To think Madonna didn't get very good legal advice

[pleasemothermay1]

To think considering the amount of money she had she didn't realise she was very very unlikely to win the custody over rococo

In the uk childrens wishes are taken into account from about 14 and at 16 Barr proven abuse or neglect there would be no was a judge would rule in her favour

As going against there wishes often lead to negative behaviour running away Ect

My thoughts were only that maybe she thought it to be a lot like the us were often the child up to 18 has no say and court orders in custody are enfosed strictly till then

Any way seeing as guy has a stay at home wife one would of thought it's a much better envoirment that being looked after by staff whiles she's is on tour when I believed the first issues arouse

I felt she was very ill-judged in not respecting her sons views and trying to railroad everyone as I'm sure she does most of the time. Hardly clever psychology - not exactly going to encourage your son to want to be with you or that you respect your growing independence and choice. Silly moo cow. And good for him having the strength of will to stand up to her.

And, if he's really independent, he could think about changing his name... Still at least its not Satchell like poor Woody Allen's son. Should start a thread on silly celeb baby names but I expect its been done.

sandy with respect, this would absolutely not work in the way that you illustrate -- clients such as Madonna in a powerful law firm would not be billed "per hour".

per minute I mean.

Billing per minute is only the case for high street solicitors and lawyers.

Speaking from 19 years experience

From reading what he said several months ago, when it all came to a head and he refused to go back to the US again, it seems that Rocco found living with his dad rather more, er, relaxed.

After they split up Guy also went public about what life was like with Madonna when they were married. ( hard work but no surprise there. )

Our Madge likes to be in control. She can't handle it when things don't go her way.

Maybe she was advised she was likely to lose but thought she might as well give it a bash, she's not exactly short of cash. Maybe she also wanted to be seen to be doing everything she possibly could.

We are talking about this case because she has chosen to have her children in the public eye. I think it is utterly unfair on those children. So many celebrities do this - put their kids on instagram, twitter, openings, concerts etc. They have no choice and then their names are forever in the public arena and the paps are after them. horrible.

Can any of you (without googling) name Bill and Melinda Gates' children or put a face on them? There is a reason for that.

Oh and the reason isn't wealth. Madonna has plenty of that. It is a choice about putting your kids in the public arena or not.

That's very true.
Some celebs choose to keep their kids out of the limelight, buy homes in non celeb enclaves .........others you can't avoid knowing as much about the child as the parent.

I've met a man who is the son of a household name, he and his brother both had their trials as young men of suffering "son of" stuff but as children pretty much avoided it as their parents kept them protected. They appreciate it bought them a nice lifestyle but both are very ambivalent about the celeb scene and avoid it and live states away from Hollywood now . It must be tough if you have a parent whose whole adult identity is closely tied to their profession a d fame. People like the Beckhams whose entire adult like was spent in the celebrity glare. It's probably at lot easier if only one parent is famous rather than both.

Indeed. I just feel sorry for the children.

And I love this idea that top lawyers are too busy billing to read mumsnet. Even top barrister types do have a bit of down time, muck about anonymously online, go to friends for dinner, and talk about celebrities.