Sharon Stone Never Lost Custody, Court Clerk Made Mistake

09/25/2008 at 01:30 PM ET
London Entertainment/Splash News Online

Update: According to Sharon’s lawyers, the actress never lost joint custody of Roan. Instead, the clerk made a mistake in writing the court papers as it states that Phil would have "sole physical custody," but goes on to say that "custody, visitation, holiday, and vacation schedule shall remain in place as outlined" in a previous court appearance. Sharon’s lawyers released a statement that reads,

"The court order of 2007 provided that Roan was to go to school in San Francisco. [Sharon] 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."

Originally posted September 23rd: Sharon Stone has lost custody of her oldest son Roan Joseph following a September 12th court appearance. The court has ruled that the 8-year-old’s father, newspaper editor Phil Bronstein, has been granted "sole physical custody of [the] child," a decision the judge calls permanent unless circumstances change in the future. No clear motivation for the decision is known, other than the "court finds that Respondent [Sharon Stone] failed to meet her burden of proof." Minutes from the meeting explain,

"The court does not find that [a] move away is in child’s best interest. [Phil Bronstein] can provide a more structured continuity, stable, secure, and consistent home that child, Roan, needs."

Roan currently lives with his father in the Bay Area, where he attends school. The court ruled that he will remain with Phil unless Sharon relocates to San Francisco or Phil chooses to move. The court minutes reveal that Sharon "shall have access to [the] child," and her phone number "shall be programmed into the child’s telephone and home phone."

Sharon and Phil divorced in 2004 and had shared joint legal and physical custody of their son as of last year, reports Entertainment Tonight. The 50-year-old actress is also mother to sons Laird Vonne, 3, and Quinn Kelly, 2.

Source: ET Online; PEOPLE

FILED UNDER: News , Parenting

Share this story:

Your reaction:

Add A Comment

PEOPLE.com reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.

Showing 42 comments

steph on

how wild, b/c i just posted in the other thread about sharon stone about her oldest son living with the dad is why she probably adopted the other two. now we find out it is true. I thought I read something about this at one time but wasnt sure. Hopefully the other two boys will be fine, it will be strange if the living conditions arent good for one child but they would leave the other two there.

steph

Stéph on

OMG!

I thought she had full custody of him already.
My god I wasn’t expeting that at all.

Poor Sharon!

ashley on

Wow, that’s a big deal.

I’m curious as to what happened for the judge to give Bronstein sole custody of Roan–especially since, with all that Britney Spears has been through, even she gets visits and overnights with her boys!

If Sharon Stone was not deemed a good enough parent to care for Roan, is there a chance she could also lose custody of her two other boys?

Stéph on

I thought she was a great mommy!
Maybe not after all. I wonder what made the judge take that decision.

LanLan on

That’s so sad😦
I wonder what would make a court take away a child from their own mother?

Lizamo on

Maybe it has to do with traveling and filming on location- I think Roan might be more settled with his dad. Because the other two were adopted soley by Sharon, I am sure she’s not at risk of losing custody of them

martina on

Guys, please – don’t jump to conclusions like “she’s a bad mommy”! We have NO IDEA what happened. My friend just lost custody of her son to the ex-husband. It had nothing to do with being a bad mother. She had an agreement with the ex that when she travels on business the child stays with the father. The bitter ex (child support dispute) managed to manipulate the situation into her ultimately losing the custody. You just never know what goes on and how these decisions come about.

phoebe on

I’m speculating here, but it could be something like the judge isn’t happy with the way she’s been treating the joint custody? If Sharon has been at all destructive in this sense, it would definately be cause for the judge to rule something like this. I was shocked by this though.

MB on

Does this mean she doesn’t even get visitation?

Henrietta on

Like Martina said “Guys, please – don’t jump to conclusions like “she’s a bad mommy”!

But by the same token…I am shocked by the amount of times I read on this site “oh she is such a good mommy.”

We don’t know what goes on behind closed doors.

Just because you see someone photographed with their child doesn’t mean they are a good parent.

We don’t know the full details of this situation, so I think it is best not to jump to any conclusions and not to judge either way.

Anne on

that call Karma.

poppy on

Is Roan adopted? Because he looks exactly like her!

Blue on

Wasn’t there something that happend with this child awhile back? I thought I remember reading that she had left him in the car by himself for an extremely long time period while she had lunch in a restaurant and other incidences.

theresa on

yes all 3 of her boys are adopted…

Bb on

I feel sad for any mother who loses custody of her child but then i’d feel equally sad for any father who loses custody.
It is sad though that shared custody has been lost

Carol on

To me it just sounds like the child is settled with his father and doesn’t want to change schools or be schooled on sets or whatever. It doesnt’ mean she’s a bad mother.

Brittany on

Thats terrible, i couldnt even imagine.

And lets not jump to conclusions girls. It sounds like his dads is a much more stable enviroment with him being in school, not that shes a bad mother.

Elle on

I remember the car incident. Roan was 4 years old and she left him sleeping in the car in the care of her chauffeur, while she dined. It was apparently really hot out and paparazzi were surrounding the car.
Im not even sure if she had Laird at this point but it must have been close to the time when they welcomed him.

