Celebrity Justice
Ex to "Scrubs" Star: Here's Why You're Dr. Cox

TMZ has learned, a "Scrubs" star has scrubbed his child support obligation because of the WGA strike.

John C. McGinley, who plays Dr. Cox on "Scrubs," was paying his ex-wife, Lauren Lambert, $9,000 a month in child support since their 2001 divorce. McGinley, whose 10-year-old son (with Lambert) has Down syndrome, has been praised for advocating Down syndrome research. But we've learned McGinley has told Lambert he has decided to cut his child support payments in half because of the writer's strike. Sources say he's told her it's "not fair" for him to pay his full obligation anymore because his show is not in production.

We're told Lambert is incensed, especially because McGinley, who is remarried with a child on the way, can afford "a big house in Malibu."

Sources say McGinley is supposed to pay half his monthly child support on the first of each month and the other half on the 15th. McGinley paid half on January 1 but paid nothing on the 15th and doesn't plan on it. Sources say Lambert may ask the judge to hold her ex in contempt.

McGinley's lawyer, Lynn Soodik, tells TMZ, "He's following the court order which allows him to reduce support if the show isn't being shot." But we've learned the court agreement states McGinley can reduce support only after "the final episode." The final episode is scheduled for the end of this season, so the fat lady hasn't sung.



Reader Comments

(Page 4 of 9) Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

46. I thought child support was based on two things. First it would be the custody agreement. If the mother has full custody than the other parent would have to pay support. Second, is that child support is based on a % of the paying parent's salary. If that's truly the case, then $9K is justifiable.

My other question is...Is it really his decision on changing the agreement to pay half? I would think that would be a judge's decision.

I would also guess that some actors are still being paid in spite of the writers strike especially if it's in their contract. Also, the show is schedule to end (series finale) at the end of the season anyway. What was going to happen to the child support agreement then?

Posted at 9:43PM on Jan 17th 2008 by nica

47. The boy is disabled. Any of you ever been admitted to a hospital? Imagine having to deal with a a child with a disability on a regular basis. I know. It put me in bankruptcy court. It’s not his right to interpret his divorce agreement; that’s what lawyers are for. I’m sure he’ll be hearing from hers soon.

Posted at 9:53PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Reality check

48. i used to do payroll for a company here in CA. CA's child support laws have been regulated throughout the state. My company had hourly employees that due to rain, could take home only a few hours of pay a week, but could have had a court order for $500 a month in child support. You can take up to either 25% or 50% of the gross pay when hours and wages have been cut.

Hate to break this to you, but he's in the right on this one...

Posted at 10:06PM on Jan 17th 2008 by stressdgoddess

49. first of all $9K a month is way too much a month in child support. the ex sounds like a greedy gold digging whore. why isn't the fat, lazy gold digging whore getting a job and supporting herself and her child. this is sickening. poor john.

Posted at 10:30PM on Jan 17th 2008 by misty meanor

50. Check out the article I did on John!

http://celebrity-do-gooders.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html

Scroll down the page, you'll see his picture and the blurb...it sends you to the article.

Posted at 10:31PM on Jan 17th 2008 by writergal

51. I know three different people that have had kids with downs. None of them spend near $4500 a month on medical care. Not even close.

Posted at 10:42PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Kerjack

52. Is the lawyer's name a joke or what?

Posted at 10:58PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Suzycakes

53. Who cares about what it costs for her to care for the child. He should be privy to the same lifestyle as his rich dad. I hope she sues him and gets more support. Cheap bastard!

Posted at 11:04PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Suzycakes

54. No of course she doesn't *need* the money, she *wants* it. Do you really think all of that money goes towards the kid's needs? No. She probably doesn't need more than $1500 to take care of that kid for the month. She just wants to keep her own lifestyle. But, I believe, child support is based on the father's income, not on what she'd actually need to take care of the child.

Posted at 11:02PM on Jan 17th 2008 by ShadowGod

55. Their son has Downs Syndrom. Do yo idiots know how expensive it is to "lovingly" care for your child when it has this syndrom? This father, like many fathers of mentally and/or physically impaired children don't take care of them because of fear, ego, and denial. Providing less than wonderful care, when you can afford to do so, and when you rather spend it on your new perfect family in your new perfect home is the true sicknes. He is practicing abuse of his ill child.

Posted at 11:04PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Actually reading the story

56. I totally agree with 7:23 "mom with a disabled child." She is taking care of a "special needs" child, HIS child also. Raising and taking care of such a child requires extra effort and responsibilities. He has the easy part. Take care of YOUR first child. From what I've read, the child support reduction applies after the "season finale" of the show has aired AND the show has been declared cancelled. Neither has happened yet. The finale is not scheduled for months yet. Who knows what will happen? I think he's jumping the gun a bit. PEACE

Posted at 12:23AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Dr. K...POOR fresh out of med school medical examiner!

57. $9000? Disabled child or not, that's pretty steep. I think his ex is lucky to be getting half of that, let the woman go forth and work like a normal woman. If he's out of a job for the moment he can't be expected to pay money the same way, what he does with his new wife is his business.

Posted at 2:50PM on Jan 18th 2008 by LemonJelly

58. What a load of crap. The term "child support" needs to be changed to "government mandated subsidization of the other parent's lifestyle." That's what it is. I understand the need to provide for a child -- but it is so unfair that in most cases a woman DECIDES to leave a relationship, takes the child with her, and takes 25% of the man's take-home pay with her. That $9,000 per month is tax free to her -- which is also BS. Any man or woman paying another parent "child support" should be able to do it with pre-tax money and the receiving parent should have to pay taxes on it. Have some dignity and self-respect and support your damned self instead of sponging off the paying parent for up to 18 years!

He may be a special needs child, but there are a whole lot of people in the world with special needs children who live on a whole lot less than this woman rakes in every month. At some point common sense needs to come in rather than just taking a percentage of someone's income. I don't think popping a kid out should entitle you to nearly 20 years of living off of someone else.

Posted at 12:08AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Miss Moe

59. The guy made his Jan 1st pmt he is barley late on 15th Pmt . Lets see how fast you can come up with 4500 every 2 weeks without working give him a break! Another example of an ex leaking a story to TMZ a little early!

Posted at 11:51PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Jack

60. My issue with this is that the WG needs to shut up and get back to writing. There are so many, many more people in this country that get paid so, so much less than they do and work so, so much harder than they do... but they don't go on strike, do they?? No, they get up, every day, and thank God for a job and money to feed their families.

Posted at 12:03AM on Jan 18th 2008 by AstridA

Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments