Brooke Mueller regains custody of sons with Charlie Sheen, no longer gets drug tests

Brooke Mueller Takes Her Boys On A Hike
Less than a year after she was put on an involuntary psychiatric hold, and less than a year after she completed her 20th stay in rehab (during which she switched facilities), Brooke Mueller has been granted full, unsupervised custody of her twin 5 year-old boys with Charlie Sheen. This means that Brooke will no longer be required to submit to random drug testing, although staff from the Department of Child and Family Services will sort-of check in on her. They’re not going to visit her unannounced, though. This is a recipe for disaster. Those poor kids. Here’s more on this story:

Nearly a year after Mueller lost custody of Charlie Sheen‘s twin sons, Bob and Max, RadarOnline.com has learned that the former crackhead has been granted full custody of the boys, and won’t be required to undergo further random drug tests!

“Brooke was recently granted full custody of Bob and Max by a child dependency judge after it was deemed that she had complied with all of the terms set forth by the Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services,” an insider tells Radar.

What’s more, the source adds, “Moving forward, Brooke won’t have to undergo random drug tests. DCFS will keep in contact with Brooke and check up on the boys, but there will be no unannounced visits. As far as Child Protective Services is concerned, Brooke has made a successful recovery, and is now ready to be the legal custodial parent for the boys.”

“Family reunification is always the goal in these types of cases,” the source continues. “Splitting up a family, take children away from either the mother or father, only happens in extreme cases of neglect and abuse.”

Mueller, 36, lost custody of the twins after being placed on a psychiatric hold last year after a drug overdose. Sheen’s ex-wife, Denise Richards, then became their temporary guardian until she was forced to give them up after witnessing their disturbing behavior and violence towards her three children and family pets.

Scott Mueller, Brooke’s brother, subsequently became the boys temporary guardian.

[From Radar Online]

All I can think of is the heartbreaking letter than Denise Richards wrote to DCFS saying that she could no longer care for the boys because they were violent, and because Brooke was blocking all of her attempts to get them professional help. In that letter, Denise claimed that Max and Bob were doing well with her, but had regressed after spending time with Brooke. I also remember how Brooke successfully blocked Charlie’s bid to have the boys tested for fetal alcohol syndrome.

Meanwhile Brooke is playing nice with Charlie and his new pr0n star fiance. Brooke has been cozying up to Charlie’s piece, Brett, and is allegedly “joking” that she’d gladly sleep with Brett, who did lesbian adult movies before getting with Charlie. I don’t want to think about it, but I do know that now that Brooke has full custody she’ll soon regain the $55k a month that Charlie was paying her in child support. I hope I’m wrong about Brooke, I hope she’s sober and has the boys’ best interests in mind, but I look at her history and it’s not promising.

Brooke Mueller Takes Her Boys On A Hike

Brooke Mueller Picks Up Her Boys From School

Photo credit: Getty and FameFlynet

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

60 Responses to “Brooke Mueller regains custody of sons with Charlie Sheen, no longer gets drug tests”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. don't kill me i'm french says:

    Dance of joy for her dealers!
    Orgy party with them,Sheen and his fiancée tonight

  2. QQ says:

    Yay So Brooke gets her Drug Run Money back!! 😒

  3. bammer says:

    Family reunification is the most destructive thing you could do to these kids. That practice needs a complete overhaul.

    • Stef Leppard says:

      I understand why it’s important to reunite children with their mothers when possible, but in this case, when Brooke has neglected them and caused them so much damage, she should have to undergo therapy and drug screening for two full years before they even consider giving her partial custody. This situation is a joke. What’s the point of DCFS if this is how they operate?

      • jaye says:

        +10000000 I was just coming here to say exactly that. DCFS is a joke if they are going to put those children, who are in dire need of therapy, back with their mother. She’s proven that she can’t stay clean long enough to be a good mom to those boys. I cannot believe that DCFS isn’t doing what is in the best interest of the children.

      • Trashaddict says:

        I wouldn’t call Brooke their mother. I suspect when they grow up, neither will they.

    • Audrey says:

      DCF has really disgusted me in this case.

      If they truly wanted what’s best for these boys, they’d be tested for fasd so they can get therapy and help as early as possible. Instead their psychiatric needs are being neglected so Brooke doesn’t look bad. Brooke would want them tested if she really cared for them

      We’ll get to repeat this disgusting cycle (hopefully minus the drugs) when Brett gets pregnant

      Get a vasectomy, Charlie. Please.

