comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

Busting bad dish!

Hot Topics Jennifer Lawrence Kim Kardashian Rihanna Robert Pattinson Beyonce Justin Bieber Kristen Stewart

Jon Cryer Must Continue to Pay $8,000 Monthly Child Support

Truth rating: 10

11:21 am, August 30th, 2011

(GettyImages.com)

Jon Cryer must continue paying $8,000 in monthly child support to ex-wife Sarah Trigger, even though her parental rights over their son, Charlie, have been reduced drastically.

The “Two and a Half Men” star has been arguing that he shouldn’t be forced to pay his ex, whom he divorced in 2004, because the court cut her time share from 65 percent to just 4 percent over the years.

Cryer paid $10,000 per month through 2009, when Charlie lived mostly with Trigger.

He now has primary custody, but must still pay $8,000 as per a family court decision that was affirmed by an appeals court yesterday.

The court says that erasing Cryer’s monetary obligation to Trigger entirely could have a detrimental effect on their child.

Cryer’s been married to Lisa Joyner since 2007.

The couple adopted a baby girl named Daisy in 2009.

Follow @GossipCop on Twitter!

Like us on Facebook!

You might like:


  • http://twitter.com/Fuze83 Fuze83

    That is ridiculous!

  • Mandy

    It’s so sad how often the father gets screwed in child support agreements. We’re rooting for you, Jon!

  • Anonymous

    Of course, $8,000 a month for him is like telling him to buy a cup of coffee for a fan.

  • Anonymous

    He makes $550,000 each episode, and so what is the big deal?

  • guest

    She has less than 3 weeks visitation throughout the entire year. There is absolutely no reason for support to be that high. I don’t know how they calculate it in CA, but in MI it’s a simple formula dependent on the income of the father, the income of the mother, and the number of overnights.

  • Murz

    He now has PRIMARY custody, but MUST PAY $8,000 month…. Is the big deal!…. I would be outraged too!

    I agree in most all cases the father does get screwed in the deal….although, I’ve been trying for almost a year to get more child support from my X husband…(I get $50 month) and he thinks that is an injustice!…

  • higglty pigglty

    This sounds typically messed up just like most everything you read about the California courts. Exactly how can any group of individuals who are supposed to be intelligent and thoughtful come up with such a ridiculous ruling. Just how is Sarah Trigger supposed to spend this $96,000/year when she only has the child 14 days a year. That breaks down to $6857.14/day for the days she has him. At that rate she should be buying the kid a new car every other time he visits, or a boat or jet ski or something outrageous…just like the ruling.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247905891 Desiree Brister

    I agree!!! This is so unfair!! It’s “Child Support” NOT “Spousal Support” or “Alimony”….

  • Sirce0208

    As far as child support goes, Mr. Cryer needs to continue to pay the $8,000.00/mo. The reason being that is he has an obligation to keep his child in a lifestyle that the child is accustomed to. If he can prove that his ex-wife is using that $8,000.00 for something other than housing, educating, feeding and clothing his child (plus any other misc. expenses incurred such as medical expenses or school supplies) then he might have something to bargain with. However, as a parent you should want your child to have every penny of that child support to ensure that they are well taken care of. Courts have an oblgation to look out for the best interest of the child. Alimony and spousal support are a seperate issue in family court. If his ex-wife is using that child support to boost her lifestyle, the burden of proof is on Mr. Cryer. And believe me, it better be some hard, cold evidence like suddenly going out and getting a boob job or her latest boyfriend mysteriously starts driving a Bentley , he might be able to have the courts revise the child support so that she will have to provide receipts for everything she claims she’s spent on their child, but I don’t think that it will ever be reduced.

  • janieliza

    It is difficult to say that because they divorced, she should subject their son to lesser digs. The idea is that the son should not be inconvenienced due to divorce. She might only get less than three weeks, But he is not spending much of his earnings to keep his son comfortable… especially when not with Dad.

  • Dantree1

    Jon has always been my very favorite character on Two and a Half Men. This is sad! It doesn’t matter how much money a person makes, they shouldn’t have to give even a penny more than someone deserves. He has an obligation to his son — which it certainly sounds as if he’s upholding. Anything beyond that is malarkey. I’d be outraged if I were him.

  • Gunnyg144

    He has 96 percent of the parenting, she only has 4%, She should have to pay him. There’s something wrong with that court system. She basically has zero responsibility for that child. The courts should audit her monthly to see where that money goes. Make sure she’s using it for the boy and not using it for her own joys.

  • Theykilledkenny

    it’s simple. Child support is tied to state/federal funds. For every dollar the state collects and passes on to the other parent the fed’s gives three dollars. Why would the state want to reduce his child support payments….that would be like shooting themselves in the foot. That’s why all child support payments are at the maximum rate and has nothing to do with being fair. Fair would be that she go out, get a job and support herself. Tell me what child needs $8,000 a month in food and clothing. Too many women or other parents think it is fund that THEY should live on. It is intended for the care of the child not an income source for the other parent.

  • Jacamatr

    She ain’t doin nuthin but spendin that $$ on herself. There’s no way n hell that their son needs $10k, let alone $8k 2 live off of. Especially when he has him the majority of time. If anything, she should b payin him something. The mother should have a job and her own income. Just because the mother has him, though the father has him more, she shouldn’t b leaching off him. The courts usually r used 2 jackin the father and letin the mother off the hook. If I were him, he should take it back 2 court, make her show what she needs all that $$ 4, show what bills she pays and show what her income is

  • Shamar5701

    you are a lunatic. fourteen days a year isn’t going to comprimise some kid’s lifestyle. typical lib.

  • Chylin

    This is appalling.I understand that the courts are trying to ensure that the mother can provide a comfortable life for the son, but 4% custody per year is similar to a vacation. She is making money off of have a child with this man. He is paying everyday to provide for their son, and she get to keep a free $8,000. And they wonder why women purposely get pregnant with rich people’s children? This should be illegal and it most definitely is $*@* up!

  • adoptadog

    You sound like my ex wife. I took care of the child and she spent the money on herself.

  • Jennifer

    Yeah, it seems very unfair. However, what the courts are looking at is that, whether she has the child for 4% or 40%, she still has to maintain a residence/life-style equivalent to what the child is accustomed to. She must maintain a residence that will accommodate the child’s needs and in an area where the level of schooling available is appropriate, etc. Doesn’t matter how much time. It’s that she still has time at all.

  • guest

    how about she gets a job and starts paying some of her own bills? I can live on $8000 for 3 months and support my 2 kids,how is she living?

  • guest

    how about she gets a job and starts paying some of her own bills? I can live on $8000 for 3 months and support my 2 kids,how is she living?

  • http://twitter.com/SunnynSocal Michelle Mears-Gerst

    The point made was that the situation they were in with little custody was temporary but if you reduced the support it would create permanent hardship

Abrams Media Network click here for advertising opportunities
X