Linda Evangelista & Francois Pinault reached a child support settlement

I want Linda Evangelista is send me a thank you note. Wouldn’t that be great? I think I deserve some credit, y’all. Over the course of just three days and only two days of child support testimony, I changed my tune. When we first started covering the child support case – where Linda Evangelista was suing Francois-Henri Pinault (husband of Salma Hayek) for $46,000 a month in child support for their son Augie – I didn’t come down on any side. But on Sunday, I wrote about the case again, and I ended up coming down on Team Evangelista, simply because Pinault was coming across like such a cheap-ass d-bag. And maybe my voice was one of many in the changing tide against Pinault. Maybe Pinault and his lawyers finally realized how his testimony sounded so out-of-touch and smarmy. Because now Enavgelista and Pinault have come to some kind of agreement. Linda probably isn’t getting $46,000 but rest assured, Pinault will be paying:

Supermodel Linda Evangelista reached a settlement today in her bitterly-contested child support battle with her billionaire French baby-daddy, Francois-Henri Pinault — then came to court wearing a sunny smile and a chiffon dress fit for a garden party.

“He has gone a long way toward meeting those original demands,” a source close to the negotiation said of Pinault, who had been on the hook for a potential $46,000 a month that Evangelista said she needed for the nannies, chauffeurs, bodyguards and other expenses of Augustin, the five-year-old son conceived during their whirlwind 2005 affair.

Pinault, 49, is the CEO of the Paris-based luxury conglomerate that owns Gucci and Yves St. Laurent. He is raising a four-year-old daughter, Valentina, with his glamorous wife, movie star Salma Hayek, who he met four months after ditching Evangelista in January, 2006 — right after learning the cat walker was pregnant.

In previous court hearings, Evangelista’s lawyer has complained that while Pinault lavishes wealth on Valentina, he paid virtually nothing to support Augie prior to a temporary court order last year.

Today’s surprise settlement — presumed to be snugly in the five-figures per month — was reached by telephone this morning, the source said, declining to give an exact figure.

The settlement came as an international press corps descended on the courthouse to cover Evangelista’s second day of testimony in the highly-publicized case. Evangelista’s testimony, now no longer necessary, would have touched on such sensitive topics as whether Pinault initial preference was that the baby be aborted — something Evangelista was set to aver, and which Pinault has denied through a spokesman.

Evangelista’s “abortion” testimony would have dealt a public relations blow to the wealthy female clientele of Pinault, whose company also owns the luxury brands Bottega Veneta and Boucheron. Had she taken the stand today, Evangelista, 46, was also due to detail how Pinault had asked for a DNA test prior to acknowledging paternity — another less-than-sympathetic revelation for the ladies who shop.

“The parties have reached an agreement in principal, which we will present to your honor tomorrow,” Evangelista lawyer William Beslow told the support magistrate in today’s brief proceeding, which was attended by both Evangelista and Pinault.

“I agree with what Mr. Beslow says and join in the agreement,” added Pinault’s lawyer, David Aronson.

The cat walker wore a summery, floral-print dress of pleated chiffon, and chatted almost warmly with her old flame as they left the courtroom, shoulders brushing. In a previous hearing last year, she had presented Pinault with a list of little “Augie’s” expenses totaling more than $46,000 a month — a figure that included $15-16,000 a month for gun-toting, ex-NYPD detective chauffeurs, plus a 24-hour nanny costing almost $7,000 a month.

“I say this with Mr. Beslow beside me — everybody’s glad,” Aronson told reporters afterward. “For the sake of the child,” he added.

The lawyers — though not Pinault and Evangelista — will return to court tomorrow as a formality, to show the magistrate the paperwork for their settlement. It is not likely that the dollar amounts or any other details will be put on the court record, Aronson said.

Just how well Evangelista and Augie made out remains a mystery. But another source who was informed of the negotiations insisted that the final number “Is not close to the original demands,” meaning not near the $46,000 number initially bandied about.

[From The New York Post]

If I’m reading between the lines correctly, Pinault cried uncle and Linda made just enough concessions to make Pinault feel like a big man. My guess at the money situation? Probably a trust in Augie’s name worth a few million, and Augie will come into it when he’s 18 years old. Plus, maybe $30,000 a month for Linda. That’s just my guess!

Here’s an honest question, and I’m not asking this to be anti-French at all, this is seriously a theory I have: do you think Pinault was taken aback by the lack of respect he got in New York? He’s a major figure in France, and had this child support case played out in the French courts, I think the result would be very, very different. I think Pinault came into this case thinking that with his money, his public persona and his lawyers, he could push Evangelista around and wage a PR campaign to make her look like a money-hungry shrew. He totally didn’t understand how some Americans would find Evangelista sympathetic, and even more than that, they would find him, Pinault, to be rather vile. Was this all just a massive PR miscalculation?

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

134 Responses to “Linda Evangelista & Francois Pinault reached a child support settlement”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dibba says:

    Story as old as time. It’s all about the money. Kids are the meal ticket. Men are fools and round and round we go. Just like welfare only more money at stake. The kids are the ones that suffer

    • sans says:

      I think this is such a bad cultural belief, it’s really important to question it. Child support is not a meal ticket. It is money the kid is entitled to based on his needs and the financial capabilities of the non-custodial parent. The single moms I know are employed, doing the full time job of being a custodial parent, and often dealing with a court system and a baby daddy who have no idea about their needs and the needs of their children. Pinault is not a fool. He is a part of a generation of men who had the social and legal power to disregard women and children, to walk away from families they helped create with no responsibility. It’s awesome that, at least in some situations, that’s no longer the case.

      • Jessica says:

        Well said Sans! I am actually going thru a divorce right now. We split January 17 and I have only received 4 checks payable to our son’s daycare and $70 for groceries. I have a 7 year old and a 4 year old. I do have a good paying job, but after I buy food, pay for daycare for 2 weeks for both children, health insurance, gas in the truck, I am flat broke. Men have no idea the responsiblities and such that come with raising children. Ugh.

      • lw says:

        my sentiments exactly

      • Agnes says:

        perfectly said!

        we should all be glad that the legal system no longer lets people (usually men) get away with not taking responsibility for their children.

      • hairball says:

        TOTALLY agree. It takes two to make a baby.

      • Hipocrisy says:

        I agree with you but the OP has a point because while people overwhelmingly will never assume that Linda went the goldigging way, deliberatly chosing a much wealthier man and decided consciously not to take the pill, most of the same people accused Gibson’s ex, Oxana of goldigging, a sentiment that was widely displayed in every blog even in here.

