Scarlett Johansson’s ex wants primary custody of their daughter Rose

Tom Ford Autumn/Winter 2015 Womenswear Collection Presentation - Red Carpet Arrivals

Back in January, we learned that Scarlett Johansson and her French husband Romain Dauriac were dunzo. It did not come as a shock to anyone because A) the thing with Romain always seemed so weird, B) ScarJo cycles through men pretty quickly (#respect), and C) there was widespread tabloid reporting that they were on the rocks. Still, everything seemed very civilized. ScarJo and Romain stepped out together the same day as their split confirmation, and there was very little post-split drama or gossip. But some-odd six weeks later, there’s drama. And it could get seriously ugly. Much like the Jolie-Pitt divorce, it seems like both parties are gearing up for a major fight over custody of their daughter Rose. First, Page Six reported this exclusively Wednesday morning:

Actress Scarlett Johansson has filed for divorce from her French husband Romain Dauriac and is gearing up for a nasty custody battle, The Post has learned. “The Avengers” actress sued Dauriac in Manhattan Supreme Court Tuesday saying that their marriage is “irretrievably broken.” She’s also asking a judge to give her primary custody of their 3-year-old daughter, Rose Dorothy Dauriac.

The father’s attorney, Harold Mayerson, said his client plans to fight the request.

“He would like to move to France with his daughter and Ms. Johansson does a lot of traveling,” Mayerson explained. “It will be an interesting process,” he said of the unfolding divorce drama, declining to comment further.

After the breakup the parents had an informal co-parenting agreement where they each spent every other week with Rose.

“She would take the child on these trips like when she shooting in New Zealand,” a source close to the case said. Johansson temporarily moved to the island last year to film her latest sci-fi flick “Ghost in the Shell.” But then Johansson wanted to switch to a shorter schedule where she had Rose for three days and then Dauriac took her for two days.

“The kid was bouncing back and forth,” the source said. “It can’t work because [Johansson] travels so much,” the source said. When Dauriac protested that his life was starting to revolve around Johansson’s schedule, he was told by her lawyer that “this is what they do in Hollywood,” the source said.

[From Page Six]

After the NY Post reported that, ScarJo spoke to E! News directly – and somewhat haughtily – and said: “As a devoted mother and private person, and with complete awareness that my daughter will one day be old enough to read the news about herself, I would only like to say that I will never, ever be commenting on the dissolution of my marriage. Out of respect for my desires as a parent and out of respect for all working moms, it is with kindness that I ask other parties involved and the media to do the same. Thank you.” If your eye started twitching with the very idea that Scarlett would call up E! News to talk about how private she is, you’re not alone. But ScarJo had to say something, because Romain’s lawyer Harold Mayerson is already going to the media and pleading his client’s case in the public sphere. This is what he said to E!

“Under the laws of the United States, thankfully men and women are treated the same in reference to custody,” Hal Mayerson said. “There are many cases where the fathers do a lot of traveling, and if they were to raise this same issue, you would you laugh. You can’t hide behind a suit or a dress—it’s what’s in the best interest of the child.”

Hal argued that Romain “is the primary custodial parent,” adding, “He wants her to be involved with her daughter, desperately, but you can’t have schedules switching all the time. How do you explain that to a child? She’s allowed to have her career, and there will be a certain degree of flexibility—but not to suit her schedule or Mr. Dauriac’s. It will be one that suits the child.”

As for Scarlett’s desire to keep the custody battle in the family, Hal said, “People should have respect for their privacy, but she filed in the court system. She did. If she wants to continue to fight in the court system, she can’t blame Mr. Dauriac for doing anything. She raised the issue.”

Hal seemed confident he’ll secure a victory for Romain. “If the court decides it’s in the best interest of the child to be flying on a plane or changing their schedule all the time then I’m going to find a new business,” he told E! News. “It’s not fair to the kids or to the other parent.”

[From E! News]

Well, well. It’s not that I’m enjoying a custody battle – I am not and custody battles are a bitch to cover – it’s that I am sort of enjoying the fact that ScarJo can’t breeze through this with her bohemian attitude, like she’s so much more evolved than everybody else. She’s going to have to buckle up and really fight, because it sounds like Romain is going for the jugular.

Oh, and Romain did issue a statement to People Mag too, because it seems like he’s a really quick study. He basically says that ScarJo should drop the formal divorce filing and negotiate their split privately. Hm.

The 87th Annual Oscars - Red Carpet Arrivals

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

159 Responses to “Scarlett Johansson’s ex wants primary custody of their daughter Rose”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Andrea1 says:

    well well well what do we know….
    Divorce is never easy and most times it can get nasty between the two partners. This is made worse when the said divorcing partners are in the public eye. I tell you it is never easy. I hope they both do whats best for the kid.

    • imqrious2 says:

      A young child needs stability, as well as socialization with other young children, to learn how to share and get along with others. Being dragged from set to set, promotional tour to promotional tour, in one country after another is hardly a stable life. Parents/Partners need to put the child’s needs and development ahead of their wants/egos.

  2. Mia4S says:

    It sounds like they were negotiating privately and she left the table. That’s her right but it should be no surprise that things got ugly.

    It also sounds like she’s in for a rude awakening. If it’s an option between a settled home or travelling between movie sets cared for by a nanny? He’s well positioned for primary physical custody. This could be a MESS!!

    • Jeesie says:

      Yep. I get the feeling she thinks just being the mother gives her the upper hand, but trying for primary custody when her ex was the primary care-giver and remains more settled is a big reach.

      • KB says:

        Does the guy have a job? All I could find was that he used to be a journalist. Or is “settled” code for unemployed? Didn’t she open that popcorn shoppe just to give him something to do?

        ETA: I just read another article that called him an ad exec, but no other details were included.

      • Dani says:

        Don’t quote me on this but I think I read somewhere that he comes from a family of money and that prior to Scarlett he was well taken care of financially.

      • KB says:

        That would make sense. I also read he was an art show curator, so he seems to just bounce around into whatever he feels like.

      • Scotchy says:

        @KB @Dan
        You are right he does come from family money.
        He used be known in the Paris scene for setting up parties and art events etc, i.e. Code for French trust fund kid :)

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      Too bad he decided to negotiate “privately”. If he had filed in France he would probably get primary custody. France is very pro-father. The way America is pro-mother, France is about fathers. If she blind-sided him by running to NY courts, good on her because she wouldn’t have won if he had filed in France. Her being Scarlett Johansson would have no bearing in a French court.

      If he is a trust fund kid that makes sense. He was always listed as art collector or art critic, but “Art curator”? never understood what that mean’t besides code for has money to buy art (monied).

  3. Talie says:

    Sounds like they had a decent arrangement and she changed it. Now, those arrangements can hardly work once she starts school, but for the time being, she should’ve just stuck with it to keep the peace.

