Jeremy Renner refuses to give spousal support to Sonni Pacheco


Just before New Year’s Eve, Jeremy Renner’s wife of 10 months, Sonni Pecheco, filed for divorce. She cited “fraud” in the divorce filing, and claimed Jeremy had “stolen” her passport, Social Security card and all of her important documents. It seemed like things were going to get dirty, but Team Renner maintained that it was all about their daughter and he would fight tooth and nail to retain custody. Several weeks ago, Sonni made an another damaging filing – she claimed Renner’s home was “unsafe” because he has guns (and thus, he should not have custody of Ava Berlin), and Sonni asked for lots of money to maintain her lifestyle. E! News now says that Sonni’s requests for financial support are falling flat with Renner:

Jeremy Renner doesn’t have much to say to Sonni Pacheco’s divorce demands other than…Yeah…we had a prenup. In response to court documents filed earlier this month by Pacheco in which she detailed the actor’s earnings versus her own and requested more money, Renner filed a simple response Friday.

His legal camp checked off the box asking the court to terminate Pacheco’s right to spousal support, adding, “Under the terms of the Parties’ Prenuptial Agreement, Petitioner has waived the right to receive spousal support.”

Along with “miscellaneous jewelry and other personal effects” and money Renner made before, during and after their barely 10-month marriage, “there are additional separate property assets and obligations of each party as mandated by the Parties’ Premarital Agreement,” Renner’s filing continues. The terms of said prenup, of course, remain confidential.

A hearing has been scheduled for April 1 to deal with the exes’ various issues, which also include Pacheco wanting primary physical custody of their nearly 2-year-old daughter Ava with visitation rights for Renner, while he has stated that he wants joint custody all around. Lawyers for both have not responded to requests for comment.

[From E! News]

Lord, there is no love lost between these two. My take is still that Sonni does seem to want a payoff of some kind, and Renner should consider giving her a lump payment just to make her go away and keep the peace. I think Renner and Pacheco probably should share custody of their daughter, but Sonni is probably threatening to take the girl to Canada and never come back. In which case… Renner was actually pretty smart to marry Sonni, because he’ll have more custodial rights as an ex-husband rather than a loosey-goosey, ill-defined “baby-daddy”. Of course he made her sign a pre-nup! But he should still pay her, especially if she’s threatening to make this worse.


Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

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

164 Responses to “Jeremy Renner refuses to give spousal support to Sonni Pacheco”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. savu says:

    It seems like paying her off may be easiest and best. The way she gets around it in the prenup is her claim that it was based on “fraud”. But this is childish behavior, and I hope for the sake of their daughter they get their shit together.

    • Tristan says:

      Why should he give her anything? She seems young & able bodied enough to WORK! Gold diggers like her (male & female) are gross. Just because you manage to produce a child with a rich or successful person, shouldn’t mean you get to win the lottery & live the life of Riley ever after.

      • savu says:

        I only mean because I’ve seen what happens when two parents fight about money in court – it’s the kids who suffer. I know he’s not hurting for money, so it may be easier to throw a few bucks her way. It would really degrade their relationship to be duking it out over money. And at the end of the day, co-parenting their daughter should be priority. It would probably be easier if she got a little money and wasn’t fighting him for something.

      • Ashley says:

        @tristan Exactly she doesn’t deserve anything. Child support is one thing but she’s clearly a gold digger and its disappointing that ppl here agree that she should be paid. More ppl
        Should follow the way of idina menzel’s divorce everyone leave with what you have and move on. If that means god forbid getting a job and working to support yourself and/or child so be it!

      • Snazzy says:

        @ Tristan and Ashley: totally agree!

      • doofus says:

        Tristan, I agree with you. they had a pre-nup in place and (as you said) she is is young and seemingly able-bodied. Just because she produced a child with a rich person does NOT entitle her to a payoff. yeah, enough child support so that the kid is well taken care of when in her mother’s care, but I don’t think she deserves a life of leisure just because of who she procreated with. and as someone below said, it’s not like she sacrificed years of her life supporting him and raising the kid while he chased his dream, so that argument is a no-go.

      • Tristan says:

        For as long as these nasty gold diggers continue to be awarded big payouts, opportunistic vultures with zero integrity like her, Gabriel Aubry & Lamarr Sally, will continue to bring unfortunate children into the world.

      • savu says:

        I just want to point out that I do agree with you all. She doesn’t deserve spousal support. (Child support? Always.) My only point was that it may be easier for Renner to pay her off. Is that morally right? No. Would it avoid damage to the relationship between him and the mother of his child? Probably.

      • Pandy says:

        Ten months is not enough time to earn spousal support. Gold digger is right. Absolutely child support – but no way can this woman claim she gave up her career, lost momentum etc in order to keep house and raise a child with this man while being supported. Shame on her. Embarrasses me as a woman when crap like this comes out.

      • Jaded says:

        @Tristan – agree mostly but the Gabriel Aubry comment just isn’t true. He was in a long-term relationship with Halle Berry – their child was a mutual decision and in no way did he “gold dig” his way into making her have a child. It was Berry who ended the relationship, calling him nothing more than a “sperm donor”, so I give him a pass. Sonni – she had dollar signs in her eyes from the get-go and Jeremy just wants to be an equal parent.

      • Meow Mix says:

        It is possible as well that she can’t work in this country because she may not have a work visa. If that is the case and she isn’t allowed to go back to Canada because of the custody agreement she make actually, be stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don’t know if she is a ‘gold digger’ or not but it could be as simple as she can’t work here?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “Ten months is not enough time to earn spousal support.”


      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Jaded, who wrote: “@Tristan – agree mostly but the Gabriel Aubry comment just isn’t true. He was in a long-term relationship with Halle Berry – their child was a mutual decision and in no way did he “gold dig” his way into making her have a child. It was Berry who ended the relationship, calling him nothing more than a “sperm donor”, so I give him a pass. Sonni – she had dollar signs in her eyes from the get-go and Jeremy just wants to be an equal parent.”

        How do you know this child wasn’t a ‘mutual decision’ between Jeremy Renner and Sonni Pacheco as well? You make it seem like she slipped Renner a roofie and forced him to have sex with her so she could get pregnant and ‘trap’ him (in fact, 95% of people posting here seem to have that view). And isn’t Renner calling Sonni nothing more than an ‘incubator’ for his child? The young woman is only 24-years old and they meet on the set of “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” which was released in 2011 … so how old was she at the time?

        I believe Jeremy Renner deliberately entered into a relationship with her ‘because’ she was young and (he probably thought) easy to manipulate. We don’t know what he told Sonni to get her to marry him, but if she’s now crying ‘fraud’ there may well be something more going on that we don’t know about. The child is nearly 2-years old and they’ve only been married for 10-months. He obviously promised her something and failed to deliver on it because their relationship had (reportedly) already ended before the birth of their child. Moreover, she was living with Jeremy Renner ‘and’ his roommate … even after his, “I’m a stud because this is my young, sexy woman” PR tour.