        They even went as far as equalling that ‘sin’ of hers with Mel’s violence refusing to be the least sympathetic and empathic towards her because of her goldigging ways accusing her to be as evil as Mel in that regard. Having no
        sympathy for that goldigger though, unlike with Linda, Mel actually embraced that child and lived with her and her mother.

        There always was a double standard based on how famous one party is compared to the other, how sympathetic one party is perceived by the public versus the other to use or unuse the goldigging card based on those sentiment more than a standard applied to anyone in the same situation.

        So while i agree with you that a child is not a meal ticket, i wish women would have had the same tolerance to other women living even less wealthy than Linda to raise their children and stop accusing them of goldigging too when they appear less sympathetic than the man.

      • Elizabeth says:

        I am a family lawyer and I’ve found that in a relationship/marriage, it is usually women who do the buying for the kids. So the men have no idea what their children cost on a monthly basis. When they see the numbers in court, they’re shocked. But that doesn’t mean the numbers aren’t true or the women are greedy. It just means the men are not aware of what gets spent every month. They don’t do the shopping.

      • LAK says:

        Please see this comment from a commentor down thread.

        ‘Its not about hating the mom and her making sure her child is taken care of. Its the way in which she is doing it and some of her statements like “not wanting to be alone with the child”, and “needing money for ‘beauty upkeep’” or whatever. It seemed to be 60% LE and 40% Augie. This should have been %100 Augie. All she should have said is that I want Augie to have what Valentina has. I think that’s fair. But it looks fishy when she all of a sudden wants Augie to have his share when her billionare boyfriend breaks up with her.
        It seems to be all about her.’

        I am pretty sure that had she made it clear that this was about Augie and Only Augie rather than HER lifestyle, we would have been on board 100%.

        The fact is, FHP has already acknowledged parternity which in French law means that Augie would have inherited on his death even if he did not share in the loot growing up.

        Perhaps that is why Linda did not ask for a trust but rather living expenses because Augie is taken care of whether FHP ignores him growing up or not.

        It’s amazing to me that Linda CAN NOT be a gold digger, but Mel Gibson”s Oksana is considered to be one.

        Also, clearly you all live in a utopia where women are saints who can not be a) irresponsible and b)can not possibly entrap men.

      • CandyKay says:

        Oksana intentionally began an affair with a married man; Pinault was single when he dated Linda Evangelista.

        Oksana went out of her way to destroy Mel Gibson by leaking a carefully doctored tape to a sympathetic tabloid; Linda went through the legitimate courts.

        Oksana made a career out of dating wealthy, famous men; Linda made (and makes) her own living.

        I don’t think they are comparable cases.

      • LeeLoo says:

        I don’t believe this case has any victims. Linda knew exactly what she was doing. However Pinault is a dbag for not stepping forward sooner and for basically wanting nothing to do with this child.

        My happy medium is that he should have a 3rd party account for the child support money. He should pay for up to 12 hours a day of nanny care and he should make sure this money is 100% towards his son’s well being and not to make Linda’s life easier. I don’t trust Linda’s motives but I think he’s a bad man for putting this off and trying to weasel his way out of taking responsibility.

      • LAK says:

        @leeloo’s half way house proposal is the best proposal for this situation.

        To say that because FHP was single it therefore disqualifies LE as a gold digger is just ridiculous.

        Yes, Oksana went after a married man, but so did Marla Maples and Wendi Murdoch etc. What makes these women less disgusting than Oksana?

        Linda has been living with a Billionaire for past 4 years – the fours years of Augie’s life when she could do without FHP’s Billions.

        AFTER that other Billionaire breaks up with her, she then looks to her son’s Billionaire father for a hand out.

        Saying that Oksana deliberately leaked and shamed Mel Gibson….. have you not been reading the lurid details put out by LE’s team? Embarrassing and shameful things about Augie’s conception and birth – one of the reasons it is speculated upon in the article that FHP settled.

        Neither one is better than the other.

        There are no shades of gold digger.

        And while we are here, all those saying a woman can’t be irresponsible and procreate takes two only have to look at Octomum. Following that logic, all her sperm donors should be chased down and made to pay for those babies. Afterall, they had to know that by leaving a deposit, there was a chance that babies would come of it.

        And as you keep insisting, Child support is a right.

        LE could have easily gone to a sperm bank like Octomum, instead she did it the old fashioned way and made sure her sperm donor was tied into $$$$.

    • Ann says:

      The story as old as time is that most of the time, men walk away and live comfortably ever after while women and children live in poverty. Do you know how many deadbeat dads there are? If men don’t want to be “taken advantage of” (you poor, helpless things), then zip it and don’t screw around like some barnyard dog never mind the consequences.

    • bros says:

      kind of an ignorant comment Dibba. child support isnt like welfare. it’s the costs associated with being a parent and contributing to the ability of the custodial parent to provide for the child, just as a father would if he were still with the mother. just because parental relationships dont last doesn’t mean the end of the obligation towards the family unit.

      • LAK says:

        @Bros – it is not an ignorant comment. Depending on what country you reside in, it can be seen as welfare.

        In UK it’s very much seen as welfare which you have a choice to opt in or out of.

        BAsed on all the comments from people i presume are american [or american based], it is treated as a right in US.

        So, from that perspective, we will be at loggerheads.

        Also, did you know that in France if a father ‘recognises’ a child, that child stands to inherit equally in the father’s estate on his death even if the father is not in that child’s life.

        So from that perspective, Augie, having been recognised, will be taken care of whether he gets/got the child support or not.

        What Valentina is getting is closer to an additional trust to what will happen on FHP’s death.

    • Kim says:

      Story old as time – men getting their rocks off and not thinking about what the consequences could be then wondering why they are asked to support the child they willingly created!

      Pinault cared only about NOT losing a penny to his OWN SON! Whose the one concerned about money here? him!

      • LAK says:

        @Kim – he did not willingly create this child. He dumped her the minute he found out, after going so far as to ask for an abortion.

        Given her medical problems, she wanted the child, which is the more probable reason for her keeping it, but he wanted no part in it, as this court case very clearly demonstrates.

    • Kim says:

      1 word for Pinault – CONDOM!

      This man has a huge ego and a very small brain.

  2. celine says:

    i think much less than 30.000, more like close to ten thousand.

    and yes, here in france she wouldn’t have had a chance. we’re pretty much a dong-rules country (just look at the rape trials). i do have a problem with evangelista, she really just wants the money and i am sick of bitches getting pregnant just to be financially secure.

    • Mich says:

      Forget DSK and rape trials! Look at scrapping all recourse women have against sexual harassment until new legislation can be written.