  4. RussianBlueCat says:

    “with complete awareness that one day my daughter will be old enough to read the news about herself” I think this is the first time where I have read a statement from a celebrity going through a divorce actually consider what their child may read about in the future. Not taking sides or throwing shade at anyone, but that was a departure from the usual ” respect our privacy at this time”

    • K says:

      But she isn’t considering her child she just doesn’t want the case in the media because she might not look good.

      The father is basically saying from what I’ve read he wants stability for his daughter he respects scarjo’s career but constant travel and no set schedule isn’t fair and that’s not wrong.

      • Bex says:

        That seems like a fairly big assumption about her intentions to me. Scarjo is many things, and I’m no fan, but she’s never been one to sell her private life to the media. This guy doesn’t sound all that unreasonable in his statement, but we don’t know Scarlett’s side of this yet.

    • G says:

      I mean it’s nice that she said it, but her actions say more than her words. Sometimes people make these kinds of statements and then continue on their merry way, because admitting to something alleviates some of the guilt (for want of a better word) they feel in actually doing it.

      Dauriac’s lawyer makes a lot of sense.

  5. paolanqar says:

    I am on no one’s side but isn’t it a bit late now for him to come up with these considerations only now? It’s not like Scarlett has become an actress yesterday and despite her attitude, i find it very unfair. She has always had a busy schedule; she is one of the busiest actresses of our generations and this is her job. These are the kind of things you need to discuss before you put a child in this world especially if you and your partner come from different countries and your job takes you everywhere in the world.
    i feel for that poor kid.

    • jinni says:

      The same could be said for her. Maybe she should have thought twice before having a kid with a person from another country who mainly works in that country.

      • paolanqar says:

        I never said i was on her side? Of course this have to work both ways.

      • KB says:

        What is his profession? Where does he work?

      • Melly says:

        If I were her, I’d close the popcorn shop. Then he has no excuse of working in a different country. Let him have primary custody/ more custody time if he agreed to move to NYC where I think Scarlett plans to live.

    • Jeesie says:

      Not really. By that logic Scarlett should have thought through the fact that having a child with someone with a far less taxing schedule puts her in a very poor position to gain primary custody. Clearly the plan was she would work a lot and he would be at home more.

      Very few people plan out future custody arrangements when they marry and have babies.

      • Cody says:

        Problem is….most people don’t really have those emotionless, logical discussions when planning for a child. It’s typically an emotional decision. I mean no one really thinks that far ahead (that I know of). They just know they are ‘ready’. Naive yes, but it’s the way it’s been done forever. (And that’s assuming the child was planned).

    • Artemis says:

      Well, she said in the past she doesn’t believe in monogamy and she still married a second time and of course racked up another divorce. Don’t get married and if you cycle through men quickly and especially don’t get pregnant. You can cycle out of a relationship like it’s nothing when a child is permanently involved and when the father is more than willing to parent the child.

      And it’s true, he did know what he signed up for but so did she. American celebs just love the European life and romanticise it because of their current love…until they actually try and settle there and realise it doesn’t work because 1) they are too used to the US culture and 2) it’s incompatible with their career. They end up missing their old life and say goodbye to whatever life they pretended they wanted to have in Europe like only their decisions and feelings matter. It’s that typical selfish trait in human nature that is exemplified x100 due to money, fame and easy access to whatever your heart desires.

      So Scarlett now has a child without thinking through the logistics of having a European father to her child as she clearly is not willing to compromise on her lifestyle (yet he has to follow her as she wants joint custody but the child would be living with her?). It’s just so inconvenient to her but if he’s up for the fight (and it seems he is) what case does she have? Her plate is always full, she’s not willing to compromise (why is it normal that he should travel to her but she’s the one with the full, tiring jetset travel style?) and Dauriac can offer the child a stable homelife without too many disruptions and 24/7 nannies? If she’s working all the time, why have the child with her (read: a nanny) and have her travel back and forth to whatever countries she’s going to for promotion?

      I know a working mother shouldn’t be shamed but common sense would say the child should not adapt to a lifestyle where the mother is often not available when there’s a father who can offer a stable homelife. Put differently, when 2 parents are willing to parent but living in different countries, what is the quality of the lifestyle they have to offer? And you know what, when your marriage was that short yet the agreement seemed to be that the father does most of the parenting, you don’t really have leg to stand on to change that agreement. She should’ve tried harder to work on her marriage and be fair when it comes to custody but she just went the cliché route of ‘I want my baby’ without again, thinking things through. It’s clear by past interviews, she truly isn’t a smart or caring woman.

      • jinni says:

        Excellent post. Especially about the cycling through guys part. If that’s how she is with men than she should not have had a kid with one of these easy to cast off guys. Maybe she should have just gotten a sperm donor or adopted.

      • here or there says:

        Well said.

      • KB says:

        Lol they never last more than a few years in France. Natalie Portman comes to mind as well.

      • original kay says:

        Lot’s of shaming in this post. Cycles through men is so problematic, I just don’t even know.

      • candy says:

        @Artemis +100

      • Tulip Garden says:

        There is a difference between attempting to shame and just plain telling it like it is. For example, would anyone find me to be shaming Leo Dicaprio if I said he cycles through models pretty quickly? I mean it is just a fact. I think that the statement about Scarlett is also just a fact. It’s only shameful if the person speaking or person listening finds shame in the behavior.
        Personally, as long as a single person is being honest with their partners, however many there may be, than it is fine. The problem comes in with marriage and/or children. I expect a married man and/or woman to exhibit certain applicable behaviors, doubly so when that person is a parent married or not. It’s simply acknowledging their life circumstances and how their decisions now affect someone else, particularly if that person is a child.
        I do think Scarlett is most concerned about what is best for her. That, as of now, is my impression based on her past behaviors and statements, both past and present.

  6. Don't kill me I'm French says:

    I am not surprised.He Was Not into her Hollywood life ( many travels) so now they broke,the question always was :Where will his daughter live ? And with who ?

    One of my cousin lives in the same street( or block of streets) than them at Paris and until the end of last year,he thought ScarJo and Romain had sold /dropped their French home but in December,he again started to see Romain ( With or without his daughter) in the streets.They even talked together in a shop (theirs daughters have the same age)

  7. jinni says:

    If he is the one that mainly raised the baby and has a more stable life then why shouldn’t he get physical custody of the kid? Plus between the two ScarJo has more money and flexiblity in her work to maneuver around his life than he would have to maneuver around her’s since her job takes her all over.

    • detritus says:

      Yeah, it sounds like he should be getting primary custody. He’s the primary caregiver, they worked that out it sounds like while they were married. She makes the money, he cares for the bebe. so guess what, he should stay primary caregiver, and she should pay support.