        I believe–in ‘my’ opinion–he hooked up with Sonni for his image in a ‘Rock Hudson’ kind of way. I think he used her as a surrogate to ‘incubate’ his child. If that was their agreement, it changed once he put a ring on it. It doesn’t matter if they were only married for 10-months, they were together long enough to create a child who is now nearly 2-years old. They met on the set of a film that was released in 2011. That was 4-years ago. Why isn’t that considered a ‘long-term’ relationship?

        Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry were together from 2005 to 2010. That’s 5-years. Gabriel was 34 or 35-years old when he and Halle broke up. Why wasn’t ‘he’ able bodied enough to go out and get a job?

      • SnarkGirl says:

        Yes! I am so glad Renner is sticking with the pre-nup. Enough already with these gold-digging get knocked up then grab the cash types getting away with it. Pay her off? No way, she knew exactly what she was getting herself into when she signed the papers. I’m sure she had a job before she met Renner, so she can go right on back to work & support herself. He should be responsible for child-support only.

        BTW – I’d be saying exactly the same thing if it were a gold-digging dude chasing some woman’s money.

      • serena says:

        I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘pay her off this time’, seems like she wants a bigger chunk of spousal support every month, and I see how that could bug him.

      • gabby says:

        The wife will be 27 and the child 2 when this comes to court. One of the things that convinces me that Renner is not some PR manipulator is that nobody has ever corrected the mistake in her age which was given as 22 when the pregnancy story was first leaked.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Gabby, who wrote: “The wife will be 27 and the child 2 when this comes to court. One of the things that convinces me that Renner is not some PR manipulator is that nobody has ever corrected the mistake in her age which was given as 22 when the pregnancy story was first leaked.”

        Their daughter Ava was born on March 28, 2013 so she is now nearly 2-years old. Sonni was born in 1991 so she is now, or will soon be, 24 years old. The only Internet site that has her listed older is her IMDb page, which lists her age as 25 when she gave birth, but every other Internet site that actually gives her age has her born in 1991 (one site lists her date of birth as January 1, 1991) and giving birth to Ava at 22-years-old. Jeremy Renner was born on January 7, 1971 … so he is exactly 20-years older than Sonni.

        Here is a January 24, 2013 article from The “Huffington Post, British Columbia (Canada)” online edition about Sonni moving in with Jeremy and his roommate when she was pregnant, which lists her age as 22 (Sonni ‘is’ Canadian, so wouldn’t they know?):

      • gabby says:

        Reply to Emma
        When the story first broke I was a bit shocked at her age and did a quick internet search. At the time I found a modelling website that gave her age as 22, but a quick check showed it was a couple of years old. I also found an old video on you tube of Canada’s next top model in which they gave her age as 18 I think, but whatever it was the broadcast dates again matched up with the modelling website. It seemed likely to me that the person who wrote the initial story just used the old modelling website and everyone just copied it. Since then this info has appeared too:

        If I have time I will try and find links to the pre-pregnancy websites.

        As you can see, both wife and mother have birthdays in March, so the ages I gave will be correct in April when they go to court.

    • ML says:

      No one forced him to have unprotected sex with her and marry the nasty evil gold digger, so enough with the ‘oh poor, poor rich man’.

      • Ashley says:

        @savu he should pay anything they ask of him in child support. The idea that not paying her could damage his relationship with her or even possibly the child is sad because that scenario screams parental manipulation.

        @ml And nobody should be forced or coerced to give anyone (man or woman) their earned money (not matter how much they make) for them to live on. She’s no child and is capable of supporting herself the dynamics of their relationship mean nothing. Sense of entitlement is all.

      • doofus says:

        I don’t think anyone is characterizing him as a “poor, poor rich man”,

        and no one is saying he was forced into anything. however, in this situation, it’s not right for her to expect a large payout or significant spousal support. (Note: no one is saying that he shouldn’t pay appropriate CHILD support, just spousal.)

        they had an agreement in place (the pre-nup) so that if they split, things were already worked out ahead of time. She agreed to the terms, and now that the marriage (and her gravy train) has ended probably much earlier than she expected it to, she’s trying for more.

        you seem to think that’s OK, so can you explain why you think that she deserves it?

      • Winterlady says:

        Mr.Renner did make is bed when he knocked her up, but it is ridiculous to pay her for barely 10 months of marriage. 10-20 years? Sure, because by then she would have been a stay at home wife long enough to make it really difficult for her to jump back in to the career game, but she has only been out of it a few short years. She is young enough to work and take care of herself and do her share to take care of her daughter financially. Sadly, it is that little girl who is suffering because the adults are playing these dirty games.

    • snowflake says:

      I totally disagree. Spousal support after 10 months? ridiculous. after she signed a prenup? she’s got some nerve. Sounds like he got a good prenup, good for him. Don’t give her anything. #nosupportforgolddiggers #golddiggerfail

      • savu says:

        Parental manipulation? Yep. And I mean more of a lump sum to make her cool it. But I’ve been there, I watched my own parents go through it. She doesn’t deserve it. I’m not saying it’s right. Just that it would be EASIER.

      • snowflake says:

        yeah you’re right. it would be easier. just out of principle, I want him to give her no spousal support. child support yes. it would make me feel better to know she has to work for a living like me. didn’t mean to sound mean, apologize if I did. but i think she was a golddigger from the word go, so i don’t want to see her profiting, esp when she agreed to a prenup. the fact that she’s calling fraud on it shows me she was really in it for the money. even if he is gay as some people say, you can’t tell me she didn’t know what was up. and to ask for support after 10 months comes across as greedy to me. just further confirmation that she’s a golddigger.

    • Kerry says:

      I suspect that they agreed a one off settlement as part of the prenup but now she has decided that it isn’t enough and she is going for full custody to force him to pay up. I seriously doubt she will be able to over turn the prenup. Apparently the word ‘fraud’ is a commonly used term in divorce petitions and is sort of a place holder which gives them chance to look into the finances in detail in the hope of finding a loophole. I absolutely agree that he shouldn’t pay more. She agreed to it less than a year ago and if he doesn’t draw a line now I suspect she will be going after him in one way or another for the next 16 years.

    • DaysAndNightsOnAir says:

      Sorry, guys.
      She got pregnant and it takes two to tango. So both are in it.
      She is a model / actress, isn’t she? Well, so her pregnancy pretty much led to a career down. And that is why Renner should pay.

      Sorry guys, if you don’t want to pay child support then don’t impregnate anybody. There are various strategies …

      • Kerry says:

        I think the highlight of her acting career had been showing her breasts and walking around in a short skirt. I am not sure if she has had any lines and the modelling wasn’t much more impressive. Since having her baby she had a cameo in an Oscar nominated film and the opportunity to mix with some of the best actors in the world and watch them work. She also got to go on a mini-break with Robert Downey and his family. I think this is a bit of a career up.