      • celine says:

        very true. dong-rules-country, what can u do……not get raped or harassed is an option. -.-

    • D1 says:

      Where are you getting that from? Did Pinault accuse Evangelista of getting pregnant to be financially secure?

      My understanding is that Evangelista has had major fertility problems her whole life. That, combined with her being 40 years old when she dated Pinault, means that she wasn’t exactly in the position to plan to get pregnant even if she wanted to.

      Also, I wish people were as sick of a-holes who don’t want to be fathers choosing to have casual sex without condoms as they are of “bitches getting pregnant just to be financially secure.”

      • Bad Irene says:

        Thank you D1 for stating so clearly what I have been trying to find the words for. This narrative of women acting like shrews to poor helpless men is tired and worn out.He is a grown ass man, time to take care of his own business

      • Mich says:

        I’m also flabbergasted/horrified/pissed off to see people (presumably women) swearing up and down that Augie exists b’c Evangelista wanted financial security. It is beyond inane. But I have yet to see one of these clairvoyants recant so have given up fighting them.

      • Cirque28 says:

        Very well said!

      • Toot says:

        Totally agree D1 & Bad Irene.

      • ahoyhoy says:

        Excellent! And may I add, Linda is no slouch. She has kept her career going well past what should have been her ‘expiration date’ as a high-end model. And not only has she been working like a fiend for decades, she is notoriously expensive to boot! It’s not like she doesn’t have her own money. But having the child of a billionaire requires security guards, unfortunately, so of course the father should pay.

      • Gretchen says:

        Word. If he didn’t want to father a child he should have stuck a condom on it or kept it in his pants.

        All of this “gold digging” crap just reads like blatant misogyny.

        He willingly performed an act that is well-known (duh) to cause pregnancy. He is responsible for ensuring the financial well-being of the child he fathered, and considering how much money he has, trying to shirk that responsibility makes him a real asshole, it doesn’t make her a bitch.

    • Tapioca says:

      RE: Golddiggers. I would normally agree with you, but it’s not like you couldn’t level the exact same accusation at Salma Hayek and all Linda E is asking for is that Pinault spoils both his kids equally rotten, however distasteful the amounts requested may appear.

      It’s all inherited wealth anyway. It’s not like HE worked for it – at least the ladies had to sleep with a middle-aged saggy midget for their money!

      • celine says:

        he put a ring on salma, she got him to marry her. whole new story.

        yeah but that rubber thing might work, i totally see that. still can’t stand that biotch. hahahaha 40G are indeed ridiculous.

    • bros says:

      this is a woman who famously said she wouldnt get out of bed for less than 10k. do you really think she had a kid to be financially secure? might she have wanted her baby? might he have worn a rubber if he didnt want to get someone pregnant?

    • Raven says:

      I was thinking that it is about half of what she wanted. Maybe the boy got a trust fund, but his mother seemed more interested in how much she could get into her hot little hands. She does not come off well as a parent and I feel sorry for the child.

  3. I am not in the least sympathetic to her. And he’s just vile for not stepping up to the plate and supporting his child.

    I do find it interesting how had SHE not wanted the child and had SHE suggested an abortion, it would have been perfectly acceptable to many people because it’s “her body.” But because the man allegedly suggested an abortion, it’s horrific and disgusting. Just devil’s advocating here.

    • Anne says:

      They are both vile and I have no time for either of them, but with regard to him suggesting she get an abortion, that is not his place.

      I believe Linda got pregnant on purpose; she wanted a rich baby-daddy.

      Any man that does not want to become a father, particularly when it is a casual hook-up, as this seems to have been, needs to get some condoms.

      • hanna says:

        how on earth is it not his place to say he doesn’t want a kid? if a woman has the right to terminate pregnancy, a guy should have some weigh in also. It can’t be both ways. If two people share in creation and thus both now have to ante up for the next 18 years, it’s not fair for a woman to be able to say welp, nope didn’t mean to do that, delete, but a guy can’t have his say?

      • LeeLoo says:

        He made it clear what he wanted her to do. I think that is his place. That child is as much his as it is hers. However being Linda is the one carrying the child, she does get final say. I don’t think FHP was wrong in saying what he wanted to happen.

    • JenD says:

      Agreed! Because a man asks for an abortion or a DNA test shouldn’t even be a factor in determining child support. And when you’re talking $46k a month, I’d ask for a DNA test, too. For Pete’s sake, she told him she was pregnant a week or so after they met.

    • MaiGirl says:

      Honestly, the thing that bothers me the most about this is the lack of condom use. Assuming this isn’t a broken condom thing (doesn’t sound like it–he sounds like such a douche that if it was that kind of “mistake”, we would have heard about it already), they were only together a few months, and that means its bareback time??? I wondered that about Kimberly Stewart, too. Considering what a man-whore Benicio is, I would have demanded it be double-wrapped. And from that perspective, for a short-term casual-ish relationship, I don’t think a DNA test was so out of order. It doesn’t sound like the relationship was long enough for exclusivity.

      I guess I’m just waaaay more afraid of crotch crickets than 99% of Hollywood.

      However, the courts did make the right decision. The baby’s here, and it needs proper support from his father.

      • LAK says:

        there is no where in this story that either one said a condom was not used.

        that is something people have assumed just because it was an ‘oops’ baby, that has been repeated like chinese whispers until everyone KNOWS it to be true!

      • Double wrapped? I would have made sure it was wrapped in impervious kevlar!

  4. teehee says:

    Well that was damn fast. Took my parents no less than 7 years, and we wound up not getting a damn thing from him and sleeping on friends’ sofas and then on the floor until some people donated furniture intended to be thrown away. *folds arms* Hmpf.

  5. lucy2 says:

    I don’t have sympathy for her, but this made him look a whole lot worse than her, IMO. They probably decided to settle up quick before he looked like any more of a jerk.

    • Marjalane says:

      I agree, and I also think Salma Hayak was getting a lot of shade thrown her way for not stepping in and insisting that the old fart pony up for his son. I don’t like any of them; This old coot has more money than God, yet it was important to him to make sure it was written in court records that he never wanted his son. Special place in hell for tools like that.

      • But how do we know that Salma Hayek didn’t “step up to the plate” and say something to her husband regarding this? We don’t know and unless we do, we shouldn’t throw shade Salma’s way.

  6. Mich says:

    Huzzah! Score One for the child in all of this!

    I’ve never liked Evangelista – when she was relevant she always came off as a conceited b-tch – but I can totally get behind her wanting the best for her child. Why HP thought it okay to dismiss his own son, no matter what the circumstance, has been beyond me. He is the French version of Steven Bing.