    • LakeMom says:

      You have to wonder if the more public cases like the Sheen boys and Octomom children are being handled this way, what’s going on in cases we never hear about. God help our society and those poor children who have no voice.

      • mercy says:

        Seriously. Why isn’t this a bigger issue? Where is the “pro life” lobby to give a voice to these kids? Issues like abortion gets so much play in the national media and from the politicians, but it’s radio silence when it comes to the children who are already here and suffering. I just don’t understand.

      • anon33 says:

        Mercy, because pro-lifers COULD GIVE A SHIT about the babies once they are born. Truth.

      • Audrey says:

        The pro-lifers argue against food stamps, welfare etc

        They push for babies to be born and then don’t want to provide any help raising it

        It makes zero sense. They care about no abortions and that’s about it. After that it’s don’t have kids if you can’t afford them

      • bettyrose says:

        Audrey – you forgot to mention opposition to birth control and sex ed, the proven most effective methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

      • Yup, Me says:

        There’s a difference between being pro-life and pro-pregnancy.

    • mercy says:

      At the very least they need more funds and employees to implement the policy. Reunification takes the kind of vigilance that requires more social workers. If they don’t have enough money or people power at the time to do it, the goal needs to be to protect the children at all costs. Unfortunately the foster care system is no great shakes, either. Finding a family member who genuinely cares about the kids and is not easily manipulated by the abusive parent seems like the best bet in most cases.

      • deehunny says:

        @mercy. thank you for being reasonable about the subject. the truth is childcare. DFACS, etc. is expensive and costs money. There isn’t enough money for them to advocate any other policy except reunification unless the kids are in imminent harm, which is a very legally loaded term and is taken literally. We should blame our representatives if we are unhappy with the way this is handled. (I’ll reserve my rant about that for another time!!!)

        What other relative or parent-like family member could take them? It doesn’t appear the Grandparents have stepped in, and Denise has sine declined, and she isn’t even blood related to those kids.

  4. Kiddo says:

    We are washing our hands of it at this time because addicts never relapse and Charlie Sheen is doll!…said no sane person, ever, anywhere, except in California and the sanity is questionable on this one.

  5. aims says:

    What could possibly go wrong? Eyeroll

  6. HH says:

    Wow. The California justice system is a joke. In every aspect.

  7. PunkyMomma says:

    This is a tragic recipe. Both parents are users. Denise gave it a noble effort. Where are the grandparents, I wonder. Can they (grandparents) intervene?

  8. NeNe says:

    Very bad decision.

  9. Sophie says:

    Seriously wtf is wrong with DCFS? These poor boys, that’s all I can say.

    • Eva says:

      Exactly, those poor children don’t stand a chance, I hope she at least employs a nanny who gives a crap about her children, but if she really wanted what was best for them Denise would have been able to get them all the help they needed.

  10. MonicaQ says:

    This is going to end poorly. I hope it doesn’t. But it’s going to end poorly for awhile.

  11. GeeMoney says:

    God help those kids 🙁

  12. InLike says:

    IF she’s hanging out with Charlie, how is she going to stay away from drugs?

  13. lucy2 says:

    The court system has failed these children. I hate to think of what’s going to happen.

  14. Vanderhootchie says:

    Worst CA decision since OJ went free – for murder. All those kids are for that broad is sources of income. Sad.

  15. BooBooLaRue says:

    I know not to judge a book by its cover…but…the cray cray express has left the station and the tracks.

  16. Loopy says:

    Is that last pic recent because she looks very drugged or heavily medicated. For someone who has had serious drug issues,is she receiving anything to wean her off. Like the way heroin addicts received that green syrup(methodone?)

    • Audrey says:

      Prescriptions don’t count as drug use lmao.

      Methadone is fine. Adderrall is fine. Anything she can get it prescription for, she can take as much as she wants. Those will be fine to test positive for.

      Now she’s going untested so she should lose the boys again within 6 months.

      Look I am all for giving chances. My sister lost custody of her boys but regained it when she got clean. But it took her a long time and DCF still checks in years later even though she has zero screw ups on her record. Different states do things differently I guess

  17. Deanne says:

    While family unification is the ultimate goal for DCF, shouldn’t someone with a history like Brooke’s, have to jump through more hoops and prove herself capable for a much longer period of time, before her already damaged and vulnerable boys are given back to her? She’s been to rehab 20 times and less than a year after being on a psychiatric hold and going to rehab, she no longer is required to be drug tested? How does that work? Denise tried so hard to get those boys help and until he hooked up with his latest porn piece/ instant fiancé, Charlie seemed to want them to get help as well. Now, as long as Brooke lets the kids be around said porn piece, he’s fine with her getting them back and paying her child support. It appears that there is literally no one in the life of those kids, who is putting their needs and well being first, including DCF. How terribly sad.

