Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Jeremy Renner Divorce Still Ugly

After backpedaling a bit from her initial filing, Jeremy Renner's wife Sonni Pacheco is going hard after the actor again in court. Page Six reports that Pacheco is now seeking primary custody of their daughter, Ava, 22 months. Pacheco claims that Renner's home is unsafe for their daughter because it has a pool and he has a couple of guns. This is the same home that she felt quite safe living in right up until the filing. She is also asking for spousal support, and $100K to cover attorney fees. The moral of this story? Don't marry the surrogate.
Posted by at

22 comments:

  1. Now!February 4, 2015 at 6:23 AM

    I know nothing about either person, but is a Hollywood star of either gender the best parent for a baby? Stars, at the best of times, are busy people who travel constantly and are rarely home. Not sure if Renner's male partner is a homebody, but someone needs to actually take care of the kid, and it had might as well be the bio mom as a hired nanny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. auntliddyFebruary 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM

    I dont know wtf is going on there, but iI had same thought as Outtie- home was ok while you lived there, now suddenly its a death trap?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Its just UFebruary 4, 2015 at 6:33 AM

    In fairness, he married her and they have a kid. Doesn't matter the reason why, legally she's entitled to support. And primary custody is just a legal term too. She wants the kid to live with her. He's allowed to ask for the same thing if he wants to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownFebruary 4, 2015 at 6:54 AM

    Lots of people have pools. Lots of people have firearms. This is why we have fences & gates and why we have safes and gunlocks. I think Renner would do whatever was necessary to create a safe environment for his daughter.

    This is what I find so despicable. Both sides can throw any allegation they want at the other, whether it is true or not. Some of these accusations can have long lasting consequences -- sometimes permanent repercussions.

    I'm with Marge Gunderson (Fargo [1996]) on this:

    "And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 4, 2015 at 6:58 AM

    Apparently they started dating in 2010 while she was a stand in on MI: Ghost Protocol. On the surface it seems like he was her primary source of support since then. Not saying she should write her own check, just that it's going to be easier for her to get spousal support since she's been a stay at home mom since the child was born.
    Also, he probably shouldn't have married someone 20 years younger who was barely out of her teens when they met.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tina MalletteFebruary 4, 2015 at 7:06 AM

    Well she probably signed a prenup so she's not getting a cut of his assets right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 4, 2015 at 7:13 AM

      I think she is trying to get the pre-nup voided on grounds of fraud to go after more $$$. Fraud in the pre-nup would mean he misrepresented his assets.

      Delete
  7. SherryFebruary 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM

    In CA all homes with pools are supposed to have fences around them. I'm surprised when we see those homes for sale why we don't see them. Is it not mandatory in so cal? Anyone know?

    I would love to know what real is happening here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. califblondyFebruary 4, 2015 at 8:09 AM

      Hmmm, I don't know if it's mandatory. You can have a fence around the entire yard, but if there's not another fence just around the pool, there's still the possibility of accidents with small children.

      Delete
    2. Now!February 4, 2015 at 8:30 AM

      Apparently having a pool is more dangerous than having a gun in the home, at least when measured in fatalities of small children. If you've read 'Freakonomics', one of the authors talks about how he lost a child to childhood cancer and joined a parents' grief group, and found that a large percentage of the other parents had lost their children to drowning in home pools.

      Delete
    3. califblondyFebruary 4, 2015 at 10:07 AM

      Nutty, my kids and grandkids have grown up with pools and swam as babies. It's hot here and there's nothing else to do in the summer. We had lots of rules when my kids were little they were watched constantly. I saw a thing on TV that a drowning is silent and not like it is in the movies with someone splashing around yelling help! That's how so many kids drown even with folks nearby, but not keeping an eye on their kids. It never ceased to amaze and piss me off how visitors would bring their small kids, who couldn't swim, and then proceed to go inside and party. I'd have to be the bitch and say...."Watch your damn kids!"

      Delete
  8. melissaFebruary 4, 2015 at 7:29 AM

    Money grub

    ReplyDelete
  9. UnknownFebruary 4, 2015 at 7:32 AM

    Yea, in Cali pretty much all homes have a pool.

    This still makes me laugh though, like really couldn't he find a better surrogate than a topless waitress, wannabe actress/model.

    Didn't him & his partner have any actual female friends?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ticklemyfancyFebruary 4, 2015 at 8:10 AM

    This sounds like her lawyer dreaming up stuff to justify his/her fees

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lucille LeSueurFebruary 4, 2015 at 8:46 AM

    A consequence of not bearding wisely. Next time go for the likes of Taylor Swift. Instead of taking your money, she'll give you a song.

    ReplyDelete
  12. BasilFebruary 4, 2015 at 9:56 AM

    He should have picked a better beard, but he's stuck now. She's the mother of his child. But I wonder what will come out in court?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Seven of ElevenFebruary 4, 2015 at 10:17 AM

    @cheesegrater, I almost spit out my tea! They are still getting so much blowback for that commercial.

    What she's alleging is that it was safe while she was there, but is no longer safe now that she's not there to make sure it is. Also, when she asked for child support in the divorce, he allegedly told her to get a job. She was a model and movie stand-in before becoming a full-time mother, I don't think it's unreasonable to request child support - it's not like she's going back to work as a secretary. The allegations might be a way for her to secure child support since he's being a jerk about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. auntliddyFebruary 4, 2015 at 12:48 PM

      7-11- she shld get chold support and alimony that tapers off as years go by. She shld get a job; she's only like 23!!! Shes done working for life??!! Cmon now!

      Delete
    2. Seven of ElevenFebruary 4, 2015 at 12:51 PM

      @auntliddy, I didn't mean that she should never work again, but the child is not even two years old and Renner is a working actor. Is he expecting her to go back to work and he'll hire a nanny for the times the child is with him but he's off in Dubai or NYC filming? She's been the child's full-time parent for the child's entire life and if she goes back to work as a model or in movies, that poor little girl is going to be raised by nannies (or daddy's "real estate partner").

      Divorce can be so ugly sometimes. :/

      Delete
  14. MinPinGirlFebruary 4, 2015 at 3:26 PM

    How stupid do you have to be? I'd love to know who gave him the idea to get a child this way. Like somebody above said, doesn't he have any good female friends? I thought he wasn't that uptight about being out but his "handlers" were. Wonder if they're the brain trust who suggested this whole clusterfuck?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)