    Next step in Augie’s best interest: Linda must stop wearing those heinous floral prints.

    • brin says:


    • Xera says:

      The child’s interests were protected by French law already as natural children have the same right to inheritance than legitimate children and parents cannot favoritise one child over the other in France.
      Had she wanted to protect the child she would have demanded that the father took more interest in him, she had the means to pay for his education and his inheritance was guaranteed as it is, what the kid needs now is attention

    • LAK says:

      @Mich – what Xera said.

  7. Dap says:

    The child support he is going to have to pay for Augie is probably 5 to 10 times the child support he is paying for Mathilde and François, the two children he has with is first wife, Dorothée Lepère. So, yes, he was probably surprised by the amount of money she asked for and by the fact that people were sympathetic to her claims

  8. Mkenya says:

    Love her dreaa and shoes…so age appropriate

    • Melissa says:

      Only if it were 1985!

    • Sassy says:

      Throughout the trial her manner of dressing has been cleverly managed in order to make her look “normal” and “poor”. This woman is an exotic model and had she worn her usual fashionable clothes
      it would have sent the wrong message to the judge and jury (was there a jury?). She was very sedately dressed in order to make her look dowdy, which succeeded.

      • sandcastles says:

        Are you suggesting that Linda wearrunway clothes to the trial? That would hae been totally inappropriate. Look at Lilo, we bash her for wearing bad clothes to trial, but yet, when Linda is wearing age appropriate clothing, we are going to bash here for that?? wow

  9. aang says:

    I still don’t understand why this is about the actual amount of $$ instead of about a % of his income. In New York State child support is minimum 17% and maximum 25% of non custodial parents income. Why should a millionare/billionare pay a lower % than a teacher, police officer, or cab driver? The child is entitled to support until he/she is 21. The misoginistic arguement that blames the mother doesn’t hold water, it takes two to make a baby and condems exist for a reason.

    • Peanut says:


      In Canada child support is only about 10% of the income. Plus sharing expenses like daycare, swimming lessons, etc. It’s tough sledding sometimes.

      • Lee says:

        Yeah. And good luck getting ANY money for the sports, the lessons, the day care, etc, etc. I never got one thin dime to help, and his income was easily 4 or more times mine.

    • fabgrrl says:

      Well, FHP doesn’t exactly receive a monthly paycheck. His money comes from the companies he owns, his properties, his stock, etc. Not exactly a cold, hard figure to determine a percentage from.

    • Xera says:

      In France the natural child has the right to the same inheritance than the other kids, so the child will be better off than any American kid in the same situation

      • TG says:

        You mean the French courts dictate how you leave your inheritence? Will they be thinking of a son who lives in the US? Or would Augie have to fight for his inheritence in a French court one day possibly even fighting Valentina and the other kids? This is interesting.

      • LAK says:

        @TG – from what i have learnt, Augie will not have to fight for his inheritance unless he was not ‘recognised’. I found that a wierd statement for FHP to make, and i am a nosy so and so, so iwent to look at what French courts would do in this case, and it is exactly as @Xera says.

      • Dap says:

        @TG: Augie wouldn’t have to go to a French court. All inheritance are proceeded by a “notaire” (no idea if the word exists in English and what it could be) whose job is to insure that every heir received its fair share. There are even case where all the heirs have emigrated abroad for years (and we are talking of “heirs” in general: which means if there are no child, it can be nephew, cousins, etc..) and the “notaire”‘s duty is to find them.

  10. Mel says:

    Why the hate on the mom? Wow. I hope she got a huge payout. Her child deserves everything that his sister is getting. This was a union between to consenting adults and he should man up and be a father. His behavior is disgusting. And it makes me dislike salma to boot.

    • s.jija says:

      Its not about hating the mom and her making sure her child is taken care of. Its the way in which she is doing it and some of her statements like “not wanting to be alone with the child”, and “needing money for ‘beauty upkeep’” or whatever. It seemed to be 60% LE and 40% Augie. This should have been %100 Augie. All she should have said is that I want Augie to have what Valentina has. I think that’s fair. But it looks fishy when she all of a sudden wants Augie to have his share when her billionare boyfriend breaks up with her.
      It seems to be all about her.
      Also, I kinda agree with what you wrote about salma. Although we shouldnt judge too harshly on people and situations we arent in, I question Salma’s sincerity if she stays with a man like Pinault.

  11. NerdMomma says:

    Salma Hayek is one lucky woman.

    Just kidding.

    • renee says:

      Just so you know, your comment is AWESOME.

      That is all.

    • MaiGirl says:

      +1!!! I never understood this man’s appeal other than his money, and Salma seems to be fading since she got with him, in career and appearance (the clothes from his companies do not suit her at all). The milk commercials are just SAD, man!

  12. Blue says:

    That was quick. That PR was definitely kicking his butt. I really don’t think anyone was disputing that he should pay, it was the amount and what exactly it was covering. No doubt his son should be spoiled as much as his daughter, but I think he didn’t want any wiggle room for LE to pocket some of the money for her own life style. I said previously he should cover health/dental, school, nanny when mom works and drivers to and from HIS obligations (b-day parties, appointments, school). Some of LE demands would have covered her needs as well. If she wants 24/7 nanny care even when the kid is sleeping and at school then that should be on her shoulders. What seems off putting to me is that, she wanted this boy so badly yet she basically wants someone else to raise him.

  13. T.C. says:

    Dropping the “he wanted me to get an abortion” bomb is the best way to win a PR battle. Both people in this situation don’t come off well. No one likes a dead beat father and a dead beat father who is a billionaire?

  14. lover says:

    will it be backdated? fugly man..

  15. fabgrrl says:

    Question: why does this boy need a professional bodyguard? Is he really that high profile? Really? He isn’t the son of a President, or a monarch. Yes, the children of billionaire have been kidnapped for ransom a few times. But wouldn’t keeping his father’s identity a secret have been better insurance against kidnapping? Any kidnapper who does his/her research is going to realize FHP will probably not be forthcoming with ransom.

    • Sassy says:

      J. Paul Getty refused to pay ransom when his grandson was kidnapped many years ago.

    • LAK says:

      @TG – he said on the stand that he has been making contact with LE for years to try and make custody arrangements, only she never responded to his overtures.

      Given he was under oath, i am presuming that he was telling the truth.

      That alone, and the fact that she finally responded AFTER breaking up with her Billionaire boyfriend who she was living with and therefore having her/Augie’s expenses met as well as the fact that her expenses request had an ‘alimony’ factor to it rather than just purely child support, leads one to conclude that she was simply using her son to cash in.