Im still pretty shocked by this, but it seems like if she moves to San Fransisco then they would return to court and shared custody may be re-instated. I understand that she needs to leave to do movies and such, but how can she have a good excuse for not living there the rest of the time?
I read an article recently about the car incident and it said they were fighting for custody back then as well.

Ellie on

I went and did a little search to make sure I read the article correctly about her leaving Roan in the car and I came across another that said that incident never took place. Sharon said she had witnesses that Roan was in the restaurant with her and The Daily Mail apologized for printing the story and causing her embarrassment.
It definitely appears as though it never really happened. So I now apologize for bringing it up again.
Did anyone else know about this, or think it was true?

Di on

I think this situation is very unfortunate. I guess when kids are younger you can take them all over the world but wheny they get older they need more structure and stability that is why Phil was awarded sole physical custody unless Sharon decides to move to San Francisco.
I guess Sharon has very important decision to make. She can either move to SF or settle for periodic visits.

mtoo on

I am so fed up and disgusted with the instant sympathy that I see for mothers who lose custody of their child/children when the circumstances are not known. Are men given that same benefit of the doubt? NO! Phrases like, “who would want to take a child away from it’s own mother??” tear my heart out; it isn’t like he’s going to an orphanage! He’s going to his own FATHER who has JUST as much RIGHT to custody as his mother! Our society has gotten so ridiculously twisted that feminism is no longer about being equal…it’s about degrading men and making them something less than human. RIDICULOUS.

carie on

geez. the hysteria. the article pretty clearly states why the judge made the decision. It’s just all about stability and structure, something that she apparently wasn’t offering currently due to her schedule…though, I don’t really know what she does for work anymore….she had only made 1 movie in the last many, many years. But I think she does a lot of charity appearances?

Henrietta on

I totally agree Mtoo. To assume that a child should be with its mother no matter what is ridiculous. If the father can provide a better home then that is where the child belongs, end of story.

I have no idea what kind of a mother Sharon truly is (I am not there with her), but apparently she isn’t willing to give Roan the kind of stability he needs/wants/deserves..whatever the reason. She choses to be on the road most of the time, and that is the problem. Yes, I know she has a job in the entertaiment business, but for the sake of her son you would think she could work something out if only moving to SF just to be closer to him. No matter, she is the one who has to live with the decisions she makes. At least Roan does seem to be in a stable environment.

Ayla on

I believe that Roan has lived mostly with his dad for his whole life. Sharon is the one who moved away from SanFrancisco. She will still have visitation rights and of course phone calls.

I did see on another site that supposedly Phil did not like the home life that Sharon provides and that Sharon has a party lifestyle with her girlfriends and that there is a “inappropriate sexual atmosphere in the home.” Of course who really knows, that is just what was reported.

Personally, I think it is just that Phil has had primary custody and the boy is getting too big to be shipped back and forth all of the time. He needs stability for school, etc.

I’m sure she is a wonderful mother.

Janna on

This is really a non-story. The boy has been living with his father already for ages.

Read the article, she still gets to see him (“has access to the child”).

She failed to meet her burden of proof that would allow HER to take custody from the father. Seems to me that means she failed to show that the boy’s dad was unfit and the judge saw no reason to give her custody.

Sheri on

From what I remember, Phil is the Senior Editor/Manager of the large newspaper the San Francisco Chronicle and has a stable, “regular” job. I’m sure her traveling to sets, jetting around a lot, etc., had something to do with this decision. Phil also did not adopt the other two younger boys — they were adopted by Sharon after the divorce. I think it must be hard on little Roan not having his mother in the picture on a regular basis – but we have no idea what really went on here.

Lauren on

I’ve met Phil on several social occasions and twice sat at the same semi-large table with him at dinners and (irrespective of Sharon’s parenting abilities) he by all appearances is a phenomenal father. He never stops talking about that boy – and all of us really want to talk politics, which is a passion of his and which he is a master at dissecting. I wish him all the best, and Sharon, too. Unless proven otherwise, I always assume both parents love, adore and want to be with their child as much as possible.

Lilly on

I believe the deciding factor was that Roan was at school in the Bay Area and shipping him back and forth from the BA to LA brought instability. Perhaps he was at two different schools (one in LA, one in SF). If she moves to SF, joint custody will be re-instated. It is more a location and traveling thing than her parenting. There is no need to accuse either parent of being a bad parent. Nowhere does it say anything that would indicate that! Hopefully the father can at least let her have the summers with Roan or some holidays (when he’s out of school). Remember she has two other little boys who have their lives in LA with her. Relocation would affect them as well. In any case, it’s important to have both parents involved in his life.

Manda on

Totally agree with what Martina said about not jumping to conclusions. Things DO happen in which a woman (or man) is NOT a bad mother (or father) & still loses custody one way or another. I temporarily lost custody of my small children when I failed to respond to divorce/custody papers within a certain amount of time .. AUTOMATICALLY!! No judge said I was a bad mother (but also no judge took into consideration WHY I hadn’t responded). I tried hard to fight it, but without enough money to pay $250/hour for an attorney, there was nothing I could do! .. After 2 very long horrible years, I managed to get things settled.. finally! Remember, you’re not getting the whole story😉

OnyxJones on

Manda, I am glad you were able to resolve your situation. I hope everything works out for Roan, Phil and Sharon.

