Friday, July 15, 2016

Ludacris Loses Custody After Call to Protective Services


Rapper Ludacris temporarily loses custody of his two-year-old daughter with ex-side chick Tamika Fuller after she reported him to child and family services for abuse...

According to The Jasmine Brand Ludacris has filed for a restraining order and demanded his baby mama Tamika Fuller be held in contempt of court, accusing her of filing false abuse reports.

Luda claims Tamika is bitter over losing primary custody of their child last year after he was deemed the fitter parent [click here if you missed that].

Apparently Tamika called family services back in May after noticing a weird rash on their daughter, while Luda insists rash was common and had already been treated by a doctor.

While the claims are being investigation Ludacris' primary custody agreement is suspended.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

So sad that they can't co-parent their child

Anonymous said...

that's what you get when you choose to have kids with someone you have no intentions of being with. and that's what she gets for having a child with a man that obviously had no intentions of being with her. with all the ways to have safe sex, there really is no excuse.

Anonymous said...

Nasty parents - poor kid!

Anonymous said...

@ 1:36, you can't coparent when you dealing with two bitter bitches. Tamika thought she was getting a salary donor by has having a child by Luda. And Luda decided that he was gonna cap her salary by firing her and taking over the business/child.

Anonymous said...

@ 1:50 Well said!

Ron said...

Give the child to the mother!!!!!

T said...

give the kid back to her mum!
he's a short, evil bastard. HE chose to not use protection and had been scewing her for yrs anyway.

now she's the worse person in the world, yeak OK.
midget ass.

T said...

give the kid back to her mum!
he's a short, evil bastard. HE chose to not use protection and had been scewing her for yrs anyway.

now she's the worse person in the world, yeak OK.
midget ass.

Felicia said...

This poor child

JDent said...

@3:51

Agree. 100.

Also the wife just had a baby. Y'all seriously think she gon'treat this side piece baby the same as her own child?

My ex remarried. When my son went to visit he told me she treated her kids better. I ain't never been mad at this chick for wanting to raise her own child.

Fuck Ludacris!!!

Yes, I'm That Leah said...

Christ Almighty. Just give the baby back to mom.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm 2 small children in diapers, and only 1 had a rash that was so bad, the child was taken away? Smh I'd go off too especially since diaper rashes can be prevented. He might as well give the tot back to her mom, and pay child support since they can't do something as simple as change a diaper.

Anonymous said...

They both gonna fuck around and get that baby taken by the state and put in foster care then they both gonna be stuck on stupid

JDent said...

@4:25

So true. My son never had a diaper rash. If they took the baby it must have been bad.

Anonymous said...

It was all good til she got pregnant. If she was so unfit to be a mom, she should've been unfit to screw, especially unprotected. He makes me sick!

Anonymous said...

If she just wanted more time with her child she should have asked for more time, especially over the summer.

Speaking of legal issues, why is there no post or mention of 2 of Cosby's legal representatives quitting his defense team this week? Come on. Keep up.

Anonymous said...

Spending the next 18 years trying to get child support so you can "live the lifestyle" instead of just getting a job sounds tiring. She probably walked around for that nine months thinking she hit the lottery. Dang.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a mother so I don't much about these things but why would a two year old have a rash in that area? Is she still in diapers at 2 yrs old? If not, then why would a "rash" be in only that area and not the rest of her body? I'm confused.

Anonymous said...

Ok never-ending my 6:13pm post. I didn't carefully read the article.

Anonymous said...

*nevermind*

Anonymous said...

Why do they hate each other so much? Yall were fucking for years and had a baby, it happens. Why still fighting?

Anonymous said...

Where does it say diaper rash or that area?

Anonymous said...

Some of you people are so damn dumb, a baby can get a rash - even a heat rash..just dumb as hell!

Anonymous said...

My daughter was out of diapers before she was two, and never had a diaper rash. I agree with the poster that stated 2 kids in diapers and only one has a bad diaper rash. And I know from working in social services, that the rash had to be really bad for the child to be removed from the home. Children can die from a severe diaper rash where the skin becomes infected and untreated for a period of time.

Divaish said...

All u mfs are reaching..nowhere does it states it was a DIAPER rash nor did it say the other baby had one

2FLy said...

@divaish I was thinking the same thing. It never said anything about diaper rash. This is just like the game telephone we used to play in elementary school

Allihave2say said...

Ludacris and euxodie have 2 kids together

prissa o said...

This is a shame. I don't care what kind of rash it was. All the money this sorry negro has & couldnt take the baby to a specialist or dermatologist to get it taken care of??? What a sorry price of shit he is!