      I really don’t like the idea that women are better at childcare ‘because’ and should have primary because of that. The judgement should be what is best for the child.

    • tracking says:

      Agreed. The primary should get primary custody, regardless of gender.

    • woodstock_schulz says:

      This exactly. She can continue to travel and work, and visit her daughter when she has breaks in her work. Especially when Rose starts school, stability will be very important and it seems that the ex is a caring and involved father, so why take the child away from that?

    • Jamie says:

      Just because he said or his lawyer said that he’s the primary caregiver though doesn’t mean that he actually is. My ex also claimed to be the primary caregiver when we were going through divorce. He works full time and so do I, though I stayed home full time for years with our kids up til a few years before the divorce. We ended up sharing custody 50/50 but now he’s still falling back on me to take care of them all the time during his custody times (which is okay with me, then I get more time with them), or he’s just neglecting them in various ways when he has them. I think fathers should get some custody but very few fathers are equipped to really be primary caregivers.

      • Lindy says:

        That’s almost identical to my situation. My ex claimed to be the primary caregiver but that was never the case. He just wanted to avoid paying child support, and since we both made roughly the same amount and he had zero scruples about dragging the case out and keeping our child in limbo, he got his way. But he travels constantly and so I have my son a good bit more than 50%, which is better for my kiddo (he has a routine with me).

        So I side-eye grandiose claims from this guy that he’s the primary caregiver. Maybe so, but maybe he was into her game and liked her money and is using the child to extract as much of it as he can.

  8. Jayna says:

    This is why you never have a child with someone from another country, who prefers that country. If you divorce, it gets very messy as far as custody.

    • minx says:

      That’s what I was thinking.

    • Valois says:

      It would still be a problem if he lived in, let’s say, New York. Based on the sources, the issue seems to be that she travels so much and he kind of has to follow her around or let it dictate his life, not that he’s in France all the time and she’s in America.

    • Relli says:


  9. SM says:

    Is he trying to get his 15 minutes?

    • Jeesie says:

      Scarlett is the one who filed with the courts and made it public.

      • Bridget says:

        Why is that a thing? Have I missed something and divorces don’t need to be legally filed with the court?

      • Anatha says:

        @Bridget You can settle in private and the judge only sees that you have everything worked out and agrees to whatever agreement you have. That’s far less messy than work out every single agreement in court. Judges only work on those issues you can’t settle yourself. It also means that everything stays private as the details don’t have to be made part of the official divorce documents beside basic specifics as who has custody.

      • KB says:

        That’s just his excuse to cover why he’s taking the fight to the tabloids. Filing in court is hardly “making it public.” It could still be handled discreetly. He’s just trying to shame her into submission.

      • bns says:

        @KB he’s not shaming her into submission. if he is the one that has been primarily taking care of their daughter while she works constantly and travels all over the world, then she is ridiculous for requesting primary custody and he had every right to call her out on it.

      • KB says:

        @Anatha Lawyers may be able to correct me here, but I believe you still have to file for divorce before retaining a private judge for the case. It’s still in the same court system, you’re just not assigned a judge by the court. They were probably in some kind of mediation and she decided it wasn’t working and filed. They can still use a private judge.

        @BNS If he wasn’t trying to shame her, why would he be releasing statements to the press? She filed, he ran to the press. That’s strategy, not necessity.

        I don’t know much about their relationship. Did he travel with her when she was shooting? If so, she’d be parenting and just as involved as he was. There’s a lot of downtime on movie sets. It’s possible she plans on cutting back on her work commitments, so even if he was primary caregiver at times in the past, that seems irrelevant going forward.

        We all know this ends in joint custody, why can’t they both just put their egos aside?

      • Bridget says:

        Divorces are public record, and you have to request (and have good cause) for them to be sealed. You can’t just get secret divorced.

  10. Deanna says:

    I sort of feel like this will become the new Kelly Rutherford story. Not that ScarJo is like Kelly at all, but just the back-and-forth media battles and the “child should always be with the mother” comments.

    I hope they work it out.

  11. Donna says:

    At least she’s not going by the Halle Berry/Kelly Rutherford playbook and using the media to savage his reputation. At least, not yet.

    • hogtowngooner says:

      True, but wait til the ruling doesn’t go in her favour. She may sing a very different tune then.

  12. Alexandria says:

    I feel that he has his valid points and it is destabilising for a young kid to keep following one parent around. This is not like ScarJo is stationed at one country like an expat for at least two years. This is constant travelling we are talking about. Also I don’t see why he cannot speak up for himself if she can do the same. I’ve never even had the sense of him being a spotlight hogger during their years as a couple. Do correct me if I’m wrong there.

  13. tweetime says:

    Honestly, I’m kind of in agreement with him here (based on what we know, obviously there is likely more behind the scenes). As a woman who is also very into her career, the thought of not being able to have primary or equal custody of my future children upsets me in the sense that it would be very hard; but at the end of the day, that doesn’t really matter. It’s the chance you take when you bring children into the world that sometimes what is best for them will not be what makes you happiest. I’m not at all unsympathetic, but if she’s travelling constantly and he’s fairly stable then especially as the child gets older it makes sense for him to be her home base and for her to then have regular times when she is with her mother.
    (Saying this as a child with divorced parents who handled their split beautifully – but we had a home base and then spent every second weekend with our dad. It would have been hard to be bopping all over the place constantly.)

  14. Sam says:

    “Out of respect for all working women.” OMG just shut up Scarjo. Why is this woman always so out touch? We all know that she wouldn’t be raising the child but rather a bunch of nannies. If he’s been the primary caregiver this long then he should get custody. Scarjo is wealthy enough to where she can come visit her daughter whenever she’d like. We all know that Scarjo isn’t going to stop being Scarjo and therefore the child would end up just living on sets and being raised by the nannies. She should have a home base and if her father is providing that then that’s where the child should be raised. I can’t believe that scarjo tried that working women BS though.

    Also sounds like her ex has a lot of dirt on her which is why he told her to settle all of this privately.

    • Elaine says:

      Wow, you must really dislike Scarlett…

      • Sam says:

        No what I said is the truth. If she gets full custody then the nannies are raising the daughter. She’s one of the more in demand actresses especially because of the Marvel movies. That’s not gonna stop. So is she going to have proper time to take care of the child and give the child a home base especially when Rose begins school? That answer is no. It makes no sense for her to get custody.

        In terms of her ex having dirt on her I took that from Lainey and what kaiser said about him going to People Mag.

      • Bubbles says:

        Or Sam is just really jealous of her. Maybe a bit of both. I feel bad for Sam. Sam must be really sad about their life choices.

