Last Friday R&B crooner extraordinaire Usher Raymond won a huge custody battle and, starting September 1, will have primary custody over his two sons with Tameka Foster, 4 year-old Usher Raymond V and 3 year-old Naviyd Ely Raymond. This was very surprising news for those of us who remember Usher breaking down on the witness stand a while back, as he was accused of being too wrapped up in his career– and the party life that comes with it– to be a fully present father. Many people also thought that the judge might side with Tameka– mothers often do win cases like these and Tameka has also had a horrific few months, having lost her 11 year-old son (and Usher‘s stepson) Kile Glover. However, a decision has been made. But that doesn’t mean Tameka is standing by it, especially since there are rumors flying about that the judge was, in way, bought off by Usher‘s lawyers. Details inside.
TMZ has the report:
Usher‘s ex-wife Tameka Raymond is PISSED over her recent loss in court and believes the ruling could be the result of a biased judge … so she’s gearing up to file an appeal, TMZ has learned.
TMZ broke the story … Tameka lost a hard-fought custody battle on Friday when a judge ruled in Usher’s favor and granted primary custody of their two young children to the singer.
But sources close to Tameka tell TMZ, she feels the ruling was unfair. We’re told Tameka recently found out that Usher’s lawyer’s law firm threw an election fundraiser back in 2008 for the judge who presided over the trial … and she feels that connection may have influenced the ruling.
According to the campaign contribution report for Judge Lane, the law firm that represented Usher raised $1,278 for Lane in March 2008.
Sources tell us … Tameka is baffled by the decision because she argued in court that Usher is constantly on the road, where as she has the more stable schedule … thus it makes no sense to give him primary custody.
We’re told Tameka wants to fight the decision ASAP and is interviewing lawyers for an appeal.
Hmmm… that’s very interesting, and not entirely surprising. I’ve watched way to many gangsta flicks, so I think most judges and cops get payed to make certain judicial decisions, lol. But seriously, does anyone think this story might have some truth to it? It’s a compelling narrative, if you’re having trouble believing that a court would grant primary custody to Usher. But it’s also possible that they saw Tameka as someone who was going through too much to also be primarily responsible for two young boys.
As we are seeing with the Halle Berry/Gabriel Aubry case, this is very tricky stuff. And sadly, much of it seems to have very little to do with the children.
Do you guys think the judges ultimately made a good decision by ruling in Usher‘s favor? Or is something else popping off around here?