Tameka Foster to Appeal Child Custody Ruling

In a move that is surprising to no one, Tameka Foster is filing an appeal on the ruling in he child custody case. The judge’s ruling, giving Usher physical custody, is set to go into effect on September 1st. It is not clear if an appeal will delay the children’s move. I’ve read at SFTA (I believe, I can’t find the direct link but she has lots of info straight from the courtroom) that there were reasons to believe that Usher’s attorney had raised funds for Judge Lane’s election. Today TMZ reports that , “According to the campaign contribution report for Judge Lane, the law firm that  represented Usher raised $1,278 for Lane in March 2008.” There is also allegedly a phone call that Usher made to Tameka claiming he had the case in the bag well before a ruling was made. Clearly, mean-spirited remarks are flying in all directions, still. Sadly for the kids, the battle rages on.  TMZ stated that Tameka is interviewing lawyers for the appeal. This means she likely fired all the ones that lost the case for her.

UPDATE: Hip Hop Enquirer has an excellent article outling the custody trial nearly minute by minute.

Thoughts?

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under Tameka Foster, Usher

5 responses to “Tameka Foster to Appeal Child Custody Ruling

  1. Vp

    50/50 custody is the right thing to do. I’m shocked to hear it over turned in favor for sole custody with no inciting event. Usher sounds disgusting.

  2. JustTheFactsPlease

    The legal community is a very small community. It’s ridiculous to think that there is to be NO contact between lawyers and judges because unless we forget, JUDGES were LAWYERS at some point in their career. If the judge has some bias toward a lawyer or a party’s lawyer, then they should recuse themselves; however, a past work relationship DOES NOT constitute BIAS.

    I really think bloggers should consider employing legal writers or lawyers to do these legal blogs because seriously, bloggers are bias and looking at it from a CULTURAL standpoint (i.e., women “should” have custody) versus a LEGAL standpoint (i.e., best interest of the child is to be with parent who can…).

    Here’s a little research for you: http://www.georgiacourts.org/councils/cjcj/PDF/Benchbook%20Chapters/ch30.PDF

    For the record, money had nothing to do with this ruling. Any father off the street can file his own motions and argue his own case pro se. As long as he has a legal leg to stand on, he can win custody of his children. Women do not have the monopoly on children. (Case in point, D.Wade, Busta Rhymes, etc.) Usher’s attorney and firm raised a measly $1200 for the judges campaign in 2008, which is hardly enough for anyone to favor someone. If it was $12000 or $120000, I’d consider it.

    Let’s face it though, if the kids were with Tameka, they’d be with a nanny alot and ditto for Usher. It’s NOT OUR concern. Usher is a great dad. Tameka’s mothering is affected by her bitterness toward Usher and his partner in adultery and current girlfriend. This should be a lesson to ALL women, allow fathers reasonable visitation regardless of how you feel about the father because it affects the children in the long run.

    • Here’s a little research for you, http://hiphopenquirer.com/exclusive-raymond-v-raymond-how-a-decision-in-this-custody-case-could-affect-you-judges-order-inside/ Tameka and Usher had nearly 50/50 physical custody prior to Usher filing for full physical custody. She had the boys 18 days of the month and he had them 12 with holidays split evenly. Usher has allegedly taunted Tameka asking her, “what’s it like to lose your sons?” days BEFORE the judge ruled. That call was allegedly recorded and will be entered into evidence on appeal. In addition, it was Usher who asked for the psychologist’s testimony about HIM to be given in a closed courtroom. So I don’t think “women” really need to learn a lesson about reasonable visitation here. We’ve all said that both parents have positives and negatives but giving custody to someone who is rarely in Atlanta and frequently on tour for months at a time is quite peculiar. I don’t know what it is about “bloggers” that make you think we don’t have a legal perspective on court cases. But I assure you that you are misinformed, both about “bloggers” and the legal particulars of this cause. But thanks for stopping by.

      • Maudy

        Amen! ( and I’m not trying to be funny you gave that person a nice and proper “have a seat”)

      • Whatever

        I think what “JustTheFactsPlease” means is bloggers need to be more objective and just report the news rather than stating their opinion on a story because that makes the story sound bias, and as though all the information is not there. But most of those bloggers are gossip blogs so they aren’t really reporters. They are just running their mouths to get laughs, clicks, comments, popular, etc. I don’t like reading bias stories either because I don’t feel like I get the whole/real story to be able to make a judgement about the story for myself. But back on subject… I wish Tameka luck, but I don’t think this appeal is going to do anything. I just don’t think Tameka’s motives can be trusted. Her criminal past is what has me looking at her sideways. Her and Usher come from two completely different backgrounds. A superstar marrying a criminal? That was never going to work. It’s not shocking this is crumbling like this. His fans and mother foresaw this day coming and that’s why they didn’t want him with her.

Please read the COMMENTING RULES Before Commenting! http://tamaratattles.com/commenting-rules/

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s