Sep 24, 2008, 11:20 GMT
Sharon Stone has lost the latest round of the ongoing custody battle over her eldest son.
05/21/2008 - Madonna and Sharon Stone - 2008 Cannes Film Festival - "Che" Premiere - Arrivals - Palais des Festivals - Cannes, France © Pixplanete / PR Photos
The 'Basic Instinct' star had requested primary custody of Roan - who currently lives with her ex-husband Phil Bronstein - but a San Francisco judge ruled the eight-year-old should continue living with his father.
The judge stated Bronstein's home was a more stable environment for Roan, reinforcing the 2007 decision that he should have executive sole custody.
The court papers stated: "The court does not find that a move away is in child's best interest. Court finds that Bronstein can provide a more structured continuity, stable, secure, and consistent home that child, Roan, needs. Bronstein shall have permanent sole physical custody of child."
However, Sharon's lawyer Marty Singer claims she has retained joint physical custody of her son and it is only her request to have him moved to another school which has been denied.
Marty said: "The court order of 2007 provided that Roan was to go to school in San Francisco. Sharon went to court to try and modify the existing order. She wanted the court to modify the order so her child could go to school in Los Angeles.
"But the court felt that, for whatever reason, that she did not meet a burden to move him out of San Francisco during the school year."
Sharon - who also has adopted sons Laird Vonne Stone, three, and two-year-old Quinn Kelly - reportedly wanted Roan to live closer to her so he could bond with her other children.
The papers state there is to be no change in Sharon's "custody, visitation, holiday and vacation schedule" and order that her telephone number is programmed into Roan's phones.
Marty added: "Sharon not lost any iota of custody or visitation that she had before. She thought it was best at this young age that she had these two younger children to have her older son be with them and the court didn't want to modify the order."
Your Talkback on this Story