Actor Emily Osment files for divorce after less than 5 months of marriage
Actor Emily Osment has filed for divorce from her husband of less than five months, musician Jack Anthony Farina.
The 32-year-old Osment filed the petition to end her marriage to the 42-year-old Farina in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday.
The court filing says the two were married on Oct. 12 and separated Dec. 7. It cites irreconcilable differences as the reason. They have no children.
It was the first marriage for Osment, the younger sister of 'The Sixth Sense' actor Haley Joel Osment. She came to fame for playing the title character's best friend on the Disney Channel 's 'Hannah Montana' from 2006 to 2011. She subsequently starred in the sitcoms 'Young & Hungry' and ' Young Sheldon," and currently appears on the 'Young Sheldon' spinoff, 'Georgie & Mandy's First Marriage.'
The divorce was first reported by TMZ.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Miley Cyrus reveals how she mended 'messy' family relationships without therapy amid decade of drama
is unpacking a decade's worth of family drama and trauma and reveals how she mended all of her fences. The 32-year-old star was born in the spotlight, the daughter of country music legend Billy Ray Cyrus and Tish Cyrus, who found fame herself at a young age as star of the Disney Channel series Hannah Montana. She grew up to be a global pop star in her own right, though she revealed on Tuesday's episode of Reclaiming with Monica Lewinsky, her road to fame was filled with family strife. She teased the whole family went through a, 'really difficult, dark decade' but they were able to get through it. Cyrus revealed on the podcast - which also featured the singer explaining what WAP is to the 51-year-old Lewinsky - that the family was able to mend their fences without therapy. 'We're so messy, we didn't even do any of that,' Cyrus joked of her family struggles, revealing the reason a therapist wasn't involved. 'Just to get each other into a room to get to counseling would have been a war,' Cyrus admitted. She told Lewinsky that at one point of the 'dark decade,' half of her family members were not speaking to each other. Cyrus admitted she, 'had a lot of loyalty' to her mother Tish, who split with father Billy Ray back in 2022 after nearly 30 years of marriage and sharing Miley, Braison, 31 and Noah, 25. Before their official split and divorce that was finalized in 2023, Miley said that her parents were on-and-off, as she revealed how that affected her. '(I) watched what happens when you don't clean things up as they're happening,' Miley admitted. 'They really do stack. And then all of the sudden you go, "Oh my God, it's been 10 years and this is a mess I barely even know how to start. This is emotional hoarding,"' she admitted. Ultimately, the singer, 'cleaned all that up,' during a, 'really important part of [her] year … putting those lines of communication back together.' 'I just kind of busted through the pile that stacked and just [went], "I'm here, you're here, let's start by having a good time together and then as we start bringing some happiness and joy into each other's life, then we'll be in a better place to have these conversations,"' she admitted. Cyrus admitted she, 'had a lot of loyalty' to her mother Tish, who split with father Billy Ray back in 2022 after nearly 30 years of marriage and sharing Miley, Braison, 31 and Noah, 25 She also admitted it, 'was easier to (wave) a white flag' than go through counseling with someone else. The singer added she likes others to decide they, 'like the way she's functioning' and attempt to 'mimic' it. She will be addressing the family drama more directly on her forthcoming album, teasing that a song called Secrets. Cyrus said the song is about her wanting her dad, 'to feel safe enough to tell [her] the things that were damning and damaging to the family.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Justin Baldoni receives devastating prediction from legal experts after Blake Lively blow
Legal experts are now weighing in on the fate of Justin Baldoni 's It Ends With Us ordeal after his bombshell $400 million lawsuit against Blake Lively was officially dismissed. In an exclusive chat with the Daily Mail on Monday, business and entertainment attorney Seth Berenzweig insisted the 'main guts' of Baldoni's case are now 'dead' after a judge tossed out his defamation and extortion claims - the 'core' of his lawsuit.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Was Justin Baldoni lying about Ryan and Blake? Legal expert reveals what judge's dismissal of $400million lawsuit really means
Justin Baldoni's $400million countersuit against Blake Lively has been dismissed amid their ongoing It Ends With Us legal battle. In the latest shock twist in the case a judge has dismissed Baldoni's lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, the New York Times, her publicist Sloane and her PR firm Vision in a major setback for the actor's hopes for a blockbuster win over the millionaire actress. But what does the ruling really mean and why has the judge come to this decision? And does it mean that Baldoni's claims against the couple, such as alleging that Blake tried to take over the movie and that her husband 'aggressively berated' him, were untrue? Crucially, although the judge has dismissed the case, it doesn't mean he is ruling that Justin's claims are untrue. Rather the case has been dismissed on technical grounds due to the terms of defamation. Legal expert Jessica Welch explained: 'The decision at this stage was not dealing with whether the allegations were true or false; it was mainly about the fact that Baldoni had not established the necessary elements to form a defamation claim in the US.' From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new Showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. Jude Lewis J Liman dismissed Justin's suit alleging defamation and extortion on the basis that all Blake's allegations were made within privileged court papers. Jessica explained: 'Privilege essentially protects those making allegations against another person in specific circumstances from liability. One of those circumstances is statements made in court papers. 