2nd Update: Sharon Stone Did Not Lose Custody of Roan

Second Update: Sharon Stone’s lawyer, Marty Singer, says the court clerk made an error when reporting that Sharon Stone had lost custody of oldest son Roan. The clerk wrote that Sharon had lost “sole physical custody,” but then said that “custody, visitation, holiday, and vacation schedule shall remain in place as outlined.” Sharon actually petitioned the court to allow Roan to attend a school closer to Sharon’s Southern California home. The statement from the lawyer says,

“The court order of 2007 provided that Roan was to go to school in San Francisco. Sharon went to court to try and modify the existing order,” Singer says. “She wanted the court to modify the order so her child could go to school in Los Angeles. But the court felt that, for whatever reason, that she did not meet a burden to move him out of San Francisco during the school year. She thought it was best at this young age that she had these two younger children to have her older son be with them and the court didn’t want to modify the order. She loves her son and felt it would be better to have her child in Los Angeles.”

Click below to read the original post.

Update: According to minutes from a Sept. 12 custody hearing, the court feels that Roan, who is living with his father, Phil Bronstein, and attending school in the Bay Area, will have a more stable home with his father. The court also ruled that Roan will remain with Bronstein until Sharon relocates to San Francisco or Bronstein decides to move.

“The court does not find that (a) move away is in child’s best interest,” say the minutes. “(Bronstein) can provide a more structured continuity, stable, secure, and consistent home that child, Roan, needs.”

Stone “shall have access to child,” the minutes say, and her phone number “shall be programmed into the child’s telephone and home phone.”

Original post:

Sharon Stone has lost physical custody of her eight-year-old son Roan, according to a court minute obtained by Entertainment Tonight. The order is permanent unless there is a change of circumstances.

According to documents detailing a September 12, 2008 custody hearing, her ex-husband Phil Bronstein “shall have permanent sole physical custody of child. Court finds that respondent [Sharon Stone] failed to meet her burden of proof and denies respondent’s [Sharon Stone’s] request for modification of custody.”

Sharon and Phil had joint legal and physical custody of Roan since October 2007.

Source : ET!; People; People

Photo : PCN, December 26

Filed under: Roan Stone,Sharon Stone

  • megs

    Wow, she must be devestated. What is the cause of so much turmoil in their lives to petition such a thing? I am out of the loop, but know I have read articles before and Sharon seems to have the utmost love and care for her son. I wish them all the best.

  • happy

    Phil Bronstein will never be happy until Stone quit her career. That has been the problem and always will be the problem. Screw him!!

  • Anonymous

    I think its such a tragedy that they adopted a child only to have him become the product of a broken home.

  • Jen

    Actually it’s very unusual for a mother to lose custody. Think Britney Spears. Their original custody agreement had the boy living with each parent for a year; they’d simply trade off from year to year. Sharon’s lifestyle is pretty unstable by all accounts I’ve read and, obviously, it’s not good for the child. Whatever you think of her ex-husband, it was ultimately the court’s decision because Sharon hasn’t held up her end of the bargain. If Sharon and her law team did not present the evidence the court was seeking, it’s probably safe to assume she didn’t really want sole custody afterall. I would jump through any hoop in my path in order to keep my child. I’d supply whatever evidence they requested and in a timely manner. Sharon, sadly, didn’t do that.

  • nosoupforyou

    Jen, great post. I would have to agree.

  • From what I’ve been reading, it seems like Sharon went to court to get either more custody, or permission to move farther away, and when the judge looked at the case, he actually went the opposite way, and decided that Roan was better off with his dad.

    I’m sad for any little boy who ends up caught between two parents, and I hope they can work it out for Roan’s sake.

  • Jenna

    If she really wanted to be a mother, SHE would move to be closer to her son. She has the money to do it. She shouldn’t be trying to make the child move.

  • I agree – why uproot him from school? I’m not saying she’s a bad mom, but some things are more important than where you live, and being close to your son is one of them.

  • hannie grapes

    whatever happens to sharon, she’s still my idol……….go with what you think is right….you are great for me..

  • Audrey

    The move might not be in Roan’s best interest, and the mother isn’t always the best primary custodian. My son has joint custody of his two children, with the ex having primary custody (an issue for address mostly). The children cannot be moved out of the county they live in without a court order. Therefore both parents must choose, live close to their kids or? The judge in our case decided that the kids were best served staying put and that it was up to the parents to adapt. I think it was a smart decision.

Latest Dish