      • Sam says:

        Welp guys looks like @Elaine and @Bubbles are the Scarjo stans coming in here to defend her honor at all costs.

        Apparently bringing up the reality of the situation means that one dislikes and is jealous of Scarjo.

      • Amide says:

        Or Sam just has a different opinion of Scarlett and this whole dynamic from yours.

      • original kay says:

        No, what you said is how you see the truth, based on very little facts and a whole bunch of issues from your own past you are projecting onto this situation. And it sounds very bitter.

        You don’t “Scarjo”, to know how she interacts with her child, so drawing conclusions that Rose will be raised by nannies because “Scarjo” will always be “Scarjo” sounds bizarre (and bitter).

        And as I said before, this whole notion of a “home base” and traditional formal schooling being the only way to raise a child is archaic.

      • Elaine says:

        @Sam, I’m not Scarlett’s “stan”. I really don’t know how many nannies she has, if they are full time or live in nannies or if her husband took care of their daughter while she was working. There’s also the possibility of her signing up for less films and spend more time with her daughter.
        We really have no idea what’s happening in her life. But you did sound very sure that she’s crappy mother.

    • Bridget says:

      That is a very slippery slope. Are you seriously suggesting that women who work and use childcare are less fit to share custody because they won’t be spending every minute of the day with the kid? How is this different from someone who works all day in an office? Because Scarlett IS a working mother, and working mothers use childcare (i.e. A nanny).

      • Sam says:

        No. Because Scarjo isn’t your typical working women. She’s always traveling and is always on set so therefore yes her child is gonna be raised by nannies when instead her daughter can be raised by the father and Scarjo can visit whenever she would like which I believe is what they originally planned. There’s a difference between a women who works a 9-5 and has a nanny than Scarjo who works who knows what kind of hours and is traveling all over the world. I would be saying the same exact thing if the roles were reversed and Scarjo’s husband was the one traveling and having the weird working hours. It’s all about stability for the child and I just don’t see how traveling all the time provides stability for any child.

        Also the debate isn’t about sharing custody. I think that’s the most logical thing to do. They’re fighting over primary custody.

      • Bridget says:

        I think the intention is to have the child travel with her while she’s not school aged. In fact, some could argue that gives her MORE time during the day than a typical working mom, as movie sets typically have a huge amount of down time in the trailer.

      • M4lificent says:

        I’m a single, working mother, and the argument that “you can” doesn’t always equate to “you should”. It is (or should be) the *right* of every woman to choose her own professional destiny, but it is also the *obligation* of every person who chooses to become a parent to make the well-being of their child a priority.

        Every parent (single, married, male, female) has to make choices (within their means and circumstances) about how much time to spend with their kids vs. working. I’ve made numerous choices about my career that put my child first. (And I also have a child who has grown up knowing that he is not the center of the universe because mom has to put food on the table.)

        Based on the information at hand — and assuming both parents are equally loving and competent — it would make sense for the father to have primary physical custody.

        In Scarlett’s circumstances, she travels a great deal for her work — which will become more logistically difficult as the child grows older. She’s also so successful that she could choose to base herself in Paris, rather than LA, and still be in demand. Or, she could choose to work in one of the many high-quality cable shows so she could be in a more stable location. Or, she and her ex could literally meet in the middle and base themselves somewhere like New York — which would be a compromise for both — but logistically more doable than LA/Paris for sharing time with their child.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        @mal4ificent and Sam,
        I agree with you both. Comparing Scarlett to a typical working mother is ridiculous but it is good optics for getting public support and what she wants which is why she is doing it.
        Sometimes it seems like critical thinking flies out of the window if you just use a popular catchphrase, I.e., working mother, child free couple, SAHM, nothing is wrong with any of these things but they seem to be bandwagon phrases.

      • Bridget says:

        It isn’t as though I’m trying to compare her to a typical working mother, but where is the line drawn? Think about what you guys are saying. The kid would be cared for by a nanny part of the time that she’s with Scarlett, and therefore she shouldn’t get a decent share of custody? Again, a huge amount of acting on a movie is down time between scenes. She’d likely be able to spend more time with the child during the day than a normal working mom would. Is there some sort of hourly limit you’d place on a child being with a nanny for a woman to be able to get custody? We literally don’t even know what he’s asking for and what she’s asking for, and yet people are quick to judge simply because they don’t like Scarlett as a personality.

      • Mana says:

        LOL You both make it sound like SJ has no downtime. As busy and in demand as she is, there are literally weeks or even months at a time where she isn’t traveling, when she’s in between projects or preparing for projects. And there is tons of downtime on movie sets which she is most likely spending with her child.

        She’s always been with her child so basically what you are saying is because her job isn’t 9 to 5 that somehow means she doesn’t deserve to have custody of her child. She’s always had her family with her while working so in fact it may not be the case that the father has been the primary caregiver, it may have been fairly evenly split.

        Also the child is American, she’s a US citizen, born in the US – if the father really wants primary care and not just to stick it to his wife because his ego is hurt, then he should live with the child in the US. They may have been splitting time between both places but when it comes down to it, the daughter was born in the US and is a US citizen, she should be raised in her home country. See how quick he is to accept THAT idea, ha! Doubtful because he just wants what he wants, not what’s best for the child.

    • Veronica says:

      Where the child is concerned, I agree it’s the more stable situation, but I’m keenly aware of the fact that my father had no problem ripping primary custody out of my mother’s hands – my mother was the PRIMARY caregiver and had sacrificed her career – despite the fact that he had a job that involved massive amounts of traveling (navy). It’s not lost on me that a man might not be at such a disadvantage when it’s HIS job that requires the traveling, so I’m not so quick to say her statement is entirely off base.

      • Alexandria says:

        Hi Veronica, genuinely would like to ask isn’t it the same here, except the gender is switched? So, if you felt that person A (said dad who happens to be a man) should have considered the instability of travelling before getting full custody of yourself, is it also unfair to ask ScarJo to just consider that? I would never doubt the love these two have for their child and I would never be privy to their actual situation. I am just very uneasy that this is turning into a man versus woman situation when I’m just trying to look at this without siding a gender. As much as it hurts to separate a dedicated, working mother from a child, it also hurts to separate a dedicated, working father from his. Custody arrangements should look at all these, instead of gender. I am a proponent of that, and even if one argues that statistically custody arrangements favour the mother or the father, this point is moot. If it’s best for the child to be with the mother most of the time, then go ahead. If it’s best for the child to be with the father most of the time, then go ahead. Decided by the professionals and both parents of course. I hope the best for their family.

