is a piece of crap mother. I hope she never get her kids back.

  51. ol cranky says:

    If Denise were telling the boys to act out, wouldn’t she instruct them to do so when they were in Brooke’s care not while they were with Denise (which means Denise would have to deal with it herself?)

  52. MegG says:

    How did Brooke even reproduce with someone famous? Was she an escort or something? I don’t think she was ever a model/ actress. This woman should’ve been sterilized.