Kourtney Kardashian hired Laura Wasser for sole custody against Scott Disick

Kourtney Kardashian

Yesterday, Scott Disick was papped for the first time since officially splitting from Kourtney Kardashian. He looks like he hasn’t been sleeping much at all. We heard how Kourtney finally had enough, and she set the stage for a custody battle by saying a breakup was best for the kids. She and Scott are parents to three children, one of whom is still a baby. Scott probably hasn’t seen his kids for a month, so Kourtney is showing no hesitation to aim for sole custody. She’s hired family friend Laura Wasser:

Kourtney Kardashian has met with top Hollywood divorce attorney, “disso queen” Laura Wasser, following her high-profile split from Scott Disick — and it’s because she’s seeking sole custody of their kids, a source confirms exclusively to Us Weekly.

While Kardashian and Disick were not married, the couple of nine years shares three young children, Mason, 5, Penelope, 3, and Reign, 7 months. A source tells Us in the new issue that Kourtney, 36, is determined to protect her kids from Disick’s downward spiral, fueled by booze, drugs, and other vices.

Insiders previously revealed to Us that Kardashian first started exploring her legal options — including a consultation with the “Disso Queen” — during the weekend of July 4, days before Us confirmed that she and Disick were done.

On Monday, July 20, Kardashian paid yet another visit to the top Hollywood attorney’s office building in L.A.’s Century City nabe. “She met with Laura Wasser again,” a Kardashian pal tells Us. “And is going to seek sole custody of the kids.”

She and Disick currently do not have a formal custody arrangement, but sources tell Us a battle over the kids would be surprising. “Scott’s friends don’t think he’ll challenge Kourtney,” one insider tells Us, while another adds that the self-proclaimed Lord “doesn’t act like a dad at all when he’s partying.”

Kourtney wouldn’t be the first Kardashian to become well acquainted with Wasser, who’s worked on high-profile cases including those of Kim and Khloe Kardashian.

“She knows being with [Laura] is what’s in their best interest,” the Kardashian pal tells Us of the kids. “There’s no turning back now and she is going full steam ahead with figuring out an agreement.”

[From Us Weekly]

Kourtney should get what she wants. Scott has substance abuse issues that remain unchecked. He recently partied so hard in Boca that he passed out in a room full of strangers, and someone swiped his wallet. He needs to get help and get clean, and then he can think about fighting for joint custody. Arrangements can always change in the future, but right now, very few judges would allow Scott too many rights in a custody battle.

Kourtney Kardashian

Scott Disick

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & WENN

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

43 Responses to “Kourtney Kardashian hired Laura Wasser for sole custody against Scott Disick”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lucy2 says:

    Pretty sad when a Kardashian is the better parental option.
    I hope Wasser is giving them a group rate for all these divorces and break ups.

    • Mia V. says:

      I used to watch the show and Kourtney is a real good mom, so I hope she’ll do the best for her kids.

    • pf says:

      I’m not saying Kourtney isn’t a good parent, but when Scott is sober he makes a lot of great points and is actually the only member of that family who calls them out on their shit. Like he totally goes off on Kris Jenner all the time. Also, I remember when Kim was married to Kris Humphries complaining they’ve had a fight and he said “It’s tough when you’ve been married for a whole week” or something like that. And I’ll never forget that look of disgust he had when Kim was sort of making out with hubby no. 2 Kris. Both of his parents died at roughly the same time and he’s an only child, so if the Kardashians were my only family I’d probably go off the deep end too. Same could be said for Lamar Odom, who is also an only child. Kanye too.

  2. PamelaJudy says:

    I wonder if PMK has Scott stitched up with a NDA. Otherwise there’s going to be a heck of a book deal.

  3. NewWester says:

    Not to go too off topic but what exactly is behind the meaning of the word “Native” on that t- shirt? Is that the name of a brand or just saying she is home grown person from LA? Because I immediately thought of something else and I hope I am wrong. Some people might be a tad upset

    • Kip says:

      Yeah I had the same thoughts…

      • Loopy says:

        It could mean that she is a native of LA, everyone is a native of somewhere why does the word have to raise any suspicions?

    • SleepyJane says:

      I’m sure it means she’s an LA native. Many are not.