      • Veronica says:

        Perhaps I need to clarify my position – I do think the child should be with the more stable, primary caretaker, though I do think the custody should be joint if the non-primary parent is still actively involved in the child’s life. Scarjo may travel a lot, but she’s also got vast stretches of time without having the work, so while nannies may be watching her kids during filming, she’d be with the kid 24/7 during the downtime. (Which is more than many working or middle class parents may see their kids.) There’s also the trickier question of who the primary financial contributor is and how much that should factor into custody – if Scarjo is the moneymaker, how do we scale that as a parental contribution?

        I brought up the issue of my father to point out that the issue of “stability” is not as simplistic as who is at home when it comes to legal battles. My mother was definitely the superior parent, but the courts favored my father because the fact of his role as the primary financial contributor was counted as more significant than hers. It’s not that I want to turn this into a gender war, but my point is that the issue may be inherently gendered because our social expectations for what a parent should be are tied to our idea about male and female parental roles. I don’t think Scarjo’s ex is necessary without his share of a fair argument, but I don’t entirely disagree with her that her position as a working woman may be questioned more than it would be in a male figure.

      • Alexandria says:

        Thanks Veronica, really appreciate the thoughtful response and insight. I also agree from the start that her position as a working woman shouldn’t be brought into this. Most important I think, is love and time given from a parent, and she may very well be capable of giving that while having this type of career.

      • Artemis says:


        Not being in front of the camera does not automatically mean being less busy. She works all the time which certainly for her action roles (where most her money comes from these days) means hours and hours of training her body to get in shape (before and during filming), then the stunt choreography (also before and during filming) and then the actual filming tends to be longer because of coordinating stunts takes more time filming than say a dramatic scene plus they change or cut choreography all the time.

        Even for dramatic roles, shooting can be quite long + you have to rehearse lines and interpret character. It’s not like she comes home 9pm in the evening and chills out. A strong work ethic is so important for a performer, especially when you’re A-list like Scarlett and still young/attractive enough to enjoy a steady flow of job offers.

        I have a friend, obviously not famous but he has been acting on stage since age 15 both professionally and amateur and recently moved to London to study drama. Man has NO time to enjoy life (he could but then he would be less good at his craft). He wants to have a career and as a Muslim in the UK, roles will be hard to come by. Learning the lines is one reason why his time is valuable and then the other is the rehearsals. And this is ‘just’ theatre which has a decent routine to it not some Hollywood blockbuster with insane hours in shooting schedule and worldwide promotion. Life in the arts is usually hard, fame or not.

        This is why some actor couples pick roles that allow them to work for a certain amount of months and coordinate their work schedule so they switch who looks after the child(ren) instead of both working and barely seeing their kid(s) and each other.

    • Trashaddict says:

      What on earth makes you think the nannies are NOT going to be raising the daughter if she ends up in daddy’s custody? I don’t get the hate for Scarjo here. When a kid is young, I don’t necessarily believe that being in the same place all the time is absolutely required. My parents travelled when we were little and it was a great experience. When one gets older, yeah, you need to have a circle of friends and a stable place, but it’s not crucial when you’re little.

  15. Elaine says:

    I feel that he is trying to force her hand by speaking out to the press. I don’t know how filing for divorce suddenly makes it OK for the other side to make their dispute public. Granted, I’m not at all familiar to the American judicial system.
    So far we don’t really know anything. She chooses to remain private about this. I wouldn’t automatically believe that he’s right simply because I haven’t heard her side of the story. Hopefully they will put their child first and come up with a fair agreement for sharing custody. Especially because they both want to take responsibility for their child.

    As for the “she shouldn’t have had a child with a foreigner” comments… I’m pretty sure people don’t plan their lives expecting to get divorced when they are in love and in solid relationships.

  16. The Original Mia says:

    I don’t like the tone of his statement. It sounds like a veiled threat to seek sole custody because she wasn’t giving him what he wanted in their private negotiations. Because how does filing make it public? Were they supposed to remain married in name only for appearances’ sake? Nah.

    • Bex says:

      I’m with you on this. It certainly sounds from their public statements that he’s got a case, but could he not just have made that case privately to the courts?

    • LadyT says:

      It seems that private negotiations failed. Had that been successful they could have simply filed their agreement in court without playing it out in public. But they did not reach an agreement, she filed in court, so now all the bitter details will/can come out as the court has been left to decide the arrangements. Heck yes he’s threatening her. She has the power/money and he’s got the “goods” on her apparently. Cases can be “sealed” but of course he would not agree to that or he loses his bargaining chip.

      • Mana says:

        That isn’t how it works, you still have file with the court and it’s public record. That’s all she did.

    • Algernon says:

      This! Every statement from his side is so creepy and punishing, like she didn’t play by his rules and now he’s going to make her pay. Even if they used a private mediator to iron out details first, at some point someone was going to have to formally file a divorce petition in the courts and “go on the record” with it. There is no reason to act like filing for divorce is somehow equal to spilling this business all over the press. I respect ScarJo’s statement that she doesn’t want her daughter to someday read all this mess on the internet. (My mind went to Jeremy Renner’s kid and that whole drama.) The reality is we have no idea what kind of compromises she is willing to make or what type of arrangements she was offering. All we do know is that he is the one putting this in the media.

      • Hiccup says:

        I totally agree, it sounds to me like he’s punishing her for being her (an actress) and playing dirty. We have no idea really what kind of parent he or she is or how they’ve really been splitting their responsibilities up until now, but it does sound to me like his ego’s been bruised and he never really liked or respected her career anyway. I don’t necessarily think either one of them is a bad parent but it could be a case of two good parents letting their egos get in the way of a reasonable custody agreement. I hope they work it out.

  17. slowsnow says:

    Wow. I’m really puzzled by the assumptions and criticisms regarding this woman’s life and decisions.
    Relationships and parenthood always have a certain percentage of leap of faith in them. Otherwise no one would get married and have kids. Your spouse can die, you can die, the children can have illnesses etc. So much can go wrong and yet, here we are. I am certain ScarJo did not plan to end the relationship or to fall in love with someone from another continent on purpose. Come on now.
    Also, most people I know who didn’t believe in marriage ended up having the most leovey-dovey relationships when did they did tie the know. People change.
    There is a kid at stake here and potentially one of the parents who will see much less of the child than the other, which is an awful situation.
    And finally IF she will have an army of nannies taking care of her kid while she works, it’s not that different from many parents who both work extremely hard and made the choice to continue to do so. Some of the kids end up in boarding schools etc. It’s a choice I wouldn’t make but I also need to respect people who choose different ways of parenting.
    I do agree though, that the child should stay with the most stable parent and that the decision shouldn’t be based on gender. Equality is for everyone, for fathers too!

    • Relli says:


    • original kay says:

      Good post.

      A friend, she and her husband leave for work at 7am. Because of travel time, they don’t arrive back home until 6:30 or so, and that’s in good weather.
      So their 12 year old is alone for all those hours. She doesn’t go to before or after school care, she is alone from 7-9 am, gets herself to school, and is home at 330-630 pm, alone.

