All contested custody battles are ugly. The current battle between Usher and Tameka Foster seems to be taking ugly to a new level Rumors are popping all over town about both sides being underhanded and playing dirty pool. Since the death of Tameka’s 11-year-old son Kile, and the funeral just a few short weeks ago, this whole trial has been nearly too difficult for me to follow. If you are new to the case Usher has taken Tameka to court in an effort to get full custody of their two young sons. Usher claims she is unfit and wants the kids raised by him and his family. Closing arguments were today and a ruling was expected fairly quickly.
The judge has come back with two things today both rulings were against Usher. First, the judge has ordered Usher to reopen the Saks account that he closed last year. The card has special benefits that she needs to run her business as a stylist. Secondly, Usher was order to pay for a nanny bill. No ruling has been made on the custody.
Frankly, I’m not sure where the kids would be better off. In general, I would assume that unless some horrific allegations could be proven that the judge would give custody to the mother. Because the joint custody is not working according to both parties, the judge, who by the way is also handling the Sheree Whitfield child support case, has a tough decision to make.
WordPress totally refuses to let me embed this link, but if you are interested, it is here.
Shanda, Tameka has always had custody of all of her children. Usher (for whatever reason) has decided that he now wants full-custody of his 2 which is why they are in court.
It’s pretty crazy if you ask me. He knew her and dated her for many years while she was his stylist before marrying her. If she were such an unfit Mother, why would you marry her and impregnate her with 2 children? Is it that she’s a great Mother with the other children but not his kids? C’mon now.
Follow the money, honey…. If he has full custody he doesnt have to pay her child support, which unlike the pitiful amounts most men pay, is probably quite substantial since the court is going to take into account the lifestyle they live with their Dad and his assets… He doesnt want to pay for her to be tricked out..
ITA, plus… I don’t know, Usher – at least for me – doesn’t seem having the ‘best light’ to win custody. Keep us updated, Tam! Thanks!
You’re right and it’s sad. Because one day his boys will be old enough to just look online and see all of this mess.
I know it’s cliche but we’ve all heard many times before that parents that are split up should ‘love the children more than you hate each other’. His utter disdain for her is going to cost him dearly in court fees and with his children.
While we aren’t privy to all of the details of what exactly happened in their marriage, I can say that we never heard him (prior to now) accuse her of being a bad parent. Therefore, I am definitely inclined to believe as you stated…follow the money.
i feel sorry for the kids.. they both seem unfit… hmmm they may give to usher since he has other sane people around him… lol
I wish this could have been settled in a way outside of the courts. Secondly, she’s responsible for her own career, what does Saks have to do with custody? I would challenge that one.
The Saks card is invitation only and Usher is the primary account holder..She is responsible to pay the bill
I seems like I heard that. That makes sense.
Ok, first of all, Im sorry for Tameka loss, but did she actually have custody of any of her children before? (not Usher’s–the other three??) I think that was Usher’s point–she doesnt have full custody of the others–why want to take care of his?
Second, why did the judge reinstate her Saks card? tameka has several businesses, pay your own bills for your business–why does Usher need to keep a saks card going for HER sylist business? that’s wrong. I understand the nanny, i dont understand the card.
ITA – why does he need to reopen HER saks card? If it’s that important for her business, then SHE should reopen it and be responsible for HER own bills…this had NOTHING to do with Usher. The Nanny bill YES but the Saks card HELL to the NO! It’s common sense and I’m in no way a fan of either of them.
The judge found him in contempt. Which means cancelling the Saks card somehow violated a previous order probably from the divorce proceedings.