Sharon Stone loses custody of her son, Roan, to Phil Bronstein
Sharon Stone has lost physical custody of her 8-year-old son, Roan, to her ex-husband, Phil Bronstein, despite court pleas to change the arrangement.
According to the court documents obtained by Entertainment Tonight from a Sept. 12 custody hearing, 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."
The judge also notes that this order is permanent unless there is a change of circumstances.
This information is a dramatic change from a custody order obtained by ET in October of 2007 that states that newspaper editor Bronstein and the actress had "joint legal and physical custody" at that time.
Stone and Bronstein were divorced in early 2004.
In April 2007, Stone told People that the most surprising thing about being a mom to three children -- Roan and his younger brothers Laird and Quinn (now almost 4 and 2) -- is "that I can actually accomplish it all every day. And get them all under blankets every night."
OK, you are not allowed to even think this is earthquake karma. That's just too mean.
Photo credit: WireImage
Post a comment
- Most Liked
- Most Commented
I guess Karma finally cought up with her!!
Must have something to do with karma...
Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma Chameleon......
How old is she? She looks damn good.
Karma is a b*atch !!
Unless we become privy to why this happened, we're not in a position to judge. As far as Karma is concerned, she's the only person who had the guts to say something like that. She may have caught flack for it, but she was right on the money.
Chamonix:
"Right on the money."? she's just another hollywood has-been attention ***** that ought to keep her opinions out of the public spotlight. She is currently reaping what she has sown.
...cheese-eating surrender monkey.
WHO CARES ABOUT THESES PATHETIC SELF-ABSORED TYPES ANYWAY?
When will you ignorant people learn that "karma" is not an immediate punishment for bad actions in this lifetime. "Karma" is suffering that is endured in a present state for bad actions in a past lifetime. This is the explaination for the question: "why do bad things happen to good people?"
This seems harsh and cruel. Did the court say why?