        Plus, there is no question of not paying child support. Regardless of the prenup, the level of child support is the decision of the court.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        This is about Spousal Support….different from Child Support! Yes, he should pay child support, and it doesn’t seem like he is objecting to that. Spousal support aka alimony is related to how long you were married. They were together only 10 months and had a pre-nup. There is no logical case for spousal support.

      • Bridget says:

        Every account is that Renner adores his kid, so I don’t really think the “takes 2 to tango” line is particularly appropriate. He’s not trying to wriggle out of child support.

      • serena says:

        Seems like he really cares about his daughter, why wouldn’t he pay child support? It’s spousal support the matter here, no matter how young she is or how long the marriage was, she agreed to the prenup and should respect it.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Tiffany : ), who wrote: “This is about Spousal Support….different from Child Support! Yes, he should pay child support, and it doesn’t seem like he is objecting to that. Spousal support aka alimony is related to how long you were married. They were together only 10 months and had a pre-nup. There is no logical case for spousal support.”

        They were only married for 10-months, but they were together longer than it took them to conceive their child, who is nearly 2-years old. And I beg to differ about him ‘not’ disagreeing to pay child support. What exactly do you call ‘seeing full custody?’

      • DaysAndNightsOnAir says:

        I am sorry for expressing myself unclearly.
        It is ridiculous to differenciate strictly between “spousal support” and “child support”. Does anybody really think that a divorced mother without a job can do without “spousal support” and therefore will not use “child support” to support herself?
        And damm well yes, he should pay “spousal support” as well. For it is the mother who raises the child and puts in a lot of unpaid hours. He doesn’t put in any hours. And for the hours she puts in she deserves money.

        When did society become so mysoginistic that mothers are no longer seen as deserving support?

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      I’m with you, savu, although I will elaborate as a lawyer should (since I am).

      My mother, who was a very classy lady, used to say “Discretion is the better part of valor”. [I’ve since found out many of her sayings came from the fabulously witty Dorothy Parker; I’m fine with that, too].

      Yes, Jeremy, discretion is the key here. You don’t want your adoring female fans to think you’re a douchebag, so pay the ex a reasonable sum of alimony=maintenance to promote goodwill between you and your ex-wife and hopefully a better environment for the child you both made.

      [Child support should not be debated. Renner-and I say this from a moral view, not just a PR view-should be generous all the way up through college].

      So, to conclude Jeremy, wrap this up quickly and be kind, not stingy. You’ll save on attorneys’ fees and court costs ($$), you’ll save time (basically $) and you’ll promote a better environment for and relationship with your child-TRULY PRICELESS. Yes, even more priceless than your career and reputation..

      • Ravensdaughter says:

        Oh, and look on the bright side! Regardless of the mother’s temperament, her face is gorgeous! Look at her fine features and cheekbones (ignore that bad shade of blush, btw]. Let’s hope your daughter inherits those, Jeremy!
        [You can’t tell me that A-list males don’t consider gene pool when vetting a sexual partner. None of these men seem to know how a condom works…]

      • savu says:

        Thank you ravensdaughter! I totally respect everybody’s opinions, but it’s kind of a bummer when nobody agrees with you you know? Thanks for your comment, it made my day that everybody may not agree with me but I’m not a total crazy person!

      • laughing girl says:

        Agree on all points – this isn’t about right but about smart. Pay her, be generous, and get this over and done with. And yeah, it’ll be vastly better for your relationship with your child.

  2. EC says:

    Yup. He got her pregnant, married her, now he has to pay up. I think it would be 50% of his earnings during their marriage, no? I bet she hopes she gets some of that American Hustle cash. I’m sure he has a good prenup/lawyers and won’t give her more than she is due, and if she’s smart she will fight for what she’s owed.

    Hopefully they work it out sooner rather than later for the sake of their kid.

    • snowflake says:

      for being with him for 10 months? no! child support yes, spousal support no. jmo

      • tracking says:

        +1 I agree. You’re married for less than a year and need to support that person indefinitely? Child support should leave her plenty comfortable. Crazy.

      • ML says:

        They have dated on and off for a while before she got pregnant and now their daughter is 2, so they may have been married for 10 months but they have been together probably more like 4 years. She has been their daughters full time care giver and will no doubt continue to do so, so I see no reason for her not to get spousal support.

      • BeBeA says:

        Ok, being a woman and without knowing what all went down or what he promised her, my opinion is as follows…they had a baby together and got married, if she gave up a career to be his wife and baby’s mother then I think that she should get child support and a pay out, or limited spousal support so that she can get back into the swing of things and get back in the work force ( I would take the payout and invest it wisely ) . their marriage was basically an extended maternity leave, lol. I think that she is trying to hit him where it hurts because the frog that she kissed turned out to be a jack ass…

      • LNG says:

        There is a great reason that she shouldn’t get spousal support – she signed a prenup. If you sign away your rights you cannot expect to rely upon them later. You can’t contract away child support (as it isn’t your right, it’s the child’s), but you can contract away spousal support and people do it all the time.

      • MC2 says:

        BeBeA- I agree with you. I think it comes down to what she sacrificed for the “family” & a 3rd party looking at details, etc is fair. If she quit her job to stay at home with their child or moved for him while he made tons of money why shouldn’t she get some until she can get re-established? I don’t know the details but something about him seems off to me. Who knows what’s in the pre-nup though- I doubt she’s leaving empty handed.

      • serena says:

        +1!!! I respect people’s opinions but this makes me kinda mad, why should he pay her more than due??

    • Algernon says:

      California has stringent regulations for divorce preceedings. I don’t think they were married long enough for her to qualify for spousal support at all. You only get 50% if you make it longer than 10 years, which they most certainly did not. If she’s entitled to anything, which I really don’t think she is (beyond child support, which is a separate issue), it would be a very small percentage of his earnings during the time of their marriage, which was like, nine and a half months or something. She signed a pre-nup and the state law isn’t in her favor, either. That sucks, but sometimes that’s life.

      • EC says:

        Ohh I didn’t realize you needed to make it ten years for that 50% rule to kick in – helpful clarification.

        All I’m saying is it isn’t completely unreasonable for me that she is fighting for money. I 100% think she she should (and will likely have to) find some type of work in order to maintain a lifestyle that wants, and this won’t be the lifestyle she would have if they stayed together. She isn’t going to be supported for very long by him for any means. But a little dough as she exits this relationships isn’t unreasonable to me, and if she has a good lawyer she should be able to get something.

      • Algernon says:

        It’s unreasonable to me only because they have a pre-nup. She signed it, she married him knowing what the deal would be when they inevitably split. If she didn’t like the terms, she shouldn’t have signed and/or married him. In my eyes, she agreed to a deal and now she’s holding him over a barrel, putting a kid in the middle in the process, because she wants more money, which she is perfectly capable of earning on her own. Let’s not kid around, she’s going to get a ton in child support, which will cover the expense of a home and schooling costs, etc. That’s the dough she gets exiting the relationship: money to help for the care of their child.