  16. hanna says:

    um no, he always planned on paying something, though he said he didn’t want the baby and she said she’d take care of the baby financially and emotionally herself. then she changed her tune and decided to grant herself alimony and a sweet mealticket on his dime. he settled under what he probably felt was much more reasonable

    • TG says:

      He always planned on paying something? This child is 4 years old where is the Trust set up in the child’s name? No where and he is a further a@@hole for not wanting anything to do with his son. I don’t blame him for wanting her to have an abortion but when she refused and the child was born it was time to change your tune and love this child. Why wasn’t he suing for partial custody or at the very least why hadn’t they worked out custody arrangements on their own? He is a jerkoff if there ever was one and that Salma is just as gross. Can’t stand LE, SH or this Pinault guy. This guy is the a@@hole of the decade. Won’t be watching any movies or buying any products that whore salma is shilling. Did he really think he would come off looking like the better party? What with his watch collection and not even knowing what birthday present he sent his son. Are his attorneys not from the US? His PR team must be completely out of touch with reality if they thought that crap would go down well in a courtroom.

      • Mare says:

        He is spending time with the kid and Salma said in one interview that he is part of their family.

  17. Sunnybum says:

    While I completely agree with men who willingly made a baby “owning up to their responsibilities,” whatever those responsibilities may be (through time spent with their kid, shared child rearing, or monetary means)… I think the operative word here is “willingly.” Sure, he should have rubbered up like the million other people who created “oops!” babies, but I think it is unfair to men in general to force them to support children they never agreed to. If a woman has an “oh shit” pregnancy moment, she has choices that can be made (and thank bejesus for that!). If a man has a similar moment, he is left at the mercy of the woman’s decisions. If that woman decides to keep a baby to term, all the power to her!

    However, if she does this with full realization that the man is not on-board, does not want said kid, and (were it his body and his choices) would not have said kid, I think it is incredibly unjust to ask for money, child support, or his time. The choice you make by having a kid without the other-half’s support is just that: a choice to have a child without the other-half’s support! It makes women look bad to go chasing down retribution after the fact, like we can’t make it on our own and it gives a definite gold-digging vibe. Again, this does not apply for men who actually FATHERED their kids; i.e. chose to have them, raised them, etc. They made their bed. However, allowing women the right to choose and not giving that same option to men is unfair, and pushes back the rights of women. FRancois-Henri and Linda are both jerkoffs of different breeds, but that doesn’t negate the unfairness of the situation.

    • mel says:

      Hate women much? How do you know it was her choice…from what I read it sounded like an accident…they barely knew each other and she had fertility issues…it sounds like plain lady luck. Bottom line…if he didn’t want a child or to risk it then he should of used a condom. To blame the women is archaic and bitchy.

      • LeeLoo says:

        No it’s not archaic and bitchy and I doubt Sunnybum hates women. There are women in this world who will get pregnant and use that child to collect a paycheck from the child’s rich father. It happens and it shouldn’t happen. It’s a disgraceful practice. But why should a man be punished for a woman making a choice to keep the baby? Women need to understand their choices will have consequences one way or another. If they choose to have a child without the support of the father then they need to be prepared to live with that choice. Women’s liberation has consequences. You want independence yet you expect a man to support your child? Women are at a stage where they want to have their cake and eat it too. The problem is it cannot last forever and there are women who are taking advantage of that fact.

    • Dhavy says:

      I’m with you 100%

    • fabgrrl says:

      I’m tending to agree with you. I don’t think it is right to force a child on an unwilling person – male or female. Children have the right to be loved and wanted, not resented.

      However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of ANYONE having a say in a woman’s choice to keep or terminate a pregnancy. Input and advice, certainly. But any kind of coercion, one way or the other, is not acceptable.

      A major issue I see is that men need MORE control over their own fertility. Think about it, pills, patches, shots, diaphragms, IUDs, cervical caps, tubal ligation, rhythm method, they are all the responsibility/perogative of the WOMAN. What contraception do men have? Only condoms and vasectomies. And vasectomies are not a solution for all men – they are “permanent” and for some men can cause extreme pain and even impotence. Condoms are, indeed, great, but can be awkward and not always on hand. It seems like there should be additional options for men. An reversible, anti-sperm enzyme perhaps. They should be doing half the work to prevent pregnancies if they want a larger say in them.

    • MaiGirl says:

      If the baby weren’t in the woman’s body, I’d agree with you. But, the vast majority of responsibility is on the woman when she gets pregnant, so she has the majority decision, and deciding what do do is a series of difficult decisions. And once the baby is on its way, its needs take precedence. If a condom breaks, then, I’m sorry. If one wasn’t even used, Dude ran the risk, Dude takes responsibility.

    • Kim says:

      If your prepared to do the deed be prepared to deal responsibility with the consequences. Period! No one forced this man to sleep with Linda and certainly no one forced him to not use contraception. HE NEEDS TO MAN UP!

    • Bad Irene says:

      But look at it this way, if the woman did not want to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and the man wanted the child, should he be allowed to force her to continue the pregnancy, force her to give birth and then just raise the child himself? This is a very murky area to be debating. Maybe people need to start signing pre-sex contracts just to be clear in case of an opps moment.

      • mel says:

        I will agree its a very murky issue…:)

      • LeeLoo says:

        It is murky. But I think men can and should protect themselves in cases where the woman blatantly is deceiving the man with a pregnancy outside of that tough luck.

    • LAK says:

      @Sunnybum – i think you and i are the only ones who agree on this issue and on the issue of women’s rights.

      Everyone saying you are are anti-women is simply on the level of people who simply say ‘haters’ or ‘jealous much’ just because you pointed out a) an uncomfortable truth b)reiterated the point of women having rights that do not negate men’s rights simply because we are women and they are men, and vice versa.

      @fabgrrl – those methods of contraception released us from the tyranny of our reproductive systems and also ushered in a societal change that enabled women as sexual beings to be properly recognised without pitchforks,metaphorically speaking.

      You just have to read some of these threads to see that that may still be a problem for people because people can not believe that an ‘oops’ baby can happen with contraception and therefore assumption is that there was none even though no where in the story does it say that tere was none. people have simply made as assumption, chinese whispered it and viola, it’s now a truth.

      Given how one track minded most men are, on many things, do you really want to trust that he will put a condom on it, always? Or are you going to put it on him yourself?

      Better to know i have all these contraception options, and have sex without fear of disease, babies or whatever, and if there is an ‘oops’ baby, know what the consequences will be if the father bails.