      She’s 12.

      To the standards presented here, her home life is stable, secure. She has a home base. 2 parents, double income, nice house, she wants for nothing. Except, of course, someone to talk to when she alone all those hours, 5 days a week.

      See my point? This idea of the “right” way to do it is an illusion. There is no right way, anymore, if there ever was. So much shaming, judgement, on this thread :(

  18. Tessa says:

    What happens when Rose has to go to school? She can’t be dragged all over the place.

    • Sam says:

      Exactly. I mentioned that above and apparently that means I dislike Scarjo and that I’m jealous.

    • original kay says:

      There are many alternatives to schooling in the traditional way. We home school, for example.

      Just FYI, there is such a thing as thinking outside the box.

      • Algernon says:

        Also, when Rose is school-aged, ScarJo can change up her work schedule. She can work less, or she can take a prestige TV role that would give her more stable hours. She has so many options, and people are making so many assumptions that just because she is busy and travels she must be incapable of caring for her child. We have no idea what her plans are.

    • Ayra. says:

      home tutor with those travelling teachers, I guess.

      • imqrious2 says:

        While home schooling/traveling private tutor is an option, it is not a great option in this case, where the child will not be able to forge peer relationships with others (with sports clubs, etc.) in her neighborhood. In the most likely scenario, she will be tutored alone, or with an on-set child(ren) not necessarily her own age.

    • bns says:

      I honestly don’t understand how or why celebrities have children because of stuff like this. Unless the celeb is married to a non-celeb that stays home and raises the kids.

      • original kay says:

        you know what you sound like? the trump white house.

        you know, only 1 way to raise kids, and that’s the way from the 50′s. Come on now, it’s 2017.

      • Algernon says:

        I went to school in LA with a lot of celebkids. The vast majority of them turn out fine, even when their parents busted up.

      • Veronica says:

        You could make this argument for any parenting situation that involves travel, though. Think about how often military families move around. (I grew up in a naval household – we had moved house six times before I was ten.) To me, stability is better defined by how the parents engage with the child and how they work around less than ideal circumstances.

      • imqrious2 says:

        Algernon, I grew up in Beverly Hills with a lot of celeb kids too (Carrie Fisher was my writing partner in sophomore English class, as one example). In these instances, the kids HAD a home base and went to school(s), they were not dragged across countries continuously, living on-set. There’s the difference, in my opinion.

      • Algernon says:

        True, most of them were “home based” in LA, and there is no reason to assume that when it comes time for Rose to go to school, ScarJo won’t change up her schedule to accommodate that. Everyone is assuming she’ll keep working at this pace but there is no reason to assume that. Her Marvel contract is coming to an end, and she’s in a position to pick and choose her work. She can work as much or as little as she wants. It’s equally easy to assume she will slow down or take a TV job that will keep her in one place for six or more months, once Rose is in school. I just don’t get why everyone is acting like she can’t adjust her schedule.

        ETA: I don’t see similar concern about Charlize Theron, who has children and works constantly all over the globe. Or Michelle Williams. There are single celebrity mothers getting it done and working and their kids seem fine.

      • original kay says:

        Or like, Angelina. I am surprised no one has brought that up to show the opposite to most the ideas presented, that kids need this stable home base thing in order to thrive.

        I obviously don’t know Angelina, but I follow her career and her children seem to be doing OK, by society’s rigid standards. Even with this divorce and gossip and issues with Brad. There are American schools globally that follow curriculum, I’ve heard, so that is an option too.

      • lyla says:

        yup @orginal kay i was surprised no one brought up angelina

  19. Bridget says:

    While I understand the point he is making and think it at least on the surface sounds reasonable, the “well she shouldn’t have filed” statement makes me really uncomfortable and makes this sound retaliatory.

    • LadyT says:

      Well— it really is best if the parents can negotiate and compromise among themselves and then just present the arrangement to the court which is almost always just accepted. End of story. Otherwise you’ve put the whole matter into someone else’s hands AND it’s now public. I agree that now apparently the gloves are off for a battle.

    • Lyka says:

      Bridget, I think you commented similarly above, so here’s the part I think is confusing: Dauriac/his lawyer aren’t saying “Johansson shouldn’t have filed for divorce if she didn’t want a custody battle.” They’re saying, “Johansson shouldn’t have filed for the custody arrangement in court if she wanted to keep the proceedings private.”

      As LadyT notes, constructive and organized custody conversations can indeed take place before any court filings, and it seems like these two people were on different pages about the method by which to negotiate custody of their child.

      • Bridget says:

        There’s a difference between “negotiations have broken down, I’m filing for divorce” and “you filed, so I can say anything I want” which is easily the tone inferred from that statement. If negotiations were at a standstill, she’s within her rights to want to use the legal system.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Yeah, I don’t like that statement either. What do you mean she shouldn’t have filed? He’s playing with their kid and that’s not fair.

    • KB says:

      I think she probably felt he was being unreasonable. Of course, she’s demanding the same thing he is – primary custody.

  20. Cee says:

    This is why I would think twice before having a child with a foreigner (unless we both reside permanently in the same country!) and IF I have children abroad they will be dual citizens while I would really fight and work toward being granted theirs.

  21. Moon says:

    Sounds like he is shaming her for being a working mum and he sounds resentful about her career. Seems to me that was a reason for their split? But he’s being unreasonable, why marry a Hollywood actress if you can’t handle the life? He knew what he was getting into, her lifestyle hasn’t changed since they were dating but now when he wants to pull the plug he’s going to shame her for her success and work? Shame on him.

    • Relli says:

      Yes, exactly. I am uncomfortable with shaming a woman for working.

    • Aren says:

      Absolutely. He always has, and it’s a shame she was so vulnerable that she didn’t see this before having a child.

  22. Zeddy says:

    It seems these CB comments are starting off the same way: call the woman crappy, take the guys side, find out some awful info about the guy, switch sides and say how wrong you were.

    I appreciate the classy response from Scarjo. Unfortunately, statistics indicate that men are more likely to get custody when the fight for it. No equality there.

    • Gene123 says:

      I think your last sentence is wrong. If anything, custody courts favor the mother. The father is rarely viewed as the primary caregiver.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        No, Zeddy is correct. When fathers fight for time and custody they get it. When most women end up with custody it’s because the father didn’t want custody and so didn’t fight for it. Courts do not favor the mother for the most part, that is a myth.

    • Relli says:

      Neither did I, but I very surprised how it was interpreted and condemned.

    • ky says:

      You are correct. People hear that women end up with primary custody 75% of the time and assume bias. However, the rest of that is that in cases WHEN MEN SEEK primary custody they get it in 65% of the cases. The take from that is not that women are favored, it is that men aren’t asking.