      • Samtha says:

        My question is: at what point did she sign a pre-nup? I don’t follow Renner enough to know the timeline of events.

        Was she pregnant at the time? Her lawyer could claim she signed it under duress if she was–pregnant, in a foreign country on her own, limited work opportunities and with only Renner as support, so she felt pressured into signing the pre-nup.

      • Algernon says:

        @ Samtha

        They were married about a year after she gave birth, so no, she wasn’t “pregnant and under duress.” If she agreed to no spousal support, she did so with her eyes wide open.

      • Samtha says:

        Thanks, Algernon. So she really doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on. Ten months and a pre-nup? Good luck with that!

    • paranormalgirl says:

      She’s owed nothing other than child support.

    • DaysAndNightsOnAir says:

      As her career as a model / actress suffered a severe down because of the pregnancy which Renner is 50% responsible for … he should pay.
      He should pay at least so much or for so long that she can get back on her feet career-wise / income-wise.

      • Kerry says:

        I think the highlight of her acting career had been showing her breasts and walking around in a short skirt. I am not sure if she has had any lines and the modelling wasn’t much more impressive. Since having her baby she had a cameo in an Oscar nominated film and the opportunity to mix with some of the best actors in the world and watch them work. She also got to go on a mini-break with Robert Downey and his family. I think this is a bit of a career up.

      • Annie says:

        She made a conscious decision to be a mother. You are acting like he held a gun to her head and said get pregnant or else! She is a grown adult and made a grown up decision. Now live with it and raise your child with its father – the child deserves support from both parents and I, sure the courts will give that.

      • MC2 says:

        Annie- Daysandnights said he is 50% responsible- no gun to head & I didn’t get that take from the comment. They made a baby, together, and they both should be responsible (as you said). If THEY decided that she should quit her job to take care of the home & baby then I think she has a valid argument for some of the family’s earnings while she was taking care of the family so he could work. After divorce most women’s standard of living goes dramatically down while men’s goes up (even with spousal & child support).

      • DaysAndNightsOnAir says:

        @ Anne
        Your writing is deceptive. It wasn’t just her who made a conscious decision. It was him as well. Or let’s say that both of them at least knowingly risked the chance of a pregnancy. And for that he should pay.

        Exactly. Both are responsible. Apparently she puts in the hours and he should put in the money.
        And it truly is a shame that divorced mothers apparently receive insufficient support from their ex’es as well as insufficient support from society. If you put that child into an orphanage then you would have to pay for 3 carers at least. Mothers work 24/7 for a pittance. And society doesn’t recognize that at all.
        Instead any divorced or single mother asking for child support and spousal support is nearly automatically called “gold digger”.

  3. Snazzy says:

    Pfft spousal support for what? Money to help raise the kid, yes absolutely, because that’s what parents do. But they were together 10 months – it’s not like she gave up 15 years of her life to raise their child thus reducing her earning potential….

    • PrincessMe says:

      Amen to this. I hate it when able bodied people (male AND female) act like parasites. Ugh!

    • Gracie says:


    • snowflake says:


    • MC2 says:

      I hear your argument & am not sure about this particular case but the kid is only 2….lots of child caring to still do. It’ll be another 3 years at least until the child is in full time school. I have a 8 & 4 yr old & it impacts my earning potential a ton (by choice but it doesn’t impact my husband’s as much). I’m the one who takes days off during sick days (a frikin’ lot!!!), leaves work suddenly to pick up a kid who bonked his head, etc. I’m just saying that the family’s decisions likely didn’t just affect her earnings for 10 months. But that’s what child support is for? Or is it? I hear people say it should never be spent on the mom but what if she is taking a huge cut to be there for her kids? Parasites- yuck to that comment! Raising a kid effectively effects your income & it’s a choice two parents make. I’m also so proud of the stay at home dads I know whose wives work & if they got a divorce I think the men should be compensated from the family’s earnings while he cared for the home/kids.

  4. Lilacflowers says:

    When leaving your house and your marriage, be sure to take a garbage bag full of crackers with you. Those boxes of Triscuits and Cheese-ts are far more important than your passport and Social Security card and will bring him to his knees in any custody battle. The man just can’t live without his Pepperidge Farm Goldfish.

    • SamiHami says:

      Um, it looks like she’s just taking out the trash in that picture, not packing to move out.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Yeah, that was a low blow. Forget the art collection. Wave that half full box of Tricuits at him and he’ll give you anything.

    • Snazzy says:


    • Honeybea says:

      Lol i guess the cash flow problems do run deep if u have to take that stuff with

    • MC2 says:

      Ack- I worked in domestic violence & stealing/keeping a woman’s passport, ids, ss card, credit cards when she tries to leave is very common. It’s a way to control her & keep her limited. Not saying that is the case here for sure but when she said he had her info I side eyed the hell out of him. It’s also hard as hell to get new info if you don’t have anything.

  5. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I wonder what the “fraud” was? If he married her under some kind of false pretenses, is their prenup valid?

    • Kiddo says:

      Maybe getting her pregnant for the purpose of having a kid with no real intent to keep the marriage, but leading her to believe the relationship was about being with her? Did they marry and then she got pregnant or was it the other way around?

      What’s with the Triscuit thing, I didn’t see that above?

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        She’s carrying out what looks like a trash bag full of uneaten snack foods – look at the bag. You can see cheese it’s and Tricuits, etc.

      • Kiddo says:

        OH, pfft, thanks GNAT. I like the Cheez-its better.

      • doofus says:

        my name is doofus, and I am a Cheez-It-aholic.

      • Kiddo says:

        doofus, the white cheese ones are impossible to quit once you start them. I never buy them anymore. The thirst after eating them is KILLER. The salt level is crazy, but that’s probably what makes them like crack.

      • doofus says:

        I don’t buy the white cheese ones (though they are delicious) as the stuff gets all over one’s fingers but the original ones are my downfall. I would seriously eat a whole box if I didn’t put some in a small mug and limit myself to that.

        I blame my sister as I started eating them while visiting her; she buys them instead of Goldfish for her kids as they’re nutritionally a bit “better” than Goldfish. (fewer calories, sodium etc…and more protein, or something like that.) My sis, the Pusher…

      • Lilacflowers says:

        My mother hooked us all on Cheez-its as kids. It was a very difficult habit to break. Cheez-its and Coke. She got my cousin hooked so badly that he accepted Cheez-its and a bottle of Coke as payment to baby-sit us.

      • Kiddo says:

        We need to do a PSA on these damn Cheez-its.

        Lilacflowers, I can’t imagine that Cheez-its have less salt in them than anything else, including actual salt.

        She probably needs spousal support just to keep up the fix for an addiction.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I’m late to the party, but the white Cheese its are banned from my household too because I have no self-restraint and they’re so little you feel like one more won’t make any difference until you’ve one mored half a box.