And for those of you arguing over what kind of rash it was, Luda called it common. In children that age, the only "common" rashes are diaper rash and maybe ringworm. But the fact that he said it was common seems to indicate it was most likely a diaper rash.


So fucking sad. He's more concerned with being spiteful towards the mom that he's willing to put his own child at risk. And like many others said, Eudoxe just had her own baby - she definitely ain't thinking about this side piece's kid. But they could at least make sure the nannys are proving her with good care!

Although I'm sure Luda is in the judges pockets (literally and figuratively), I really hope this woman gets her child back. I never liked Ludacris and after the stunt he pulled with this woman and their child, I really couldn't stand him. He's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Where does it say diaper rash or that area?
6:52 PM


Nowhere. The idiot @4:25 started the "diaper rash" myth, and the typical brain-dead assholes in here follow suit, probably not checking the original source which states the BM saw a "common rash" and does not specify where on the child was the rash seen either.

Anonymous said...

People are so DUMB, a rash has nothing to do with money. Nor does anyone care if someone else child had a diaper rash. No baby skin is the same. Hell, the baby could have been allergic or sensitive to a product. I just can believe how stupid people can be or so small mind of a damn rash, not to mention it doesn't even say what type of rash!

Anonymous said...

11:34 other blogs said she complained about the child having a rash in the diaper area, and Ludacris responded that the rash was common. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's the most common rash in a diaper area.

Even if it's not a diaper rash, it was a rash that cause him to lose a child, so once again, common sense will tell you it had to be a bad rash.

prissa o said...

Exactly @3:53 - people kill me saying those of us who can read between the lines and figure this out are "brain dead" or "dumb" it's called CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS or INTUITION.

For those of you that don't know. By using critical thinking a person call read the article and suss out the key words such as "rash" and "common". Then take those words in consideration with the child's age and it's pretty clear the most likely conclusion is diaper rash. like I said earlier, in children, the most common rashes are diaper, ringworm and I'll now add eczema. (We dont include allergic rashes because that is NOT common as not all children have allergies, but a lot of children have diaper rash, ringworm etc). All very treatable conditions even for ppl who don't have a lot of money. When you take that into consideration with the kind of money Luda has, it's pretty clear that something is VERY amiss here.

I know a woman whose child had a rash that looked horrible. It was oozy and would get crusted over. Idk why but she let it go for months. When she finally got it treated, the doctor said it was a fungal rash cause by poor hygiene. Not to make the comparison, but in Luda's case, what would be the cause of that baby not be cared for properly that it would lead to such a bad rash that they temporarily ended his custodial rights?

Use critically thinking skills people - don't wait for information to be handed to you on a silver platter. THINK!!!

Anonymous said...

EXACTLY @1:30. It was NEVER stated what kind of rash ("common rash" don't mean shit, as babies have different kinds of "common" rashes) and never specified where on the child the rash occurred. Bitches in here are so goddamned bitter and hateful they make up the most absurd shit to justify their hate.

Anonymous said...

@7:23 That's right. Most people lack the ability to think critically.

Anonymous said...

Critical thinking my ass. I am the first one to ask who said it was diaper rash or in that area.
Why is it that on "other" blogs diaper rash was mentioned but Snitch decided to omit it?
You bitches are reaching because you are always wishing for the worst and trying to insinuate some sinister plot to make your GOSSIP more juicy.
Children can have diaper rash, heat rash an allergy to baby veggies or the formula they drink. Motherfuckers always want to assume the worst and make things as dramatic as possible. Even if it involves a little baby. The baby was taken because chick pulled the fire alarm and they have to look into it being their court history.
You all done pitched a pilot show of an evil new bride who is abusing one child and spoiling the other with the father living in the home and just letting it happen.
Some people are more fluent in critical thinking than you genius motherfuckers consider yourself.

All that negativity wishing the worst and insinuating "that area" explains the saying crabs in a barrel to the fullest.

What was yall take on fat ass honey boo boo? Or that fat ass little boy that was puffing on the cigarettes? That shit is disturbing to a childs health and needs all those what ifs? Not no fucking rash on a baby whose skin could be sensitive to the fucking detergent.

The King Of The Real said...

First off, eff that chick. She didn't fight for her first daughter and still don't got no relationship with her. Second off she keeps violating the agreement and now she has harassed the situation to the point that the government has the child. Way to go. Yeah that is a solution put the kid in the system. He already had a doctor looking a the rash. She don't deserve custody. I am glad the judge took it from her because it was obvious she just wanted a paycheck. I hope Luda gets fixed so he don't have to put another child through this. Or stop whoring around unsafe.

Post a Comment