Jon Cryer's Son Needs $88k/Month to Stop Richies from Tormenting Him

Illustration for article titled Jon Cryer's Son Needs $88k/Month to Stop Richies from Tormenting Him

According to Jon "The Town" Cryer's ex-wife, their 13-year-old son is being humiliated by a roving pack of James Spaders at his rich-kid school, so she needs $88k a month to buy him some new jodhpurs and a man-tiara or whatever the fancies are wearing these days. I kid, though—in actuality she claims her custody has gone up from 4% to 50%, but her child support payments have not concomitantly increased. Plus, she says Cryer is now making $2 million per month at Two and a Half Men.

Sarah says life is awful. She says her son Charlie can't afford the ritzy summer camps his friends attend. She says Charlie's friends go on "exotic vacations in the summer and winter like Europe and Thailand." He can't go.

It gets worse. Sarah says Charlie's friends at The Buckley School have "huge birthday parties at expensive places like Sky High Sports and they invite the entire grade." And worst of all ... the Bar Mitzvahs. Sarah says, "Last year there were multiple Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs all with custom invitations, a dress code and huge private receptions afterward."

Sarah says Charlie is feeling the pain, and so is she. Sarah says when she got child support back in 2010, she only had custody 4% of the time ... and that's why she only got $8,000 a month. Now she has custody 50% of the time, so she wants a cool $88,969 a month.


I'm not against child support—go ahead and sort this one out, jurdge!—but I am wondering, if it's sooooooooooooo traumatizing, why Jon Cryer didn't just pay for the goddamn Thai vacations and Bar Mitzvah invitations if he has the kid 50% of the time. Rich people are confusing. [TMZ]

Illustration for article titled Jon Cryer's Son Needs $88k/Month to Stop Richies from Tormenting Him

Lucasfilm has announced that screenwriting duties on Star Wars: Episode VII will be taken over by J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan. Previously, Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) was working on the project.

It’s not clear what role Arndt will have moving forward. Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy characterized the change-up as a positive in her statement. “I am very excited about the story we have in place and thrilled to have Larry and J.J. working on the script. There are very few people who fundamentally understand the way a Star Wars story works like Larry, and it is nothing short of incredible to have him even more deeply involved in its return to the big screen. J.J. of course is an incredible storyteller in his own right. Michael Arndt has done a terrific job bringing us to this point and we have an amazing filmmaking and design team in place already prepping for production.”

I'm not against it. Carry on. [EW]

Illustration for article titled Jon Cryer's Son Needs $88k/Month to Stop Richies from Tormenting Him

The mother of Pauly D's baby claims he told her to get an abortion, but she decided not to (she kept the bort-bucks he sent her anyway, though).

TMZ reported that Pauly had told Markert to get an abortionwhen he learned of the pregnancy, even offering to foot the bill because the child was the result of a one-night stand. Markert is allegedly trying to sell text messages of their exchange about the abortion to media outlets and reportedly took Pauly's money for the procedure but obviously decided to keep the baby, the site said.


I mean, is this a scandal? Maybe it wasn't handled super delicately on his part, but it doesn't sound like he pressured her. Unless he did pressure her. But if he didn't, it's not oppressive to say that you'd like to not have a baby and then pay for it. And he seems to have been not-a-shithead since the baby was born. IDK. Am I doing this wrong? [LATimes]

  • Fran Drescher went for a walk without a bra on. Also, did you know that Fran Drescher's boyfriend Shiva Ayyadurai "reportedly holds the copyright to the computer program known as 'EMAIL'"? Yyyyyyokey dokey! [E!]
  • Natalie Portman and Emmy Rossum both wore florals. WHY IS THIS A STORY. (They both look amazing tho real talk.) [E!]
  • Cut it out, "young Katy Perry in a sailor outfit." Cut it. [E!]
  • New Zealand is about to put Hobbit characters on their money and stamps. Doooooood Bard the Bowman he my boyfrane. [ContactMusic]
  • Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones's 13-year-old son Dylan wants to become an actor. [Express]
  • Michelle Dockery in a place doing a thing. [JustJared]
  • Emma Thompson says that dancing with Prince Charles is "better than sex." [Yahoo]
  • I know this one is obvious but IT'S IMPORTANT.

Images via Getty.



Oh hey! Something I can talk about.
I'm a CA family law attorney.

In California, generally child support goes by a program called dissomaster: you throw in dad's income, mom's income, some other numbers (health insurance costs etc.) as well as the amount of time each parent spends with the child (often referred to as "timeshare"). Say mom has kid(s) all the time save for dad's one weekend a month. Dad has approximately 6.78% timeshare with the kid(s). Every other weekend and Wednesday is closer to a 35% timeshare.

This is important because the program uses timeshare to calculate support. So, if dad has a 35% timeshare, let's say he pays... $2,500 per month. If mom and dad eventually have the kids each 50% of the time (let's say week on/week off for sake of argument) Dad might only pay mom $1,750 per month. However, if mom and dad both have about the same income and timeshare is 50-50 there will probably be no child support.

So with Jon Cryer, Sarah's asking that the court to look at the time she (claims that she) actually spends with the child. If she spends 50% of the time with the kid, instead of 4%, support to her should go up, so that the child has a roughly equal lifestyle at both homes. Sarah is really just asking that the court throw numbers into a dissomaster so she can get equal treatment to anyone else who is dealing with child support in CA.

HOWEVER, there is an exception, for exceptionally high earner cases, in which a judge has discretion to modify guideline (dissomaster) support downwards if the child can't reasonably need what the computer says he should pay. There's a case that says that "no child is in need of more than three ponies" which is a funny way of saying, look, there's only so much any kid really NEEDS.

Sarah is attempting to say that the computer program really does give an accurate number and the court should go with that. I would guess that, almost certainly, a court will deny that request. Also, I've seen her (sarah) in court and she is craaaaazy.