    • Mia4S says:

      “Fraud” is a legal term in this case which is code for “damn this is a really well written pre-nup and my lawyer says this is the only way I might get around it”. It’s not an uncommon tactic but I find it a gross one. She is in way over her head.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, ok. Lol.

      • snowflake says:


      • Kiddo says:

        Meh. I find myself oddly neutral on this whole thing and not particularly supportive of either one. I’m not feeling the ‘warmth’ from either.

      • Algernon says:

        Yeah, as much as people want it to be about his sexuality, “fraud” in this context means she’s accusing him of hiding assets, which would lower the expectation for any support she may receive.

        ETA: and if she could prove that, it would void their pre-nup.

    • snowflake says:

      the fraud was b/c she wants more money and can’t get it if the prenup’s deemed valid.

    • jane16 says:

      Good Lord, GNAT, its a beard relationship. He’s pretty stupid. (Actually, I have heard from many who have worked on his movies that he is douchey.) Even if she is bound to not tell the truth about their relationship, whats to stop other people that know them. Besides, you would think he would want a friendly relationship with the mother of his child. I agree with Kaiser that he should give her a generous payment and try to keep on good terms with her. If gay couples want a child all to themselves, they should adopt or pay a surrogate. It seems really stupid to marry and start a family with a beard, those relationships never seem to work out. Look at the Travoltas.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Ooohhh. So he didn’t tell her that going in? That would be fraud, right? Sorry, I am not up on a lot of these celebs, including him.

  6. SamiHami says:

    They were married for 10 months? AND have a prenup? No way does she deserve spousal support. Child support, yes, but not spousal support. And only then if she gets custody of their daughter. There’s no reason a child cannot live in a house with guns as long as they are safely locked up, so that’s a false argument.

  7. Green Is Good says:

    Gold diggers gonna dig.

  8. minx says:

    She’s probably a gold digger, but he should just give her a lump sum; she probably has, uh, dirt on him.

  9. Renee says:

    There are numerous items in that trash bag that could be recycled. Seriously.

    • Jess says:

      Ha! I was thinking the same thing! So much waste in one garbage bag. I’m a recycling freak.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      This probably says something about me that I’ve given this any thought, but if think she just filled a trash bag with the contents of their snack pantry and took it with her. Didn’t even leave him a Cheese It. I don’t think it’s trash. It’s too neat, with nothing in it but boxes. Ok, I need to go find some meaning to my life now. Later.

      • Darya says:

        Thanks @GNAT – now I’ve got the lines from How the Grinch Stole Christmas echoing in my head…

        Then the Grinch, very nimbly,
        Stuffed all the bags, one by one, up the chimney!
        Then he slunk to the icebox. He took the Whos’ feast!
        He took the Who-pudding! He took the roast beast!
        He cleaned out that icebox as quick as a flash.
        Why, that Grinch even took their last can of Who-hash!

        Oh, and @Lilacflowers – when you promised snacks were being served over here, I thought you meant something slightly more gourmet than the cracker aisle of my local 7-Eleven. On the other hand, trashy snacks fit the trashy theme of this story.

  10. Goody says:

    I dunno. You’re married for 10 months and the person you’re married to was set success-wise before then….it might be the smart thing to do but I don’t know that she deserves anything.

    It’s not like this is a case of taking care of someone while they started their start-up and worked long days and nights.

    • Jordan says:

      Agreed! Of course he should pay child support as any working father should but spousal support? No way! People that have been married for 20 years when the wife has no marketable skills are about the only ones who should be getting it. They were married a hot minute. IIRC, they were broken up for awhile before she had the baby, so it was probably just an arrangement anyway.

  11. INeedANap says:

    I am impressed at how hard he is fighting for joint custody. He clearly cares about his daughter to want more than visitation rights, and I give major side-eye to parents who fight for sole custody when there is no evidence of abuse. Like, he wants his daughter to have equal access to both her parents.

    Part of me thinks that if it were socially acceptable he would have preferred to just be a single dad via surrogate.

    • Applapoom says:

      I am impressed too. She is trying her best to make him look bad and he is being very cool about it.

      This also makes me think that she doesn’t really have any dirt on him. Otherwise he would have given her the hush money.

      • Kerry says:

        I totally agree on this. When the news of the divorce came out lots of people commented that he would give her whatever she asked for to keep her quiet. I am delighted that he is going to fight it. I think she was effectively blackmailing him with his child and the threat that his very private life will be dragged through the mud. I honestly think he will be able to counter anything she says very easily and if she is not very careful she will make herself look like a bad mother.

    • MrsBPitt says:

      I think he just wanted a baby, too…He has enough money to pay a surrogate to carry a baby for him…who cares if it is “socially acceptable”? Women become single parents all the time…

      • INeedANap says:

        So, I am not saying I care, I am saying I think he cares. Some dudes just have babies on the brain, and I fully believe that if they have a stable income and home life they should have the opportunity to become parents.

      • Kerry says:

        He is the oldest of seven and comes from a very close family which had lots of divorce and moving around when he was growing up. I think he had to play dad when his mum’s marriages failed and his sister got pregnant when she was a teenager. I think he is probably a bit damaged when it comes to the idea of happily ever after, but is hardwired as a big family guy. I think he had settled into playing the uncle to the kids of family and friends and this was a accidental pregnancy that hit him like a train and that is why he has done so much to make sure he can be a proper dad.

    • Samtha says:

      I like that he asked for joint custody, too. It shows that he’s not trying to cut her mother out; he just wants to co-parent.

  12. The Original Mia says:

    Don’t give her a thing, Jeremy! She signed the prenup. She agreed to the terms.

    I hope for Ava’s sake they share joint custody.

  13. CuteC says:

    Who says Trash doesn’t take itself out?!?! Sonni is proof! 😏

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  14. dr mantis toboggan says:

    A fool and his money are soon parted

  15. Crumpet says:

    Pretty much this is all common nasty haggling over money and custody. The judge will likely come down somewhere in between for both.

  16. Little Darling says:

    Ugh! She doesn’t deserve spousal support for a 10 month marriage!!! She is such a gross example of someone who is abusing the system. What an asshat this one is. First to be threatening to take his kid away, who does that?? And then to demand spousal support for a 10 month marriage, are you kidding me?

    Anyway, in California, it’s usually always joint custody unless there are MAJOR signs of abuse (see Halle Berry) and in regards to spousal support, it’s usually for half of the length of marriage.

    This angers me so much, when a woman takes clear advantage of a father who just wants a role in his kid’s life and also doesn’t want to pay some hoochi mama to live a lifestyle she could never afford alone for a marriage that was less than a year.

    Just say no to threats and blackmail.

  17. Jess says:

    This is kinda sickening, she’s obviously trying to get money. At most she should get 6 months of spousal support and a bit of child support if he wants joint custody. She needs to get off her gold digging as* and find a job.

  18. kibbles says:

    Is this the same woman in these photos?
    She looks so different! Like a completely different person and much worse in these recent pics.