    • QQ says:

      funny you mention That NewWester, I felt a gut way about it too when i saw these a few days ago like *eyeroll* …with this chicks again

  4. DanaG says:

    I hope she get’s full custody he has never been that great anyway off partying drinking etc. When he is clean and sober maybe this will give him the reason to clean up.

  5. Loopy says:

    He has rapidly aged, he looks haggard, I am not sure , some people grieve for a very long time,it must be over whelming to be around a family of ten and you have no other family outlet.

  6. Shambles says:

    Agree that this is what’s best for the kids right now, but let’s not act like this isn’t what she wanted all along. Use the man as a sperm donor, then cut him off completely when the time is right. She gets her kids without having to feel any human emotion towards her partner. Not saying he isn’t at fault here as well, but she knew exactly what she was doing from day one.

    • Yoohoo says:

      Really? That’s a huge stretch. He’s an active drug and alcohol addict who has completely abandoned his family so he can spiral to rock bottom. Yet it’s Kourtney fault. It’s amazing how some or you can’t see past your hatred of the Kardashians to think logically.

      If she was Sara Miller who lived down the street and thr father of her children did this everyone would be supportive and on her side and youd be furious if she didn’t kick him out. But since it’s a Kardashian it’s her fault.

      Three children have lost their father. Right now, odds are high he could OD and die. His children will be destroyed.

      But let’s hate the Kardashians

      • snarky mcsnark says:

        She’s known for a long time he’s had substance abuse issues, yet she still continued to have children with him. If Sara Miller who lives down the street kept having children with a husband who abuses drugs and has stated he didn’t want more kids, wouldn’t you be furious that she kept procreating with him and bringing children into a toxic situation? The only reason they are done is because he got caught publicly cheating and is hurting the Kardashian “brand”. Point Blank Period.

      • SaraMiller says:

        ………leave me out of this.

      • Snowflake says:

        She’s acting like he’s a bad dad, she’s known this! He’s been like this from the beginning so why is she filing now? She kicks him out repeatedly. Now after both his parents die within a year of each other and he really needs someone to be there for him, now she does this? The only reason she’s doing it is because he got caught publicly, now he’s become an embarrassment. he loves those kids, but he has a hardcore addiction. So now she’s going to take everything away from him. That’s cold, she should at least allow him supervised visits. I so hope he comes through this ok, but I have a feeling this is going to be what does him in. I hope like h&ll im wrong. But I get the sense he’s barely hanging on and with no one who truly cares about him, who knows what will happen, that’s just so sad.

      • Chica says:

        So I guess none of you understand what being in love with an addict means. Ask the wifes who do or please stop. You have no idea about the very fine details of their relationship to say what what she knew and what she’s should have done.

        It’s all easy to throw stones at someone when you have a bias against them in the first place as many of you who hate the kardashians have proved. She loves her children and she obviously loved him too or else why else would she have stuck around for this long hne his behavior hasn’t been that different? Yeah, bc when you love someone you tend to give them multiple chances even when you should just walk away.

  7. Sabrine says:

    I feel a little sorry for Scott, not that he’s a good partner or father. He didn’t want the third kid and I’m not sure about the first and second one. Kourtney went ahead and got pregnant without even discussing it with him, blowing him off as if his opinion was of no consequence. Now he has nobody.

    • Yoohoo says:

      The first one was clearly an accident for both of them. I don’t know about the second but if he didn’t want more kids he could have done things to prevent it.

      • Andrea says:

        Exactly—it takes 2 to tango. My friend only wanted 2 kids, but got talked into a third with his wife then they ended up with a fourth “surprise”. Finally, he put his foot down and got a vasectomy.

      • Bridget says:

        You guys say that like it wouldn’t be a huge deal if your partner just went off and got a vasectomy when you still wanted more kids. That’s not a normal solution.

    • Crumpet says:

      He didn’t have a choice as to where he put his penis? As long as they were having sex, he is still responsible for the custody of his contribution (sorry, couldn’t resist the Legally Blonde reference).