'In this case, Lively is protected from claims of defamation being made against her for the allegations she made about Baldoni in her legal claim against him.' If she had published the statements in another forum, for example in the press or on social media, they would potentially be considered as defamatory. But "privilege" means Blake was able to bring legal proceedings against Justin without the risk of being sued for defamation for doing so. Therefore Justin must have been able to show that the statements were not 'privileged' and that Blake was at fault for publishing the statements the director was concerned about. As well as his case against Blake, Justin had also launched a case against the New York Times, which was also dismissed. Jessica explained: 'In terms of Baldoni's claim against the New York Times, he needed to show that the statements were published with 'actual malice' – i.e. the NYT knew the statements were false or were at least reckless as to whether they were true or false. 'The Judge determined that the evidence did not support a finding of actual malice, referring to the fact that the article contained context favouring Baldoni, acknowledged criticism of Lively's promotional efforts, and prominently included Wayfarer's denials.' Meanwhile the legalities of defamation differ in the US in comparison to the UK. Jessica continued: 'Unlike in the UK where the burden of proof would have rested on Reynolds and Sloane to show that that the allegations they had made are substantially true, in the US the burden is reversed so that Baldoni would have had to show that those allegations were false. 'The Judge here found that Reynolds and Sloane made what they thought were true statements about Baldoni's sexual harassment.' Legal expert Laurence Weeks added that the claims against Reynolds, Sloane and the NYT were dismissed on 'the basis that the relevant statements are simply 'statements of opinion' that could reasonably have been held by an honest person based on the facts available at the time of publication of the statements.' 'This is a legitimate defence to a defamation action under US Law. Wayfarer Studios' action failed because they were unable to show that Mr Reynolds, Ms Lively's publicist and the New York Times did not actually hold these opinions. Judge Liman, however, did state the Wayfarer Parties will be able to file a second amended complaint by June 23, 2025 but are only able to amend the allegations 'relevant to the claims of tortious interference with contract and breach of implied covenant.' Confirming what this means, Jessica said that if he amends his complaint the trial will focus on much narrower issues. She added: 'Whether he will do so remains to be seen, but given the time, expense, and publicity this case has generated to date, and what is likely being seen by the public as a win for Lively's side following Monday's decision, you would think he would want some sort of vindication for this very public dispute.' Importantly Blake's case against Justin will still go ahead. Laurence confirmed: 'The dismissal of this claim should not directly impact the outcome of Ms Lively's claim against Mr Baldoni for sexual harassment. 'Mr Baldoni's defences to that claim remain and will be raised at trial, the matter proceeds.' On Monday night Blake spoke out for the first time since the news as she released a powerful statement reflecting on the events Speaking about the recent court decision, Blake's attorney Michael Gottlieb told CNN: 'Today is a message that these kind of retaliatory lawsuits that are really designed to silence and punish people that speak up won't work. 'They will not work. They will not be tolerated by our justice system and they will not be successful.' On Monday night Blake spoke out for the first time since the news as she released a powerful statement reflecting on the events. Taking to Instagram she penned: 'Last week, I stood proudly alongside 19 organizations united in defending women's rights to speak up for their safety. 'Like so many others, I've felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us.' The Los Angeles-born star continued: 'While the suit against me was defeated, so many don't have the resources to fight back.' Lively, who shares four children with husband Ryan Reynolds, vowed that she was 'more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman's right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story.' The Gossip Girl alum wrapped up in thanking those in the public who have supported her amid the turbulent past year. 'With love and gratitude for the many who stood by me, many of you I know,' Lively said. 'Many of you I don't. But I will never stop appreciating or advocating for you.' The It Ends With Us actress, whose legal battle with Justin Baldoni has had a significant impact on her friendship with Taylor Swift, added a list of groups that had publicly supported her amid the highly-publicized Tinseltown tussle. Among them, in alphabetical order, were the California Employment Lawyers Association, California Women's Law Center, CHILD USA, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Equal Rights Advocates, Esperanza United, Her Justice, and Herunivercity Inc. In a move that might have been a harbinger of changing momentum in the case, Lively took aim at Baldoni Thursday, saying that women's groups had abandoned him in droves. A total of '19 leading survivors and organizations devoted to women's rights, children's rights and domestic violence have now signed onto four separate amicus briefs,' a spokesperson for the Another Simple Favor actress told Daily Mail in a statement. The statement continued: 'All are united in opposing Justin Baldoni's attempt to dismantle a law designed to protect women who speak up — simply to protect himself.' Lively's team said that Baldoni was going against his own playbook as the complicated legal case progresses, leaving himself open to increased scrutiny in the wake of his past public statements.