    She’s a golddigger, plain and simple, but he should have known better that with his fame and fortune there would be women like this waiting to honey dick him for being dumb enough not to wear a condom. Oh well. He should try to come to some monetary agreement with her for the same of his child, but a woman like this will be a pain to deal with for the next 18 years. She’s gonna want to take him to the cleaners that’s for sure.

  19. Cali says:

    She should look to Alexis Knapp. She got knocked up by Ryan Phillippe (didn’t marry him, thankfully) but doesn’t talk about him at all, doesn’t trash him in public, she just works her ass off trying to land work in TV and movies (without namedropping) and takes care of her kid.

    I still think there’s a lot more to the arrangement between Sonni and Jeremy and they just can’t say. I hope they work this out because life will be miserable for this kid if they can’t get along. See Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry. I bet THAT guy wishes he had ran the other way before getting her pregnant…

  20. Ginger says:

    I don’t agree that he should pay her. This is the reason that pre-nups exist. She knew what she was getting into when she signed the document and if she didn’t, she’s an idiot. An idiot who’s now trying to skirt the law because they have a child. That’s awful. I’m sure the court will award a generous sum of child support and if she can’t live off of that then get a job that will supplement it. Awarding her money to “live the life that she’s accustomed to” is ludicrous.

  21. original kay says:

    I’m a tad surprised at the notion this woman deserves any kind of pay out, particularly just to shut her up.

    Wonders never cease, I suppose.

  22. Dhavynia says:

    She should get what she’s entitled to which is obviously stated in the prenuptial and what she agreed to at the time. I don’t think he’s denying that, she’s just being a gold digger IMO so paying her more than what she deserves is out of the question
    She’s starting to make this about money only and using the child as a lavished meal ticket and making empty threats. It’s hard to be sympathetic when all you claim is a higher payout because of a certain lifestyle you don’t want to give up. Unless she has more evidence showing it will jeopardize their child then sit down and be grateful for what you’re getting

  23. Thaisajs says:

    I really don’t understand how someone can make a case for fraud in a prenuptial agreement. I mean, I’m sure there are women out there who have been defrauded (i.e., used the same lawyer as the spouse etc) but one would hope that Renner’s legal team was smart enough to craft an air-tight contract. Otherwise, what’s the point of a prenup?

    • Izzy says:

      Are you kidding? People try it all the time. I have a relative who went through a divorce after 12 years of marriage. They had a pre-nup that took FOUR MONTHS to negotiate! (That should’ve been a red flag, amiright?) And the ex-wife of my relative still spent 5 months and nearly 80K in legal fees fighting the pre-nup. In the end she and her lawyer conceded, because in fact, the pre-nup was valid, airtight, and as the mediator noted, quite generous. Oh, and her lawyer was just being a gold digger as well – he was also the one who originally negotiated the pre-nup on her behalf!

      Where big money’s involved, some people will try anything to get their grubby paws on it.

  24. lucy2 says:

    I can’t shake the feeling that this is a much more complicated situation than just a brief marriage due to a baby.
    Whatever the situation is, she clearly agreed to the terms of the pre-nup, so there it is. Even if there wasn’t one, spousal support after 10 months of marriage is ridiculous.

    • Algernon says:

      I think the fact that she’s Canadian and could take their kid and disappear into the wilds of Canadia is a complicating factor. I don’t buy the gay rumors, so I don’t think he’s trying desperately to preserve a secret like that, but I do think he is concerned he may never see his kid again. Canada does not have a good record with recognizing foreign parents, so that’s a legitimate concern. I also think he’s trying not to sling mud. At this point, it’s pretty obvious she’s trying to shake him down and instead of siccing “unnamed sources” on her to discredit her publicly, he’s trying to keep as much of this out of the media as possible. What comments do seem to be coming from his camp are all about Ava and maintaining his parental rights. You can feel the resistance to go after Sonni, and, to me, that makes it feel like things are being held back.

      • Cee says:

        Is the child American? Wouldn’t she need his permission to take her out of the country? (this also applies to him going abroad with the child).

        At least in my country underaged children traveling alone or with one parent need legal permission. Married parents must present their Marriage License, even if travelling with ONE parent, to show consent. If they’re divorced, they must get a notarised permit allowing each parent to travel abroad with consent of the other.

      • Algernon says:

        That doesn’t stop parents from fleeing with kids during contentious custody battles. And usually, once they’re home, their government does its best to keep parent and child in-country. I think it’s a legitimate fear. The minute I heard the thing about the stolen passport, I thought that she must have threatened to take the kid and he made sure she couldn’t do that.

      • Cee says:

        But would Canada retain an American citizen, even if she is 2 years old? That is kidnapping even if the mother IS Canadian.

  25. Algernon says:

    I don’t think he should pay her to just to make her go away, because then he’s setting the precedent that she can push him around like that. And who’s to say it would ever be enough? A few years down the line, maybe she wants more, so she starts threatening to withhold visitation or something unless he ups the payments. I can’t imagine being in a fight like this, just to preserve your right to raise your own kid, but I don’t think letting one parent essentially blackmail you with spousal support is a good way to go. Maybe they’ll never be friends, but at least if he sticks to the terms of their agreement, and the court backs that up, they’ll have a framework for dealing with each other going forward. And as many people have said, she’s young and able. She can work and make money to support herself. She’ll likely receive generous child support that will help provide a good home anyway. She’ll only need to earn money for her own expenses. It’s gross but the sense I get from this is that she wanted the red carpet Hollywood life and he didn’t give that to her and now she’s punishing him.

    Also, if the rumors that circulated when word first got out that he knocked up some random (it was in the middle of award season, iirc, and object of a lot of speculation) is true, then he *did* offer her a lump sum to just go away and not name him the father. That was the first set of rumors I heard, that he was trying to make her go away.

    • doofus says:

      “It’s gross but the sense I get from this is that she wanted the red carpet Hollywood life and he didn’t give that to her and now she’s punishing him.”

      that’s what I took from it too. her gravy train ended before she expected it to and now she’s gotta challenge the agreement they had so she can get what she THOUGHT she’d get.

      • InvaderTak says:

        But if he had done that, we’d have the American/Canadian version of BC/SH wouldn’t we? At least Renner has been sincere with his keeping private thing private. She’s the one doing all the talking here.

    • Kerry says:

      I think you are right that she thought she would get the red carpet lifestyle once they were married. They married just as awards season took off and he was at most of them supporting American Hustle. The problem is that since he hit the big time I have only seen him on the red carpet with a date once and boy did he look uncomfortable – it was an obscure little premiere somewhere in Europe and he was on the arm of the leading lady. There are a few photos with him and his long term girlfriend at a very early Hurt Locker event and they looked very happy together, but I really think he can’t handle having his relationships the more intense spotlight of a Hollywood star. So ‘sources’ have said he wanted out almost from the start, so I am guessing the arguments began when he went without her and he realized that however modest she might have been since the baby was born , the spotlight and the size of her allowance were really very high on her list of priorities.

