When I first started this website what seems like a million years ago, if I read something interesting on Page Six I would run over here to share the story with you so that we could discuss it. Because it was on Page Six, I never questioned it. It didn’t take me long to realize that they were wrong about quite a few things. How could this be?! It’s on Page Six! But alas, Page Six is no longer Page Six and sadly, I now question them in the same way I’d question The National Enquirer.
The story they ran yesterday was essentially that Bethenny is going to try to take away Jason’s custody rights. Or I felt like that is what they were trying to imply in the nonsensical and very brief story. What they said was she is “suing her ex-husband for custody of their 7-year-old daughter after he was charged with stalking and harassing [her].”
She doesn’t need to sue for custody. She already has custody. And being charged with a crime, especially one that has already been adjudicated to be dismissed. Last October the charges were dismissed as long as Jason doesn’t come around Bethenny for six months and avoids further arrests during the time period.
At that time, Jason’s attorney Alex Spiro stated, “We are pleased but not all surprised that the charges were dismissed. It is clear from the trajectory of this case that the claims were not substantiated or credited and her motive was questioned. Mr. Hoppy looks forward to moving on with his life and his daughter.”
So again, being charged and having the charges dropped is not a sufficient reason to have the custody agreement reopened. Besides, the great long divorce from hell that was worse than any other divorce in history according to Bethenny, was finally finalized. Does it really make sense that she wants to reopen the case and start it all up again?
The only other sentences in the entire article about the topic (which isn’t even clearly stated) are, “Frankel reopened her 2013 divorce case against former hubby Jason Hoppy on Dec. 6, according to court records. They’re due in court in January.”
The story is not marked as exclusive, but I could find no prior reports and they did not link to a source. The reference court documents but fail to produce them or even quote from the. This rather big news is three sentences long. How do you only have three sentences of information if you have read the court documents? It’s mid December, how do you not have an exact date in January?
One of my best researchers, sends me leads every day, clearly marked in the subject line with a link to the primary source in the body with a brief explanation if needed. If the topic is a legal matter, the researcher either links me to a copy of the court documents or has a little not that says I’m still searching for any court documents. That’s because I prefer to read the legal documents myself rather than rely on another site’s interpretation.
At this point, I don’t have anywhere near enough information to find this report reliable. Three short sentences can’t possibly tell the full story. Especially when the sentence that is supposed to encapsulate the case is nonsense.
So for now, this story is in the “It’s unlikely, but you never know” pile for me. If a site comes up with an arrest of Jason on or before December 6th. That would make sense, because then Jason would be facing new charges. That headline would be “Jason Hoppy Arrested AGAIN!” Not, “Bethenny Frankel Is Suing For Custody” when she clearly already has custody. Or someone needs to show some of the court documents. If that happens, I’ll revisit this subject.