This is a sticky situation.

Director Steven Soderbergh has been slapped with a paternity suit by an Australian woman who claims he fathered her daughter.

Francis Lawrencia Anderson says that a DNA test proves Soderbergh is the father of her baby and he even helped her with medical expenses during her pregnancy.

The two reportedly met in December 2009 when his play Tot Mom opened up in her hometown of Sydney. In the lawsuit, she says that he "has acknowledged he is the father of the child verbally," and now she's asking for child support from the director.

Soderbergh has been married to E! personality Jules Asner since 2003.

Oops.

We bet that was an uncomfortable conversation he had to have with his wife.

For the second time in a few months, Lea Michele has come under fire for posing in a national magazine.

In October, the actress and a couple Glee co-stars posed provocatively in GQ, a spread that caused such uproar the PTC (ridiculously) compared it to child pornography.

Now, Michele appears on the cover of Cosmopolitan in a dress that - gasp!!! - doesn't cover every inch of her torso.

In response, a few critics have turned to Fox News and expressed disappointment in Michele and the publication.

“I think Lea Michele is sending the wrong message. She plays such a ‘good girl’ on Glee and a lot of kids look up to her persona. Then, she poses very provocatively on two magazine covers, which makes my almost-13-year-old son very confused and offended,” said Kim Trefcer.

Adds Suzette Valle, a mother of two, who writes a blog titled Mamarazzi Knows Best:

“It’s irresponsible to be using an adult who represents a minor dressed in provocative clothes. I think Cosmo is now taking advantage of the raucous GQ caused with their Glee cover and hoping to cash in on the press that got.”

Study the cover shot above and chime in: Do you find it inappropriate?

The store basically called BS on that, saying they don't just loan stuff out. There are insurance requirements and lots of paperwork required beforehand.

Well, according to a Lohan source, she doesn't fill out diddly when she "borrows" necklaces ... she leaves that to her people, or so pals of the star say.

Lindsay's freedom in the great necklace caper is riding on her claim that the Venice, Calif., jewelery store owner loaned her the $2,500 necklace in question.

Proving that might be a tough task, but proving she's lying may be equally difficult for the accuser and D.A.'s office. Especially if someone else signed for it.

Lindsay is telling friends ... "I don't deal with things like that" and blowing it off as a "misunderstanding." But there's one issue with the "on loan" theory.

When she figured it out, why didn't she just return it to the store instead of sending an underling to the LAPD, just as they were ready to raid her place?

That one she may have to answer compellingly to law enforcement.