  26. Mean Hannah says:

    I don’t get rich people who don’t eat we’ll. If I had Renner’s money, I’m not eating Cheez-it and Goldfish crackers. Buy organic or make them yourself (or by a personal chef)!

    You know how people love to snoop around other people’s medicine cabinets? I love to snoop around other people’s fridge and pantry and I’m always fascinated by rich people who buy conventional foods and stuff like I can’t believe it’s not butter.

  27. someone says:

    Here’s the thing: isn’t she from Canada? Didn’t she live up there before he married her and brought her down to LA so he could be with his daughter? If he wants her to stay in Hollywood then he should give her extra so she can afford it. Otherwise let her move back to Canada where her family is and the cost of living is lower. It’s not like she is staying in Hollywood because she has a career to maintain there.

    • Algernon says:

      That would fall under child support payments. In California, cost of housing is considered part of child support, which is why the settlements we see from there (like Gabriel Aubry’s) are often so insane, because they’re paying for Beverly Hills real estate. But child support payments are closely monitored, she will have to submit to regular auditing by the court, and if it’s ever found that she’s using the money “frivolously” (ie, on herself), her payments could be reduced. Spousal support, though, is not monitored.

      • Whiskeyjack says:

        Child support spending is not monitored here in California, at least not that I’ve ever heard. The paying parent can ask for a review once a year to see if the receiving parent is making more money, thus lowering the obligation of the paying parent. Also, the parent receiving support can ask the courts for an income review once a year to make sure the payments are correct, or need to be adjusted.

        The only time you ever see what people spend money on is when they are asked by the courts to fill out an Income and Expense Declaration, and that’s just a given when people go to court over child or spousal support. Everyone involved in the case has to do the same thing, fill out an I&E, and the courts don’t care what you spend money on, it’s really how much money you make that they care about.

        The courts do not have the time or money to monitor how CS is spent by the receiving parent. I was in the California CS system when my son was younger, and know many who are still involved in it now, and I’ve never heard of that.

        ETA: I do not think she will get spousal support but child support is a given. She will and should get that.

      • Algernon says:

        @ Whiskeyjack

        Thanks for the clarification! I remember doing audits, but it must have been reviews to make sure income hadn’t changed significantly. It’s been longer than I care to admit to since I worked for an attorney. 😉 We had one case, though, where I do remember having to do an audit because one parent accused the other of abusing CS payments and spending frivolously and generally not using the money to care for the kid. It was a huge mess and involved forensic accountants and reams of paperwork. I just felt terrible for the kid.

        I agree she should get child support, but this whole spousal support thing is giving me gross golddigger vibes.

    • Maya says:

      As someone who lives in Vancouver, I would just like to say that cost of living in LA is not higher than here. No idea where she is from, but it’s not like cost of living is the same all over the country.

  28. ella says:

    Didn’t she pop up out of nowhere when Ted Casablancas accidentally outed Renner. All of a sudden he was dating and impregnating someone. I assume that’s the “fraud” being referenced.

    • InvaderTak says:

      Thought the TC thing was way before her. And I don’t think he did that accidentally. I think he was trying to do what Perez did to NPH and instead got canned. I think the lawyers had some legs to stand on with that one.

      Edit: @Kerry K i’m wrong lol

    • Kerry says:

      There are photographs of the two of them together at least 6 months before that blind. In one they are smiling for the camera and there is another that is a candid shot in which they are at a table chatting with people at the table and his hand is under the table resting between her thighs. Not very classy, but a classic example of gossip rags being selective about what they promote.

      edit – link to photo – it was 8 months earlier.

      • Kerry says:

        This was about a month after TC was fired, but he was hardly showing her off. Renner posed with the organizers on the way in, but as usual it appeared as though he was alone. This picture of the two of them sitting together in the crowd only surfaced after she was identified as his baby mama and I believe someone in the Philipinnes spotted her in a replay on local TV. But to the gaydar brigade the fact that they hadn’t been in the gossip mags together could mean only one thing – do I really need to go on?

    • InvaderTak says:

      I want it! Its beautiful! The furniture is questionable though. But then again I might have horrible taste.

  29. MindlessContemplations says:

    I find her request for spousal support laughable. I don’t know the law jn CA but here in MA and in CT spousal support now only equals alimony for half the duration of the marriage. I had to pay my exhubby alimony got 18 months even though I was the wife and younger than him by 8 years. This Sonni chick would only get 5 months of alimony if they lived out this way.

    • Algernon says:

      If I remember from my time as a legal assistant many eons ago, it’s the same in California. Half the duration of their marriage, so given how short their marriage was, it wouldn’t be much, relatively speaking, though it’s still likely to be several hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are other mitigating factors, like “marketability of job skills” that could get her monthly installment raised, but she won’t get more than five months’ support. And that pre-nup of his, which must be a doozy given how hard she’s fighting, probably has a lot of restrictions and clauses that will limit how much he has to give her beyond the state-determined minimum. I think that’s the problem. Setting aside child support, she won’t get anything.

  30. anne_000 says:

    Cheaper to buy condoms or freeze your sperm before getting a vasectomy.

  31. Gail says:

    Whoa, everybody. Let’s just pause for a moment, please. If she’s a stay at home mom, she’s working. Boom. She gets both spousal support and child support until the kid is in school full time. Then her spousal support is cut by 50% for 2 years whilst she has the chance to rebuild her career (or start one) once the kid is in school. Then she gets 0% spousal and only child support till kid is finished education. The end.
    Raising one’s child has got to receive more respect. It’s hard bloody work. And ultimately, that’s what’s best for the babe. Whenever possible. Let’s face it, no way a day care giver loves babe like Mom or Dad do. And when they are babies..that’s what they need. Mom and Dad. Mom initially as primary caregiver, but Dads are vital too. Respect. Sadly lacking in 98% of these comments.

    • MC2 says:

      +100000!!!!! I do think, though, that dads can be the primary caregiver from day one (just not as common as mom staying home with baby). I know some dads/families that made that choice & they rock it! Other then that detail I think your comment is spot on & thank you for it! I was seriously surprised by a lot of the comments here.

    • Ange says:

      And what does she do if they share 50% custody, sit around in suspended animation waiting for the kid to come back? There’s no reason she can’t do some form of work to support herself. Spousal support no way, child support yes but I guess grifters gotta grift.

      • MC2 says:

        Oh my goodness! If you think a mom with three days off (IF they share custody 50%) spends time in “suspended animation” you are not in reality. My kids go to bed & I don’t wait for them to wake- I do laundry, grocery shopping, cleaning, etc (ps- I work full time too but understand that if I had more time I’d fill it easily & not have 4 baskets of clothes waiting to be folded screaming curse words at me every time I pass their wrinkly ass). Yes- she can work but if THEY chose to have her not work so she works for THEIR family then he should share his earnings. I’m sure he works many hours a day & comes home to a kid that didn’t raise themselves. Calling a stay at home mom a “grifter?!” Wtf???!! I raise 2 kids, work full time (earn more then my hubby) & I wouldn’t make that judgement call. That is insulting to all stay at home moms.