    • Chica says:

      Most of the women on here are basically saying Kourtney trapped him. SHE TRAPPED HIM? She refused to marry him and they both had sex and she got pregnant and she decided not to have an abortion. She doesn’t resent her kids. He does. But yet 90% of you females are not suggesting Scott get a vasectomy or to wear condoms. You’re placing the blame on Kourtney. Why do women hate each other so much unless said woman is the figurative mother MAry they approve of? JFC.

      The comments on this site make for some interesting anti-feminist and anti-sisterhood research. We are the worst. But maybe not. I forgot, she’s a Kardashian so she’s to be blamed for everything and not worthy of defense, fairness, or the benefit of doubt.

      • Andrea says:

        I think he should have gotten a vasectomy after baby #1 and I stated above that I thought my friend should have after baby #2 for him.

        I do feel some women do pressure men into more kids as in my example above, but overall, it is a two way street. No one should have bandaid babies. Everyone should take personal responsibility in preventing pregnancy if one partner is anti-chldren presently. I don’t think it is anti-feminist to say some women do pressure men into more children, I have known a least a few personal friends who did just that, that doesn’t mean *ALL* women do so. I am sure some men pressure women as well (I know one incident where that happened also). Bottom line, don’t pressure anyone into children or more children, man or woman. There is no changing their mind or getting them on your side. It always, always ends disasterously. Sometimes we cannot get our way or how we envision our lives to be, get over it.

  8. tikatab says:

    I’m not sure I understand why she’s seeing a lawyer since they’re not married? Does Scott have any legal rights? In the UK he definitely wouldn’t. Are things different in the states?

    • aga says:

      So in the UK doesn’t the kids’ father have any rights ? I’m shocked. The children are the mother’s property and what about paying
      child support ?

      • tikatab says:

        if you’re not married it’s very sketchy ground, there’s such a thing as common law husband and wife if you’ve lived together for over five years but still nothing concrete.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, he would have rights and parental responsibility if named on the birth certificate. Even if the mother doesn’t name the father, a dna test will be arranged through the Child Support Agency, and if they’re the father, they will have to pay child support. If they are persistent non payers, the support can be taken from his salary.

        There is no such thing as common law marriage and unmarried partners have no claim on each other’s property, unless there are really clear reasons, but in practice it’s almost impossible to get any share of property even if you’ve lived there for years.

    • swack says:

      He could be responsible for child support depending on his income, her income and there is usually a formula that is used to determine who pays what and how much. Yes, he has legal rights as far as the children are concerned. Her money is hers and his is his as they were not married and California doesn’t acknowledge common law marriages. Also there has been cases of palimony – where couples live together for an extended amount of time and one of them goes after the other for support. So yes, they both need lawyers. Everything needs to be put down in writing and filed with the courts – especially concerning the children.

      • Eva says:

        There is actually no such thing as “common law husband and wife” in the UK, it is a misconception that is surprisingly widely believed.

        I’ve actually written a blog post on it for the law firm I work at to try and spread awareness as such a belief can often lead to injustice and unfairness.

    • Crumpet says:

      Of course. Common law marriage is a thing here. Is it not in the UK?

      • Eva says:

        No it’s not, common law marriage is a myth here in the UK. No such thing at all. That’s not to say an unmarried partner wouldn’t have parental rights and responsibilities or have to pay child support, they would, but not because of any ‘common law marriage’ laws.

        Problems arise particularly where one of the unmarried partners dies without a will (spouse has no automatic claim to estate), and where there is a breakdown of the relationship and the house is in the sole name of one of the partners. It can lead to some very unfair situations.

  9. NGBoston says:

    Guess what though? At the end of the day, he is still the Biological Father to these children,

    I can only see it as being the right thing to do for now until Disick faces his addiction problems and is really clean, That Kourtney does not want him around the kids when he is under the influence, as he is on a regular basis—-that is admirable to shield the children from that.

    However, I hope over time if she sees improvement she allows supervised visits. It is more traumatic for the kids to have him cut out completely from their lives. The emotional havoc it wreaks lasts for years.

    • swack says:

      He will most likely get supervised visits from the start. The courts are not going to cut him completely out of the children’s lives as that is not in the best interest of the children and yes I understand it is not in the best interest of the children that they see their father when he is not sober. They should use a court appointed person as the one who supervises the visits so that if Scott isn’t sober at the time of the visit then they can deny it and he can’t say that Kourtney won’t allow the visit out of spite.