      • fabgrrl says:

        I think you are kinda missing my point. I’m saying that while it is GREAT that we women have all these forms of contraception, I think more should be done to develop ADDITIONAL contraceptives for men. While yes indeed, women have been freed from reproductive tyranny (in theory at least) we now have the lion’s share of the power. I wish it weren’t so, but more than one woman has admitted to me that she lied to her boyfriend about being on the pill when she wasn’t and gotten pregnant. Yes, the men involved could have used a condom, certainly, but it’s pretty common for couples to stop using condoms when they have been together for a while. My husband wasn’t with me when I got my IUD. For all he knows, I could be lying about that. I just feel like it would be better if BOTH parties could control their OWN gonads.

      • LAK says:

        @fabgrrl – i did get your point. My answer became a rant as i was thinkng of alot of the comments people have been posting and went off topic. I apologise. And do agree with your point. Men are more interested in developing Viagra than contraception.

    • LeeLoo says:

      I agree with Sunnybum from an ethical standpoint. Legally making this a reality is another story. However, there is a cause and effect to everything we do. Men need to be mindful of the type of women they get involved with. More so if you are a millionaire/billionaire.

      I think men should have an option to prove that the child was born under misleading and devious circumstances. If that can be proven then I don’t think they should have to pay a penny. It will be a hard thing to prove. I do believe that men should have some sort of way to protect themselves from devious women who take advantage of these rich men in this sort of way. It’s wrong! Children should NEVER EVER be brought into the world so the woman can collect a paycheck. Gold-digging is a practice that needs to end and it should be considered fraud.

      Do I know 100% whether or not Linda is a gold-digger? No. I’m talking in generalities not just about Linda. There are women out there who will do these things. I don’t think we should accuse every woman who gets into a custody/child support battle with someone famous a gold-digger but we all know it happens. Most of us probably know a woman who engaged in this sort of behavior. It needs to end! It’s a disgraceful practice that makes me embarrassed to be a woman.

  18. tru tru says:

    Team Evangelista!!

    not only was he not financially responsible but he did not even acknowledge he had a son, while traipsing around the world w/his other kid.

    vile and unassuming

  19. The Original Mia says:

    It really doesn’t matter if FHP didn’t want to be a father again & Linda decided to go ahead with the pregnancy against his wishes. They created a child. The child was born. It is both parents responsibilities to provide for him. FHP could have simply done Jude Law did. Pay & ignore the child.

    Totally don’t get this thing that because FHP didn’t want Augie he shouldnt have to pay. Sorry, that’s not the way things are supposed to work.

    • LAK says:

      As we keep saying, because clearly something has been lost in translation, it is not the issue of paying for the child, It the issue of paying for the mother.

      LE effectively went to court to get Alimony. FHP’s lawyers said the same thing, borne out by her expenses list.

      He did not say he was not going to pay, only that he was not willing to pay for the alimony part.

      The reason people think she was asking for a trust is because the sum she was asking for was the same as the other child’s trust. Both sets of lawyers are clear that she was asking for ongoing living expenses, not a trust.

      Putting out all the negative personal details which the child will read about later is on LE. Her team put that stuff out. It worked. She shamed him into settled.

  20. Sequined Pajamas says:

    I really don’t think Linda had a baby with him to land a rich baby daddy. Linda still has her pick of rich men. She looks incredible. I do think she wanted her son desperately. A few years ago she delivered a stillborn baby at 6 months pregnant. She probably saw this baby as her last chance to become a mother. Plus, Pinault is not innocent. There is a thing called condoms…always bring your own.

  21. SpunkyPR says:

    Just my 2 cents, since that’s all it’s really worth, people need to stop comparing celebrities’ lives to the normal folks. She’s a gold digger because she’s asking for $46,000 a month, but in their world, that’s peanuts. Frankly, I don’t take either side, since I don’t know what either of them thought, but let’s stop lumping all woman and men into the same category as these two because in the real world of normal people, this story wouldn’t be the same.

  22. Kate says:

    Salma & his PR must have been freaking out!!! I don’t think they thought their case wouldn’t role there way, hence the settlement. Regardless he got his dick out & most important what about the poor kid reading about this shit in the future??? Sham on you Salma, you should not just be thinking of yourself!! I bet you spend more than 46 g on your daughter per month!

  23. lunabell says:

    Jeez, why all the shade thrown at Salma Hayek?

    He doesn’t want to settle and it goes to court, Salma looks bad for either staying with him or not putting pressure on him to give $$ to his other kid. He finally does settle, and she somehow still looks bad.

    Yes, he should have voluntarily supported his son from the get-go but didn’t LE not want support from him originally because she was being supported by another billionaire? I could see how at the time that would have been beneficial for both of them. They were no longer together and he wanted to marry Salma and LE was in a relationship with another guy who would have provided the same financial support for her son had they gotten married.

    He’s Salma’s husband and the father of her child – is she supposed to up and leave him because his baby mama all of the sudden decided that she wanted $ from him after all and decides a very public route to go about it?

    • Kim says:

      Salma was involved in Pinault not acknowleding his son! She didnt want him to acknowledge him! That is sick & it came back to haunt her.

      Linda HAD to go public. It was the only way to get this loser to acknowledge and take care of his own son for goodness sakes!

      As far as Salma – What kind of woman, let alone a mother, allows her husband , actually encourages him, to pretend he doesnt have a son they damn well knew was his?! Who does that?! She is a much of a loser as him!

      • lunabell says:

        And you know this exactly how? Do you have a secret camera hidden in their mansion somewhere?

        My point is that people are making very harsh assumptions about someone who has remained silent and hidden. The story that you just portrayed could very well be true, but maybe the dynamics of their relationship are not such that she can “pressure” him into anything and they run their affairs independently. To me it is equally as plausible that his wealth and power could have an affect on the dynamics of their relationship.

        As for Linda, maybe she had to go public to get a settlement but there are some things I do find questionable. How did it help her case to reveal that FHP wanted her to have an abortion? That is public record for her kid to read when he grows up, for Pete’s sake. That move seemed more calculated to humiliate and shame FHP than to help her win her case.

        FHP looks like a real asshole in this, but IMO, so does Linda. I’m basing this on their public actions so far, things that we can SEE. Salma hasn’t done or said anything publicly, and until she does, I think it is a bit unfair to crucify her because her asshole husband and his asshole ex-girlfriend are duking it out in court.