  23. K says:

    While under normal situations a woman having a demanding career should have no impact on her custody, I mean a woman being a succcessful lawyer/CEO/doctor etc who may travel on occasion doesn’t impact their ability to be amazing present parents. That being said I see this man’s point here and I hate to say that but she is constantly running from one country to another for 3-6 months at a time and that does mean the kid doesn’t have much of a home base. Kids need a structured home base, which the occasional traveling mom can provide but I’m not sure scarjo can. She might be able to I don’t know the situation but there is a valid in the best interest of the kid argument that the father who doesn’t move as much for work can provide more stability.

    I will be honest I hate the idea of a child not being with their mother the majority of the time it feels cruel and I know it may not be. And Scarjo may be a fantastic mother who offers her child a world of experiences that are unmatched but the idea a home that you go to all the time a set schedule as a child think how much that made you feel secure when you were little.

    Honestly I can see both sides for this child’s well being. And I think it would be best if they took this out of the public courts and had a real conversation with a child physiologist.

    • original kay says:

      No, kids don’t “need” a structured home base. What kids “need” is love, respect, compassion, the freedom to learn/explore/create at their own pace, etc.

      That can be done anywhere, at any time.

      What you describe is only one model to follow for raising children.

      • K says:

        Kids need security that is a fact, and if you read what I said you’d see I said that she might be giving her child unbelievable experiences that can’t be matched but she might not be and to figure this out they both have an obligation to meet with a child therapist and figure out what is the best for their child.

        Because guess what, what ScarJo wants doesn’t matter, what her ex husband wants doesn’t matter. Their desires and needs and ambitions while valid are second to that child. That child’s needs are what matter First and formost!

      • original kay says:

        I did read it. This is what you said “Kids need a structured home base,”.

        I disagree. You can use !!! at me all you want, I will still disagree with what you’ve said.

      • K says:

        You willfully ignored the vast majority of what I said and focused on one part but that’s fine.

        I stand by the fact I’m right the only thing that matters is the well being of the child and before any decision is made they should discuss the best interest of the child with a therapist.

      • original kay says:

        I agree what matters is the well being of the child. I took issue with the way you decided what was best, this idea of a structured home base.

        So no, I did not willfully ignore what you said, K. I just disagree with you on how that is to be achieved.

        Most of this thread centres around deciding that stability, structure, security, can only be achieved by staying in one city, for a length of time. That’s false, to me. Home is where love, acceptance, appreciation, respect, consideration, empathy, can be found.

        So I take issue with your post because you are centring your idea of what is best for this child, or any child, is the idea of a stable, secure, structured home base. The way i read your post is this is the ultimate goal: providing athis idea of a structured home base, and that the parents should consult a therapist (wtf? why? is there a need of that yet? good god, such alarm) in order to achieve what you think is the goal- the idea of some “home base”. And don’t say it’s just one idea, you point blank stated “kids need a structured home base”. and No, they don’t, that idea is just an illusion.

  24. Alexandria says:

    I wonder if there’s any way to rationally discuss this and look at the facts without being accused of being against or for ScarJo.

    • KB says:

      Are people that passionately for or against her? She’s a big “meh” to me.

      • Alexandria says:

        Heh, yes I do think some people do have strong opinions about her but thankfully commentators here do not turn outright vindictive or stanlike generally. For example, her unwavering support for Woody Allen has not sat well with some Celebitches. The way she addressed the Ghost in the Shell casting and even her endorsement for I think one brand of mineral water. As you can see, I have spent too many years on Celebitchy haha. Carry on…

    • Tulip Garden says:

      The rational response has nothing to do with being for or against Scarlett. The rational reponse is to be in favor of the child, whatever situation and parent is best for them. Most Posters seem to be judging by that criteria even if they are on opposite sides. Life, it’s messy😉

  25. Miss E says:

    He didn’t have a problem with her movie money buying him a popcorn business and employing his family. He didn’t have a problem with her celebrity when it came to promoting said business.

    • Relli says:

      those were my thoughts exactly.

    • minx says:

      Yeah, I just get a big dbag feeling from him. I think he liked her money and fame but then eventually punished her for it.

    • bns says:

      I don’t get how any of this relates to what’s best for their daughter. It’s not her fame that’s the problem, it’s the fact that she is constantly traveling and working and he doesn’t want their child to be raised in an unstable environment by nannies.

      • Lex says:

        So they have not had a nanny the time they were together and parenting together? If they had a nanny then, it’s ridiculous to now suddenly claim there should be no nanny. Maintaining a stable nanny would be far more beneficial to the child throughout this hard time of upheaval.

      • Mana says:

        You don’t actually know how many hours she works. I’d be willing to bet during the course of a year it’s not really a lot more than plenty of doctors or lawyers work and it probably isn’t more than all those people who are forced to have two jobs to make ends meet. Not every day is a filming day, there is often a lot of downtime on sets and even as busy as she is, when she is between projects there can be weeks or even months where she would be home all the time.

        SJ is probably more than able to provide a STABLE life for her child – it doesn’t need to happen in one city, that’s just one way to raise a child. There are many other perfect valid ways to raise a child – there are many options nowadays for those who don’t have a conventional nine to five lifestyle to still have regularity and stability to their relationships. Also she does have a home in NYC, she spends plenty of time there, there have been pictures of her out with her daughter, alone, in NYC taken in the last year. So obviously she is perfectly capable of spending quality time with her daughter in their home town of NYC.

    • Eska says:

      It was a joint venture, wasn’t it? I know she’s worth millions, but he’s old money, Euro style, which means he’s not short on cash either. He seems to be very guarded about his life, but he’s super rich, apparently, from what little the euro tabloids could dig up on him. It’s not like Scarlett married someone from a poor banlieue. So, whatever the attraction was (her celebrity, the trophy of a Hollywood wife, etc.), I think it’s fair to say that money probably wasn’t the pull factor.

    • Bee says:

      No one forced her to write the cheque or promote anything. Up until the point where it breaks down irretrievably, they were trying to be a family.

    • ellieohara says:

      Nah, he’s from a super wealthy family. Doesn’t need her cash.

    • Jeesie says:

      His family is wealthy. More than wealthy enough to buy their own popcorn shop. Were people under the impression she married some struggling writer? Because that’s far from his situation.

      It’s just a tax write-off for Scarlett, not some amazing favour she did his family.

  26. Svea says:

    I hate these kind of custody battles because I believe that until about 12 Mommy is always more important. Then both sexes really need their Dads. (Unless there is no Mom or she’s a addict.) Don’t have kids with foreign citizens. It is way too complicated.

