Actress Morena Baccarin and estranged husband Austin Chick might have come to a final agreement in their custody battle over their two-year-old son, Julius. On Thursday (Nov. 19), a judge ordered the Gotham star to pay Chick over $23,000 a month in child and spousal support for the foreseeable future, according to a recent People report. Could this be the last time these two meet in court?
During their Los Angeles custody hearing on Thursday, a judge instructed the 36-year-old actress she would be required to pay Chick $20,349 each month in spousal report until he either remarries or dies. She will also dish out an additional $2,693 in child support until their son turns the age of 18, according to legal court documents obtained by People.
So, why did she have to pay so much? Baccarin, who also starred in the hit Showtime series Homeland, was the primary breadwinner during their three-year marriage. Chick, 44, works as an independent director, screenwriter, and producer, but is currently unemployed.
In September, a judge initially awarded both parents joint custody and ruled in favor of Baccarin to move their son to New York until she could confirm the longevity of her Fox crime-drama series. The Brazilian native bought an apartment for Chick to live in while he visits Julius, paying his monthly rent of $6, 850 a month.
Despite having furniture shipped to the apartment and living there over the summer for two weeks, the agreement quickly went sour once Chick found out about Baccarin's new relationship. Not only is Baccarin dating her Gotham co-star Ben McKenzie, but she also revealed they're expecting a baby together.
Chick refused to co-parent with Baccarin in New York after learning about her pregnancy and decided to move back to Los Angeles. Baccarin asked if the rent she paid for the NY apartment could be deducted from her spousal support, but the judge denied her request.
"Not giving Ms. Baccarin credit for the N.Y.C. apartment she had been paying for was a slap at her," divorce lawyer Michael Stuntman, who's not involved in this case, told People. "Clearly there was a lack of an enforceable agreement if it wasn't brought up in the spousal support decision."