      • Mari says:

        This man is a CEO of a multimillion dollar company, he was already divorced, over his forties, and had dumped LE already, but he is still doing whatever Salma says? I do not believe it.
        She must have an opinio, but He is the one with the responsibility, and money, he also has his own lawyers and advisors. Not buying “mastermind Salma”. She(Salma) strikes me as more resourceful and independent than Linda, since she has expanded and i not just the same foreign actress doing the maid roles in HW. She has grown a lot.

      • Mare says:

        How do you know Salma encouraged him not to acknowledge his son and pretend he doesn’t exist? He did acknowledge him, he’s spending time with him and started paying support last year when Linda asked him to. What you’re writing isn’t true.

  24. Bissly says:

    I think she is a gold digger and while she may feel she has scored a major victory now its going to backfire when he dies and her son inherits nothing except the measly millions in his trustfund. Because trust me He isn’t going to forget these,neither is he going to forgive her.
    I just know another major court battle looms in the horizon.I have to ask if it was worth embarassing the father of your child in public and ostracising his relatives and shareholders of the companies.Like it or not Valentina is going to be his heir. And now thanks to Linda he can claim he did his duty to his son by paying his allowance and putting some money in trust for him.She should have saved the big guns till later.Its not like she can’t afford to feed him now.

    • TG says:

      @Bissly – I am interested in your comments because I was thinking the same thing that if LE really has her sons best interest she would have been demanding an enormous Trust fund for her child and not be bickering over child support. We don’t know if any money has gone into Trust for Augie, at least, I haven’t seen any viable reports only that they settled. So if he died today I guess that would mean she would get no money. But I am curious about your comment about how LE has alienated FHP? It’s not like he was going to leave a bunch of money to his son anyway so if she waited 5 more years she would still be in the same situation. FHP is a jerk of the first order so I don’t think he ever had any intention of caring, at least financially, for his son. So there was no alienating to begin with FHP had already willingly alienated himself from his responsibilities. I would be interested in knowing more of your reasoning. Maybe you are thinking or know something the rest of us don’t. Thanks.

      • LAK says:

        i found it strange that he emphasised the point that he ‘recognised’ the child. so i did alittle digging. It turns out that in France, all ‘recognised’ children, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate share the father’s estate on his death equally.

        From that perspective, Augie is already taken care of.

        What Valentina is getting is therefore in addition to this.

        That said i am Bissly. Augie, not being the favoured child, and possibly LE alienating FHP, might have him make a caveat. But that is assuming he is that much of a terrible human being.

      • Bissly says:

        Hi TG,
        I am not saying he is right or isn’t even a douchebag.All I am saying is she put a relationship that was already on shaky ground and said comments that were bound to worsen the situation.
        He may not show her son the same attention as Valentina But he recognised him.This is particularly important as it shows Pinault accepted responsibility and acknowledges he is the father.Sure he didn’t do it for a year but he explained that Salmas daughter was thought to have Downs Syndrome.So he decided to wait.And also stated that his lawyers had approached her long ago for Settlement but she declined.This was long before the trial.
        What I am saying is she premaritally damaged any change of mind he might have later.The boy is still small,anything could have still happened and she would have had a better case later than now.A lot of men come around later and who knows Valentina might not turn out to be the perfect daughter.

      • Xera says:

        @ LAK

        French law doesn’t allow favoritism in inheritance, all children are entitled to the same amount, the money set aside for the daughter trust fund would therefore be part of her inheritance (all donations given while the parents are alive count as well), and will be matched in the other children’s inheritance

  25. Kim says:

    He is scum! Regardless of how he feels about Linda this boy is his son and he has the money! This poor boy is basically fatherless since Pinaault refused to even aknowledge him let alone be involved in his life. What a scumbag.

    I personally will boycott anything Gucci or buying anything from anything he makes a dime from.

    Salma get a clue – this guy will pass you up for the next best thing. If he isnt already sleeping around which Im sure he is.

  26. lower-case deb says:

    “the five-year-old son conceived during their whirlwind 2005 affair.”

    not a ghastly death-life mistake, but calculators and/or good editor svp? it distracts from the reading.

  27. Cirque28 says:

    Wow, the misogyny and implicit classism in this thread is totally depressing.

    Yes people, let’s make sure obscenely wealthy white guys keep as much of their (inherited) money as possible! That’s a cause we can all get behind!

  28. TG says:

    @Bissly – I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was just curious about your comments. I thought maybe you had more insight into why a person should wait until years later to sue for child support for a billionaire. Your comments make sense to me and I did further reading and apparantly he did acknowledge the child and has even been covering school and other expenses the whole time. I don’t buy his BS about waiting a year to acknowledge a child just because your other child might have down syndrome. Having a sick or potentially sick child in utero does not excuse one from neglecting the other children that have been born. That is a lot of BS to swallow. I think both of them are big fat losers and these poor kids are growing up with selfish moneygrubbing parents.

  29. LAK says:

    @Asli…But forcing a child on him is OK.

    Think of it the other way. What if LE did not want a child, and she had wanted to abort the child, would he be an a$$hole for insisting she keep the baby?

    • Autumndaze says:

      No one “forced” him to have sex with her. Once the baby was conceived it was her decision.
      He should have wrapped it up.

    • Dena says:

      I agree with LAK & why wasn’t she on birth control?He is catching hel for not being responsible when she also had a responsibility to hsve protected sex or none at all.

  30. riri says:

    I hope she is getting much much more than 46k.

    I don’t think any American finds her simpathetic.

    I think this is just the natural way a father should behave and support his son the way he supports his daughter and in proportion to his wealth.

    That guy did 2 disgusting things:
    not only did he not make any effort to spend time with his child, but also he played favourites and gave one child a lavish financial support and the other- almost nothing.

    The other thing he did was not to make sure his child is getting the lifestyle and financial security that his wealth can support.

    I couldn’t care less about Evangelista. She did a horrible thing to get pregnant and bring a child into this world when she knows that child will grow up without a father figure and that she is forcing fatherhood on someone.
    She and Salma come across as gold-digeers and greedy.

    They are/were with a horrible man, just because of his wealth and his ability to provide a lifestyle, despite their own wealth.

    Such women are seriously lacking in character.

  31. CM says:

    I think Mr. Pinault is smart enough to know that had he given Ms. Evangelista what she wanted outright, that she would’ve kept going to the well and they ultimately would’ve ended up here anyway. Maybe he was counting on there being a backlash once the amount of support she requested was disclosed, particularly since the average person is still struggling financially in this economy. However, it couldn’t have escaped his attention that his desire to abort the baby or the amount of money he spends on his daughter with Salma Hayek, would be seen as drawbacks. So, while I don’t think this was a PR miscalculation, I do think calculation was involved. I hope sincerely that he makes an effort to be a good father, and that everyone ensures that the siblings love and respect each other.