  27. Leah says:

    Some of these comments are so WTF??
    “People should think twice before having a child with a “foreigner”? Really? ( I am tempted to say this is why Trump do so well.)
    People have always married foreigners and will continue to do so. Eyeroll. Falling in love isn’t a rational thing and by the way many of us who have “foreigners” as parents turned out fine.

    • original kay says:

      Great post Leah. Some very disheartening comments on this thread, particularly about the traditional roles of women.
      Did we not just have International Women’s Day yesterday?!

      Are we not marching and protesting people telling us what we can and cannot do with our lives, our bodies? Choices!

      • K says:

        What does having the right to do with our bodies (which I 100% support) have to do with putting the best interest of your child first.

        We get to marry/not marry, have children or not have children with anyone we please and it’s no ones business. Nor should it be, but when you have a child (this goes for a man too) your wants are second. now this doesn’t mean you have to give up your identity for your child(that is horrible & wrong) but you have a moral and legal obligation to but their safety, health and well being first.

        So the only thing either of these two should be looking at is what is in our child’s best interest.

        This isn’t a right to chose issue. ScarJo chose she is a mom, her soon to be ex husband chose he is a dad now they have to behave like it and put the child first.

    • Eska says:

      Yeah, some of the comments about this and on the Samuel L Jackson post have had a bit of a Trump-esque gloss to them :/

    • jinni says:

      OMG, no one is saying foreigner make bad parents because they are foreign. Just that maybe she should have gotten with one that was not still based in their home country, since most Americans that marry foreigners are with immigrants that moved to the States to stay here permanently and have no intention of going back to their home country. So you really can’t compare the typical marrying an immigrant narrative to ScarJo’s situation.

      • Leah says:

        She’s an international movie star she travels and meets people all over the world. Like a lot of people who are in high flying jobs.Why on earth should she only stick to men who are american or american based? This isn’t how life works, we meet people and we fall in love. We don’t choose who we fall in love in based on nationality. Its easy to say should have done this and that from afar based on your life and ideals. Fact is marriages break down every day wether the couple are compromised of two americans or an american and a “foreigner”.

    • LA Elle says:

      Leah, I understand your point but I also think I understand what people above are saying.

      It’s not so much an anti-foreigner sentiment as a “things people should think about if a relationship ends.” As my name indicates, I live in Los Angeles, and I’ve talked to more than one family-law attorney about how much their business has changed in the past 20 years. One woman told me when she started practicing, it never even occurred to her that international law would be a component of her practice. She handles multiple cases annually with an international component. And people don’t discuss that when they get married. So there are the extreme cases where one parent takes the children out of the country, but there are also plenty of cases where, upon getting a divorce, it would make more sense for a parent to return to their home country for any number of reasons – with the one and only exception being that the other parent still resides in the U.S.

      It’s very complicated, and I do think it’s something people who come from different countries should discuss before they have children. In the case of Scarlett and her husband, it’s additionally complicated because of her job and the amount she travels.

    • Alexandria says:

      Yeah I don’t get those comments either but nobody said don’t marry foreigners outright or stick to American men or don’t have a career, just think more about what it entails. Of course it’s not a pros and cons game, it’s a matter of weighing expectations I think.

      • original kay says:

        There are some who point blank stated it, but they could be trolls. It’s hard to tell sometimes.

      • Jeesie says:

        Exactly. I’m married to a foreign man and we live in his country. Before we got married I thought about what would happen if we divorced with children, I researched what I’d have to do to remain there legally without being married to a native, and I thought about whether I’d be happy to live there 18+ years if I had to build a new life there. If I hadn’t of thought all that was ok, if I knew I’d want to return home if we split, I’d have never gotten married. I didn’t want children shuffled between two continents, and I didn’t want to try and uproot my ex and children suddenly when that had never been the plan.

        Scarlett married someone who was very clear that Paris was and would be his home base.

  28. Mar says:

    Stability is everything to the courts so the child will likely end up with the more stable parent. Right now Scarlett’s career will not make this easy.

  29. L84Tea says:

    Damn, I completely missed the news that Scarlet Johansen even had a child. I’m generally pretty good with keeping up with this stuff, but this pregnancy went completely over my head and I do not recall ever hearing about it.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      Ha! Well her pregnancy was easy to miss. Have you heard about Beyoncé tho? I want to keep you up to date!😉😁

  30. Lalu says:

    If he has been the primary care giver… It seems that he should probably continue in that role. I am assuming she was okay with that before. A divorce shouldn’t change that.
    I know that if the genders were reversed and a man was pushing for primary custody when the woman had been doing most if the child rearing, I would think he was trying to bully her.

  31. Amy says:

    If Roman is genuinely the primary caregiver until this point, Scarlett Johansson was completely out of bounds trying to get primary custody.

    But it’s his sources that are talking not hers, so I think all the commentators here should be careful and not to take it as gospel truth yet that he has been primary caregiver, etc.

  32. Amelie says:

    Ugh this is weird. Plenty of celeb couples with demanding careers have divorced and managed to figure out custody. See J. Lo and Marc Anthony, Nick Cannon and Mariah, Heidi and Seal etc. They probably all have nannies too? I guess Romain and Scarlett don’t use nannies and Romain is the primary backup when Scarlett can’t be with her daughter. I just don’t know if it’s fair for him to run off to France with his daughter. Halle Berry tried doing that to Gabriel Aubry when she was with Olivier Martinez and that did not work since the judge realized Aubry was heavily involved in Nala’s life. I’m hoping the judge finds a good resolution to this. Romain and Scarlett will have to compromise somehow.

    This reminds me of Anne Heche’s custody battle with her ex husband. Her ex gained custody of their son because she was off in Alaska (or maybe Canada?) shooting Men in Trees and he claimed he was the primary caregiver. She also left him for her costar so it’s possible he was using their son as a pawn as well since he most likely was feeling hurt by her leaving him.

  33. Amanda D says:

    Totally OT, but I hate her hair like that. I don’t know how to put this delicately, but she does not have a pretty face and super short hair doesn’t work on her. Plus that’s sort of a rock star type haircut and she’s nothing like that. Pink could (has) rock it easily.

  34. Bringbacksassy says:

    People, it’s ‘womEn’ when referring to *more than 1 woman* …as in plural. When it’s singular, meaning ONE woman only, it is always, always: ‘womAn’. I see this mistake surprisingly often (and even I sometimes on this site, also found examples in this thread). No reason for this common error to continue. That is all..

  35. lyla says:

    For everyone saying that Rose will be raised by nannies if Scarlett gets full custody, why do you automatically assume that that won’t happen if Romain gets full custody? Stay at home parents can have nannies too. I have two cousins who are both sahm and they both have nannies. One has two daughters and two nannies and the other one has one daughter and one nanny. I also have two other cousins who work outside the home and they both have nannies as well.