  10. Murphy says:

    I can’t help but think this is staged for their show. I mean-now that they’re “no longer together” things haven’t changed much at all, its exactly the same.
    I think if this were real there would be a lot more nasty gossip out there about him, Kris doesn’t want to destroy him yet.

  11. Matador says:

    He has no incentive to get clean as long as there are still enablers around him, paying him just to show up and be a drunk party host.

  12. Christina says:

    You can say whatever you want about Scott losing his parents, or even about the kardashians, but that still doesn’t excuse abusive behavior. It should never be tolorated or excused in any kind of relationship and definitely not infront of the kids. Scott has the means to deal with his grief or whatever he is going through in a mature and responsable way and has chosen to do the opposite. Seeing the way he treated Kourney in season 10 was downright painful to watch, and I’m sure what we see from the cameras isn’t even the half of it! If my boyfriend was abusing drugs and alcohol, disrespecting me and getting angry in front of my kids and family and sleeping with randoms at clubs, you better believe I would go for full custody of my kids!

  13. word says:

    I think her plan all along was to just procreate with him and then leave him when she was done with him. That’s probably the reason she put up with his crap and kept getting pregnant. She’s done having kids and therefore done with Scott. He got rich and famous in return. The only ones losing out are the kids.

  14. NGBoston says:

    @Murphy— Disick’s parents dying and his alcohol and recreational drug abuse are most definetly not staged… Just as Lamar Odom’s were not.

    i agree also that the blame for everything should be placed on having a Reality Show or being involved with the K Family. Addiction is a tough and horrible disease to overcome….

    IMOO– I believe deep down it probably always bothered Disick that Kourtney refused to marry him. Clearly she made an intelligent decision here and won’t have as many legal ramifications as Kim had to deal with when she divorced that Tool Humphries.

    I kind of want to cut them both slack— Scott just needs serious help and a lifelong commitment to stay clean and get Psychological Counseling— and It is never…ever…easy for the children at any age.

    instead of the media having a heyday on his downward spiral– I think a decent Media gang should allow him the privacy and respect he needs to get in to a good program like many of the legitimate ones they film on the show “INTERVENTION”. He needs to be in a Sober Living Facilitybfor over a year and even after completed to still be away from his former Lifestyle and all the temptations. a daunting undertaking but it can be accomplished.

    It would be common Human decency folks to support him in getting well and to encourage the man to do this. Shame on any Club Promoter for Booking him when the right thing to do would be to tell him they would love to have him appear when he is clean and in a much better place mentally. Have some damn decency people!!! Any person (unless they are a Cold-blooded Murderer/Rapist/Domestic Voilence Perp)! is entitled to the chance to have others get behind them to fight this crippling disease!

  15. My Two Cents says:

    I imagine any court fight they have would more likely be about money or possessions acquired while together. Addicts and alcoholics are almost always well aware they are not capable of caring for their children and don’t fight for them. The media always prints things for clicks as if they know exactly what is going on and they rarely are correct. I really hope Scot can find recovery before he dies.

  16. JRenee says:

    If the rags are to be believed, her net worth is twice as much as his. The majority of their net worth was acquired while they were together yet kept separately.
    Did Scott say he didn’t want more children or just not more children at the time? Seems like he has a lot to deal with presently and wouldn’t contest any custody terms. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I hope it all works out for the children.

  17. jwoolman says:

    Kourtney might just be making sure she has the right to deny access to the kids when Scott is not sober or showing other risky signs that he might be a danger to them, physically or emotionally. I doubt that she intends to cut him off completely, even though I suspect she was always aware that they might not stay together. Her desire to have children seems to be a separate track from her relationship with their father. I think she does love him and also likes him most of the time, but just has never been sure it was going to be a permanent relationship. There may be money/property issues to sort out, but that doesn’t have to be unfriendly. They may already have been keeping things separate. I don’t recall ever hearing that Scott and Kourtney bought X but rather Scott bought Y and Kourtney bought Z (such as her house).

    I don’t think there are any villains in this story. Scott is going through a tough time, but there probably isn’t anything that Kourtney can do to help him at this point. He needs to find his own way, and she needs to protect their children until he does. I hope he makes it.