SandyCheeks on

Ellie. I remember seeing photos of the incident where she left Roan in the car.

Roan was sleeping in his seat in the photos so it appeared that rather than disturb him they left him to sleep with the driver keeping an eye.

terri on

That’s too bad that these brothers won’t be growing up together.

Lauren on

I agree 100% with mtoo. This immediate sympathy with mothers who lose their children when the same treatment is rarely given to fathers is utterly ridiculous. And this is hardly the worst of it. When Britney lost custody of her boys the comments here-“She needs her babies back,” “she can’t be seperated from them,” “She’s their mother”-made me want to be physically ill. All the evidence in the world for why she had no right to raise those children was right in front of them, and all these people could do was whimper about how awful and unfair it was that she as a mother could not be with her children. If the father is the better, more upstanding parent, he has every right to care for and raise his own children. Period. This idea that fathers are second in command is archaic, insulting, and in no way beneficial to anyone.

SeanJay on

Lauren I %100 DISAGREE with you. First this post isn’t about Britney in anyway! But since you brought her up i’ll say this. She was their primary caregiver until her breakdown, so I get those reactions.She had & has every right to raise her own sons. It seems their father agrees as she continues to do so with him.

It’s sad that you get ill over people showing another human common sympathy, relax.
I’ve been through custody cases w/ family memebers. Just because a judge decides something doesn’t mean it was the right choice .

I feel sorry for ANY parent who looses their kids or the right to be a huge part of their lives. I hope Sharon moves to SF since it’s a short plane ride from LA. I’m sure Roan & his brothers would be thrilled to grow up closer together.

This case was barely talked about & we got little to no details. It shows what happens when the lawyers shut their mouths & don’t leak bad things about the other parent .I’m glad Sharon & Phil has kept this private for Roan’s sake.

Lauren on

“It’s sad that you get ill over people showing another human common sympathy, relax.”

What’s truly sad is your apparent belief that as long as a woman is a mother, she has every right to parent her children, regardless of the circumstances or evidence to prove she is unfit. Frankly I find your apathy towards situations like that disturbing, and if you think it helps anyone in any form, you’re wrong.

As for bringing Britney and her situation into a post about Sharon-it’s called relevance to the topic at hand. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

CelebBabyLover on

Lauren- I could be wrong, but I think people reacted to Britney’s situation because of the boys, not neccesarily Brit herself.

I think people were worried about how Sean and Jayden would handle being seperated from their mother since she was, as SeanJay pointed out, their main caregiver until her breakdown.

Being seperated from mommy can be very traumtic for a one and two year old (which is how old Jayden and Sean were at the time). I’ll admit that I was one of those people who worried about how the boys would react if Kevin got custody and they were seperated from their mommy.

That said, I did come to realize that, at the time, being with Kevin was the best thing for them. It also sounds like they weren’t too traumitzed at being seperated from her (even when she temporalily lost even visitation rights).

Basically, I think it’s just the maternal instict in us that makes us go “Oh those poor kids! How awful to have to be seperated from mommy!”.

carie on

Britney Spears spent 95% of her time driving around the city, courting paparazzi. She wasn’t even remotely the primary caregiver for her sons during that time. It wasn’t rocket science that she wasn’t the right person to have custody of them at that time.

lilith on

Are her representatives/ publicists sleeping? Why did it took 24 hours to deny this? Sorry, I might be completely on the wrong path but something’s fishy here. But I hope that they indeed have joint custody.

Di on

I don’t know what to believe. The court order stated that Phil received “sole permanent physical custody” and yet her attorney says that everything is still the same. I’m going to go with what is the court order because Stone’s attorney may be trying to put a positive spin an unfortunate situation. If the order is wrong, her attorney should go to court to ask for clarification or a revised order.

In any event, the bottom line is that the judge thought it was in the boy’s best interest to stay with his father in SF instead of in LA, so either way you look at it Sharon lost her bid to gain more custody.

CelebBabyLover on

lilith- It was her lawyers that denied this, not her rep or publicist.

That said, I think what they are trying to say is that she never lost joint custody…Because she never really had it in the first place. Like other commentors have said, Roan has lived mostly with Phil for most of his life. Rather, what happened is that Sharon was unable to GAIN any more custody than she already has.

lilith on

celebbabylover, I know that it was her lawyer who denied this, but it should have been her publicists duty to stop twiddling their thumbs and handle it adequately.
This story was corrected more than 2 days later (there’s the mistake I made😉 and in a business where good press makes quite the difference, in my honest opinion, this is way too late. But well, maybe it’s just nothing.

CelebBabyLover on

lilith- I’m guessing this was one of those cases where they simply didn’t catch it right away. I’m sure Sharon, her reps, lawyers, etc., had very, very red faces when they realized that it had slipped by them!

From Our Partners

Sign up for our daily newsletter and other special offers.
    Choose your newsletters
Thank you for signing up! Your request may take up to one week to be processed.
    see all newsletters