  32. AJK says:

    Entrapment? Please. Birth control is NOT only the woman’s responsibility. Wrap it up men if you aren’t open to children.

    • the original bellaluna says:

      From what I wrote on the last post:

      Men, if you DON’T want kids, don’t bare-back it with women.

      Women, if you DON’T want to deal with expensive litigation to establish paternity and child support, don’t bare-back it with men.

      Rocket science? NO.
      Common sense? YES.

  33. Dap says:

    Poor kid who has a biological father who doesn’t want to be his father, a “mother” who never wants to be alone with him and enough money to screw his own life very, very quicky.

  34. Loulou says:

    Pineault was a gentleman towards Evangelista. She reeks now. Salma Hayek probably intervened to make Pineault settle, because there’s nothing wrong with HER maternal instincts. She’s proved it by breast feeding a starving African child. I wish Pineault had sued for full custody of his son and given Evangelista nothing. The boy would be in better hands than with a model who whiffs of French mob.

  35. the original bellaluna says:

    I think it’s a combination of naivete on his part as to how different things are from France here in the US and a stunt-queen “poor-little-me” move on her part.

  36. LeeLoo says:

    I think the main thing is that he wanted the terms on paper. He wanted a firm and concrete amount that would be set until the child is 18. My best guess is that the settlement includes probably less than half of what she asked and a nice trust fund.

    I’ve stated all over this thread that neither party is innocent. I think she asked for way more than she was entitled to and only did so when her man/meal-ticket broke up with her. I think that he should have made a greater effort to support his son from the beginning.

  37. mymy says:

    My feeling are that this made Selma look bad also. I suppose he has to deny his son so “:her little princess is the tops”. men listen to their woman. And Selma seems vindictive.She should have told this loser to support his child.
    He comes across as beyond callous. Linda had every right to ask for this amount of support. he is a billionaire. He had unprotected sex and guess what a child was born. Linda is fighting for the child’s dignity.hope he got soaked

  38. Laura says:

    Most people are saying he should’ve worn a condom, uh well She could’ve made equally sure if she didn’t want to be in this situation. It wasn’t all down to HIM to prevent this situation, it was just as much her responsibility. The way he has acted at points since is not great by any means, however he did acknowledge the child thereby entitling him to half of his inheritance. Which goes SOME of the way towards making it up to him. Rather than making him give tons of money to LE to, let’s be honest, fund HER lifestyle and HER wishes not to be alone with HER child, why not recommend joint custody and less money to her… Why on earth would you have a child and say you don’t want to be alone with it?! Awful thing to say. This poor kid is going to read horrendous thins that BOTH of his parents have said and that’s the sad part, regardless of how much money he gets thrown at him growing up.

  39. soxfan says:

    So, is she willing now to share custody?
    He should now have equal rights as a parent and a say in how he is raised.

    • TruthTella says:

      She probably would be happy to share caustody, the father has shown no interest in having any contact with his child though so…

  40. TruthTella says:

    Whatever you think of Linda the facts are these…

    He is a grown man, did not use contraception, had consensual sex with her and since she’s had the child he’s had barely anything to do with it and paid barely (if) any maintenance towards him while he’s lavished his time and over $12,000,000 on his daughter with Selma…

    That to me is enough to make me team Linda.

  41. Lotta says:

    1) Men can easily prevent women from getting pregnent by using condomes.
    2) Men who have kids born with out their consent should still have to pay. It’s called child support because it’s for the child, it’s not for the mothers as people think. Maybe the father didn’t have a choice (after he neglected to take responsiblity and protect himself), but neither did the child. Why should he/she have to suffer and not get child support for his/hers upbringing.

  42. Lotta says:

    1) Men can easily prevent women from getting pregnent by using protection.
    2) Men who have kids born with out their consent should still have to pay. It’s called child support because it’s for the child, it’s not for the mothers as people think. Maybe the father didn’t have a choice (after he neglected to take responsiblity and protect himself), but neither did the child. Why should he/she have to suffer and not get child support for his/hers upbringing.

  43. Meanchick says:

    Hold the phone, this dude is 49? Daaanng. In dog years, right?

  44. lafairy says:

    I will answer as a french: in France she would have had less money,not because he is a famous figure but just because the amounts are calculated on the “average child” way of life basis… so that means way more under the amount she got. And in any case in France children have the absolutely same rights on inheritance, no matter if one is born out of wedlock and from a married parent! children will inherit the exact same amount, you can’t privileged one and you can’t disinherit one, so in any case Augie will be loaded.
    And to answer to your question, I was Team Linda Evangelista as a lot of people I know, plus in a trial in France you cannot play that much the PR card, since the trial is not disclosed till the very end

  45. Mare says:

    “Speaking to the French edition of Elle magazine, Francois-Henri said his son is an important member of his family. He said he has ‘recognised’ Augustin since 2007 and that ‘at every possible opportunity he has participated in my family life, whether in France or the United States. He is totally integrated within my family,’ he said, adding that Valentina, his three-year-old daughter with wife Salma, treats him like a brother.”
    He is not ignoring his son!

  46. Elaine says:

    I want Salma Hayek to get a divorce from this jerk as soon as possible. I have loved her for many years but I hate the idiot that she married because he isn’t the type of man that she should be with.

  47. Fred says:

    As Lafairy said, in France, this ridicoulously high child support would never have been granted by any court. Please! in which world are you living? which child needs 46’000usd a month!!! Augustin is 7 year old!!! This must be the reason why Mr. Pinault thought he didn’t have to pay that much to LE. This is absolutely not the French way of thinking. Children are not considered as a way to gain big money. If you are having a child, make sure you can take care of him (and in the present case, no doubt Mrs. Evangelista is not in need….). A kid is made by two people, why should Mr. Pinault pay for the whole thing? Doesn’t this child has a mother? If you want to be fair, then the parents should pay 50/50!
    Finally, the single mothers of the world, who work hard (somethimes cumulating 2 jobs)just to pay the rent and who are not multimillionaire retired top model should be offended by LE’s lack of dignity and respect for those who are really in want!
    Finally, Mr. Pinault never refused to pay for his child, he refused to pay that much, this is not the same. Indeed, his main argument was that he’s paying a certain amount of money for the other children from his first marriage (granted by a French court) and wanted to give exactly the same amount to Augustin. That sounds pretty fair doesn’t it? Why should one of the child deserve more than the others?