  18. Jacqueline says:

    There’s wanting to believe in someone or see them be successful in recovery (or any part of life), but there is also knowing better and being realistic. While I would like to believe that DCFS is taking action to benefit these boys, it will only be a matter of time before more rehab and another spin on the Wheel of Custody.

  19. Mandy says:

    Oh. Great…….

  20. Ferris says:

    DFCS wants to close cases , they are under a lot of pressure to do so. Don’t blame the workers. They are underpaid and have a very stressful job. DFCS does not have the money or staff to handle all the cases they have. Workers do the best they can in the shortest period so they can handle the overwhelming amount of cases they have. They can’t prolong cases because the do not have the staff or funding.

    • mercy says:

      I have no doubt this is true. It’s a damn shame. Where are all the “family values” politicians and protesters when it comes to helping foster kids and children with abusive parents?

      • anon33 says:

        Those kids are poor, and often, NOT WHITE. “Family values politicians” do not care about children like that.

    • Moore says:

      I am going to blame them if their being shit at their jobs destroys the lives of small children.

    • Kidoo says:

      I understand that and empathize, but if you drop serious cases like this, knowing the recidivism of the parties concerned, then the initial steps are nothing but theater. You know what I mean?

  21. Green Is Good says:

    Wow. These kids are so screwed.

  22. Marybel says:

    Because now everyone will live happily ever after.

  23. Ag says:

    oh, god, this is sad.

  24. (The original) Violet says:

    Those poor kids. I don’t understand how the DCFS could just hand them back — without conditions, without ongoing supervision — to someone who’s been in rehab 20+ times.

    If Charlie had an ounce of sense and put his sons’ wellbeing above his ego, he’d offer to pay Brooke to let Denise raise the kids as she sees fit, including testing and whatever therapy they need.

  25. K says:

    20 rehab stints, and no need to test her? While primary, unsupervised carer of twin toddlers?

    Words fail.

  26. mercy says:

    I understand the goal is reunification, but why discontinue the regular random drug tests and unannounced visits? It makes no sense. The only reason they would interfere with reunification is if she turned out to be using again, in which case she should not be around the kids unsupervised. I hope the media dogs her and Charlie’s every move. Someone has to keep an eye on them if DCFS refuses to do their job

  27. Stormsmama says:

    Not exaggerating when I say that I see this ended in terrible tragedy. Like, Brooke killing the boys and then herself…sorry but I don’t see her being able to cope with 2 (disturbed and emotionally challenging) young boys.
    🙁

  28. Tiffany says:

    And to think of all the services that are cut it budget, is the social services. If these public stories about DCFS ( constant budget cuts that indicate that SW cannot properly do their jobs) is not an indication that something needs to change, I don’t know what does.

  29. Lux says:

    This is not going to end well.

  30. Emily C. says:

    Brooke’s white and rich. If she were poor and black, she would likely not even be allowed to see her children ever again under any circumstances. Native American children are often taken from their parents for even the slightest unfounded suspicion of drug use, and not even placed with their extended families or with appropriate foster-care certified people in their own tribes.

    A couple years ago, there was a case where children were taken from a poor black woman because she didn’t have the money for rent or enough food for them. CPS treated her as if she’d been sexually abusing them. They were placed with their grandmother, and the grandmother was told that if she allowed the mother to live in or even visit the house, the kids would be taken away. So the mother became homeless. She went to the hospital in horrible pain in her legs, begging for medication, and they decided she had “drug-seeking behavior” and threw her in jail. She was found dead on the floor of the jail cell the next morning.

    The way CPS works in our society, it doesn’t really protect children. That’s its stated purpose, but if you look at what it actually DOES, you get a very different picture.

  31. lambert says:

    Those boys are going to grow to be serial killers. I’m just saying….

  32. Morgana says:

    NO more Drug testing….That make sense 👍( insert side eye here ) 😒

  33. Nikki L. says:

    Oh. Yes. THIS will surely end well.

  34. sauvage says:

    Honestly, I feel like throwing something at my computer screen. This is just heart breaking.

  35. snowflake says:

    this makes me sick. this woman couldn’t care less about these kids if there was no money involved. they would be better off in foster care. these poor kids, with those parents! they’ll prob be in foster care soon enough, she’ll do something to mess it up. my heart goes out to these kids