The bitter custody battle between Usher and his ex-wife, Tameka Foster, has finally come to an end, and shockingly, it's Usher who's getting primary custody of the couple's two sons, Usher Raymond V, 4; and Naviyd Ely Raymond, 3. The ruling is surprising in that it isn't every day you see the father getting custody over the mother; and the ruling is heartbreaking in that Tameka is still mourning the loss of her 11-year-old son, Kile Glover, who tragically passed away in July from injuries from a jet-skiing accident. Ouch.
The details of the arrangement haven't been released yet, but I will say, I'm kind of shocked that Usher is the one who will be the primary caretaker of the kids. During the acrimonious trial between Foster and Usher, Tameka accused the singer of being too invloved in his career to be a good father, and claimed that he's used drugs in the presence of their kids. Usher was also held in contempt of court at one point for canceling his ex-wife's Saks Fifth Avenue credit card. He was ordered to reinstate the card due to Foster's arguement that she needed it in order to "fulfill her duties as a stylist." Hmm ...
Hopefully, the decision is the right one for the kids -- and hopefully what Tameka said about Usher isn't true. It would be terribly tragic if these young boys wound up in the wrong parent's hands and had their lives screwed up because of it. They're still extremely young and impressionable. Their needs always should come first -- no matter how busy Usher is. He's their father, and that is his most important job.
What do you think of this ruling?
Image via David Berkowitz/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 32
I have seen the father get custody of his children more times than I can count. This time lets hope that the reason the father ended up with custody was because the mother felt that right now she needed to take care of herself in order to take care of her children. Maybe this is a temporary arraingement that was put into place so that the mother could get the help that she needed in order to be able to deal with the loss of her child better. This is the only reason I can see a judge taking a child away from a very loving and caring mother. I just think that it is a temporary situation and she will get them back when she is able to. Don't count her out just yet.
It's rare for a mother to lose custody and it not be 50/50 joint custody. My understanding is that she didn't have full custody of her other 3 children either. Sometimes we point out that a working father/ mother should not have custody because of travel and long hours but they need to feed their children. Also if your child is not any danger as far as one parent doing drugs, drinking, abusive, etc., you should be careful in rocking the boat man or woman. You can end up going to court and losing. This started about a cancelled credit card, she now has Saks but not her children.
These agreements are fluid... she can appeal now, or revisit it in a year when she's had a chance to recover from the loss of her son. I would bet that Usher's team argued she a) is in no shape to care for the boys due to her loss; and b) that her son was in her care when he was injured (then died), deeming her irresponsible. Ugly and unfair, but a judge would bias for Usher on that score, and would be a shame.
Maybe she's to torn up by her son's death, to fight. I can't imagine what losing a child could do to a person. It's possible that she feels unable to cope right now, and just let Usher have the kids. I feel terrible for her. Hopefully, Usher being there for her after Kile died, is an indicator that they can share the children and not be assholes any more