  32. Jen says:

    This is what happens when a middle aged person courts people half their age. Not every time, but seriously people! He’s not that good looking, he’s charming and rich, so he has that going for him. He was thinking with the wrong head when he was with her. And frankly, just going off the pics on this post…modeling? Really? I mean, she’s tall, has a thin nose and she’s not ugly. But that’s all I’ve got.

  33. MC2 says:

    Holly cow batman! This woman is getting skewered, strung up & stoned! I think he has better PR then her & is obviously winning in public opinion. I get a hunch that there is something off with him & keeping her info is controlling/abusive. I’m not saying she is a saint (jerks attract jerks) but I think we are drinking the kool aid his firm is pouring & we likely don’t have the full story about this one…..

    • Kerry says:

      What you say is true but in the last two months he has been accused of stealing his wife’s documents, endangering his daughter, neglecting his daughter, being an irresponsible gun nut, not giving his wife an adequate allowance whilst he plays with his expensive toys, bulking at paying child support and a police report that hadn’t seen the light of day for 15 years was passed to The National Enquirer – isn’ t this a perfect storm of things designed to outrage social media? If his PR team has managed to spin all this to his advantage then they are doing one hell of a job, especially since there has been no official statement from him and the document he filed was apparently minimal, hers was a huge 50 pages. Even the ‘sources’ that spoke to enews did not attack the mother.

      Her accusations will be heard in court but at the moment they are totally unsubstantiated. If all she says is true and she can prove it then I guess she will get full physical custody as she is demanding. If she cannot back it up then I guess it was a cynical plan to get more money. There is no way she isn’t going to get a large amount of child support, regardless of the prenup, all this is either about getting more money or protecting her child from the evil man.

      • MC2 says:

        I’m not up on this story in particular (thanks for the details) but was taken aback & surprised by the comments on this story (stay at home mom who quit her job = gold digging, lazy woman). So I’m not sure what will shake down but I’m cynical & skeptical of the whole thing. I’m not ready to say she’s an innocent lamb but also not ready to jump on the bandwagon lighting touches to go get that hussy! What I’m more interested in (not about this particular story) is women throwing insults at other women who get support to stay at home & raise their family’s children. I don’t have that luxury in my life but I can tell you that if the father of my kids made millions each year- I’d fight for them to not be in daycare after school so I can work. Something about this “story” feels weird to me. Maybe two nut cases made a baby & got married?! Wouldn’t be the first time!

      • serena says:

        I don’t think anybody was insulting stay at home moms, it’s just that her case seems really too convenient. As somebody here said, seems like she wanted the Hollywood career butdidn’t succeded and now is making him pay while threatening to fly off to Canada with their child. I call that shameful. Also, I’m sure they had lots of helpers and baby-sitters, she is not like us ‘commoners’.
        I think none was disrespecting stay at home moms/ dads, if it was otherwise I would have defended her.
        Also, it’s not like he wasn’t willing (or have to) to pay her, he has to pay child support which will be A LOT, and I’m sure she can live comfortably with that.

  34. Anna says:

    I can’t stand hearing stuff like this. It breaks my heart. I have a daughter with an ex-boyfriend and she is almost 10 now. At first we shared custody (we lived in neighboring towns and split our time 50/50) but a couple of years later we both had to move because of work and we went to court to make things official as at that point he was just the “baby daddy”. As he was married by then and had a second child and I was still single we decided that it would be best for our daughter to move with him and the rest of his family overseas and that I would be the non-custodial parent. While we were in court (in an extremely traditional Southern state btw) the judge expressed INTENSE surprise that we had made up our own agreement, worked everything out between the two of us and made the decision that we did (that she was going with him and that as the single person I would be responsible for traveling back and forth between his home and mine rather than ya know a small child or a whole d@mn family), We were basically just in a court of law to get a legal signature and the whole thing took maybe 5 minutes. He actually brought us up to the bench afterwards and shook our hands and thanked us because he said he had never seen a custody hearing go so smoothly or quickly. It made me a bit sick to be honest to have him thanking us because that type of behavior should actually be the norm not the exception.

    • enike says:

      well done, Anna! you obviously had your child´s best interest at heart and were not after your ex´ money

      but it seems that Sonni woman only wants money and does not care about anything else and using the child as a pawn

    • angie says:

      Couples like you and your ex are to be applauded. I work with children with mental heath issues and it is horrible how often their problems are triggered by parents attacking each other or moving on and losing interest in them. i am working with a 15 year old at the moment who cannot go into a classroom because she is terrified that she will be sick and lose control of her bowels, this started when her parents who had been divorced since she was 6 started fighting when he remarried. I hope they both love their daughter, but I have a horrible feeling she was only conceived as a source of income. I know that is a dreadful thing to say, but I have lost count of the number of pregnant teenagers I have mentored who were raised to believe that the sooner they get pregnant the sooner they will be given a house to live in. Reality TV shows seem to have convinced a lot of young girls that a marriage to a famous man and their face in a celebrity magazine is the ultimate achievement. I will feel awful if it comes out court that she has been treated badly but based on her attempt to over turn the prenup, I don’t think that will happen.

      edit – the sister of the 15 year old girl slashed her wrists, but she survived

      • Trashaddict says:

        Angie, I know it’s hard to resist sharing these things, but no matter how well-disguised you think your client is, it’s still a HIPAA violation and an ethical violation to be talking about them in this forum. What if this child happens onto this forum and reads about herself, how awful would that be? Not to mention you are up for quite a lawsuit if her parents find these comments. Please protect your clients and yourself.

      • angie says:

        Hi Trasaddict, a valid comment. but the details have been changed without altering the essentials of the story. it would be impossible to identify the specific case, particularly when it might have occurred anywhere in the world. Suicide attempts are simply not that rare in cases like this and anxiety issues often lead to the fears I described.

  35. sarah says:

    He shouldn’t have to pay a dime haven’t been married long enough to get spousal support if any 5 months of the 10 month marriage and if they have joint custody no child support just because he has money doesn’t mean she hit the lottery if one or the other get primary custody the other has to pay child support she should get a job cause he didn’t have the baby on his own

  36. serena says:

    Nope, he shouldn’t pay her more than the prenup said. She really seems so low, threatening to take away their daughter over money, what a money-grabber w*re! Who cares about her damn lifestyle, she should just worry about her baby. Jeremy should not pay for her to mantein a luxury lifestyle but for the baby to be in a good enviroment until she’s 18.

  37. RJFLorida says:

    So this was basically a one-night stand where she was conveniently fertile and he married her so the child would be legitimate. Now she wants to milk it for everything its worth while being the biggest bitch she possibly can.

    The key proof is she wants sole physical custody while he wants joint. Even as big of a bitch as she is he doesn’t want to deny the child its mother.