<p>Katw, nobody said anything about those in the service, that didn’t leave their children behind permanently…sheez…</p>
<p>Mom, i think i am reading between the lines, and agree that she didn’t have a choice. ;)</p>
<p>And Kidman left her children behind permanently? How do you know? Why make such an assumption?</p>
<p>Once over the age of 18 they are free to do as they wish. There have been pictures over the years of her children with Cruise visiting her and Urban in their TN home.</p>
<p>I mentioned the service members because you stated “any mom”, and last I checked service members deployed can be “moms” seperated from their children for what can seem like “forever” and they are in harm’s way. That doesn’t make them “bad” moms. Nor more so than Kidman is a “bad” mom, especially since the public is not privy to the custody/visitation arrangements.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>“I mentioned the service members because you stated “any mom”, and last I checked service members deployed can be “moms” seperated from their children for what can seem like “forever” and they are in harm’s way. That doesn’t make them “bad” moms”</p>
<p>As someone who has been deployed away from her baby for long periods at a time, in the service, and in harms way…I can tell you I felt like the most terrible, useless mom in the world. Had I known the anguish of separation and how painful it would be, I would have gotten out of the military when I could have, before the war started and the options were do your job or go to Ft Leavenworth prison. But nowadays it’s a different story, it is no surprise that women will be deployed to war zones, with or without children. And I would absolutely advise them that there is no good enough reason whatsoever to do that. Had I not been through this experience, I would not feel so strongly about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I happen to feel the same way about fathers, and yet they do it all the time after divorces without nearly the same degree of public condemnation. I believe that both should be considered equally unacceptable.</p>
<p>I wonder if his wives had to sign a prenup stating that they would raise any children as Scientologists. While courts usually don’t get involved in religious matters, they have in some cases where there is potential for the child to be harmed. I wonder if Katie signed such a document, but is planning to fight it on those grounds. </p>
<p>How this church can claim with a straight face that the children in this community have free will or decision making ability of any real kind is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is intriguing . . . How could a mother “not have a choice” about moving away from her 6 and 9 year old children? Unless a court of law ordered her to move away, it seems that doing so would have been her choice. It might have been a hard choice to stay, but a hard choice is not “no choice.”</p>
<p>One “reason” for the designer clothes for Suri: Establishing a lifestyle that must be maintained for the daughter…in “event” of a divorce. And, seemingly, Suri and Mommy were a unit. </p>
<p>Generally, the courts do not involve themselves in a child’s religious upbringing. I had a friend who, out of spite, refused to take her son to Sunday school on her weekends. Her ex lived in Georgia…flew out for visitation. He petitioned the court to make his ex take the kid…she said it wasn’t important to her and she slept late.</p>
<p>Ex friend (not because of this…just a sign of character)</p>
<p>"I happen to feel the same way about fathers, and yet they do it all the time after divorces without nearly the same degree of public condemnation. I believe that both should be considered equally unacceptable’</p>
<p>I totally agree, Donna. I work with people who have the ability to live and commute to work from anywhere whatsoever in the world that they choose. And I see this with the guys who’ve gotten divorced all the time. They move, away from their kids. They move to where they’ve always wanted to be, they move to where their new wife or girlfriend is from, or many of them move to Hong Kong. I will never get it.</p>
<p>
MathildaMae, I agree would Nicole Kidman have felt she had no choice if it meant leaving behind say a biological child w/Cruise versus 2 adopted children?</p>
<p>Why would anyone feel any different about adopted vs biologial children? </p>
<p>As an aside, did someone say that Tom was inthe process of adopting the kids with his first wife, but this shifted to Nicole after he divorced Mimi? Is that true?</p>
<p>Cruise & Kidman married in 1990. The children weren’t born till 1992 & 1995.
I would agree that when you adopt a child, you are their parent. Period.
But many people don’t feel that way about their kids, when they split from a spouse whether their children are biological or adopted.</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying. That makes better sense. It was post # 11 that suggested they were being adopted in the first marriage. And I see swimcatsmom also clarified back earlier in this thread. Thanks to you both.</p>
<p>Nicole had no choice. She didn’t “feel” like she had no choice. She HAD no choice. You can trust my information on this.</p>
<p>MOWC, on the one hand I do trust what you say. It is just extremely difficult for me to imagine a scenario where I would leave behind my child in the physical custody of anyone.</p>
<p>MOWC, I’m not sure why posters keep knocking Nicole Kidman. They have no idea what she went through and it annoys me when people with no knowledge of the situation have to pass judgement. </p>
<p>There was a former Scientologist who left and said that she has no contact with family members who are still in the church. I thought I remembered that Nicole saw her children after her divorce but as they got older they chose not to have contact with her. I could be wrong but in any case who are we to judge.</p>
<p>I think Nicole is so beautiful and am glad to hear that she seems as nice as she is beautiful. I’ve always thought that she was shy but seems so happy now that she is married to Keith Urban. She has a sister who I think is stunning also. I think there are great genes, not plastic surgery in their looks.</p>
<p>Well she did have a nose job, according to a link posted on another thread about celebrities with rhinoplasty.<br>
Some I don’t get at all. That seems like such a painful procedure for minimal change ( and in some cases like Nicole’s, I don’t think it was necessary).
And why do so many end up with the same nose?</p>
<p>[Katie</a> Holmes “Felt Like She Was in Rosemary’s Baby” With Tom Cruise Marriage - UsMagazine.com](<a href=“http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/katie-holmes-felt-like-she-was-in-rosemarys-baby-with-tom-cruise-marriage-201227]Katie”>Katie Holmes "Felt Like She Was in Rosemary's Baby" With Tom Cruise Marriage - Us Weekly)</p>
<p>sounds like the marriage had similar dynamics to those seen in marriages with domestic violence. Not actual violence of course, but the control, isolation and rigidity that accompanies d.v. Glad to see Katie found the strength to plan a smart and careful exit.</p>
<p>Did any of you see the shows Anderson Cooper did on Scientology? Scary stuff. </p>
<p>That said…it’s a religion and no court in the US is going to step in to prevent a parent from raising a child in a religion. So, I doubt that any court is going to accept the argument that Katie should get custody of Suri so that Suri won’t be raised as a Scientologist.</p>
<p>This isn’t legal advice…but as far as I know, New York courts won’t order joint custody unless BOTH parents agree to it AND the court thinks their relationship is such that it will work. Otherwise, though the non-custodial parent can have tons of court-ordered visitation, one parent, and only one parent, has the right to make final decisions. Otherwise, every disagreement can send the parties back to court. </p>
<p>I suspect that’s why Katie is trying to establish residence here and it may explain the timing too. I don’t think it’s “officially” law now, but lots of NY justices follow the old rule and automatically give custody of children up to the age of 7 to mom absent special circumstances. The younger Suri is when they split, the greater the odds that Katie will get custody.</p>
<p>I agree that no court would ever step in to prevent a child being raised in a religion. However, most legal experts have also said that a history of specific practices not in the best interest of the child can be considered as a basis for legal custody.</p>