Meghan King Edmonds loses custody of kids to Jim Edmonds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're definitely only hearing from Jim's side. That report was crazy: she "*gets* to see the kids for a few weeks every summer".

It was presented in such an extreme way. Maybe there is more to the story.

Yes, the story is likely much worse for her to have agreed to only a few weeks custody per year.

This kind of stuff happens to women all the time. Look at Elon Musk's baby mammas. Powerful, influential, rich men win in custody battles. It's not a fair fight. We have no idea what happened in this case because we've only heard from Jim's PR team. Moral of the story - it's not a good idea to have babies with someone who has a massive power imbalance over you.

Elon is a great comparison. The only stable baby momma he had had custody of her kids. The rest have minimal. Similar to Jim. Jim’s prior ex’s had primary custody. Only Meghan doesn’t…

Yeah, I don't think Jim really wants primary custody but will step up in a case like this where it's needed. And I absolutely believe she'd be screaming about this unless the truth is very embarrassing.

She's screamed too many embarrassing things to count. She's been silenced by him and his attorneys, whether through a gag order or threats that led to a negotiated settlement.

There's no gag order or his side wouldn't be able to talk either. The only threat would be to release more embarrassing info, which would only be harmful if it were true. Your stanning is very odd.

Actually, there is a known gag order in the public records against her talking about Kortnie.

Yes, because of her behavior last Spring, right?

Meghan is not gagged about this case or Jim.

They've been in a legal battle that just settled, and Meghan, one of the most offensive over-sharers on social media, hasn't said a word, and you don't think her silence is court-ordered or a part of their settlement? I have a bridge to sell you.

I think you need to buy the bridge yourself. This woman isn’t speaking about this case because of what she has done. It’s insane to think she agreed to this agreement for any reason other than what would have come out in court is worse than what is already out there.

100%. Her newest Insta story is inspirational, not expressing grief or sadness. Something is most definitely up with her, whether mental health or substance abuse. Hopefully she will get treatment and win back more parenting time. She has seemed on the edge for quite a while.

Or, you could interpret that as her coping with her grief but silenced on the actual issue. How about as women we give other women the benefit of doubt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is unfortunate in both this case and the Wolf case that so few posters care at all about the wellbeing and safety of the kids. The many posters insisting the mothers should have the kids regardless of the physical or mental harm they cause them shows many don’t care at all about the best interest or health or wellbeing of the kids. The push for kids should only be with their mothers so so strong for many that they are willing to risk or accept children being harmed to support that viewpoint. In both these cases external agencies have been involved and Meghan agreed to this deal after the CPS investigation was completed. Had Meghan been found to be a safe and competent parent, she would have her kids back with her at least part of the time. The kids matter and kids should not be kept in situations and homes where their physical or mental health is at risk and their safety isn’t assured just because of a personal view that fathers aren’t good parents and that mothers should always have their kids.

Your first sentences are so much bullshite. We know organizations are misogynistic. So much is stacked against women. I don't see at all what you are seeing. Your comment that few posters care about the kids is so off base. We all know dads who pull custody games just for $. You're just like the rest of the world in assuming the worst about women.

I don’t assume the worst about women or men. However both can be bad parents or have issues that make them unable to parent safely. There are reasons why kids may need to be removed from mothers or fathers. The focus should be on where is it the safest and most stable for the kids. If you work in social services you will quickly lose your rose coloured glasses about mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're definitely only hearing from Jim's side. That report was crazy: she "*gets* to see the kids for a few weeks every summer".

It was presented in such an extreme way. Maybe there is more to the story.

Yes, the story is likely much worse for her to have agreed to only a few weeks custody per year.

This kind of stuff happens to women all the time. Look at Elon Musk's baby mammas. Powerful, influential, rich men win in custody battles. It's not a fair fight. We have no idea what happened in this case because we've only heard from Jim's PR team. Moral of the story - it's not a good idea to have babies with someone who has a massive power imbalance over you.

Elon is a great comparison. The only stable baby momma he had had custody of her kids. The rest have minimal. Similar to Jim. Jim’s prior ex’s had primary custody. Only Meghan doesn’t…

Yeah, I don't think Jim really wants primary custody but will step up in a case like this where it's needed. And I absolutely believe she'd be screaming about this unless the truth is very embarrassing.

She's screamed too many embarrassing things to count. She's been silenced by him and his attorneys, whether through a gag order or threats that led to a negotiated settlement.

There's no gag order or his side wouldn't be able to talk either. The only threat would be to release more embarrassing info, which would only be harmful if it were true. Your stanning is very odd.

Actually, there is a known gag order in the public records against her talking about Kortnie.

Yes, because of her behavior last Spring, right?

Meghan is not gagged about this case or Jim.

They've been in a legal battle that just settled, and Meghan, one of the most offensive over-sharers on social media, hasn't said a word, and you don't think her silence is court-ordered or a part of their settlement? I have a bridge to sell you.

I think you need to buy the bridge yourself. This woman isn’t speaking about this case because of what she has done. It’s insane to think she agreed to this agreement for any reason other than what would have come out in court is worse than what is already out there.

100%. Her newest Insta story is inspirational, not expressing grief or sadness. Something is most definitely up with her, whether mental health or substance abuse. Hopefully she will get treatment and win back more parenting time. She has seemed on the edge for quite a while.

Or, you could interpret that as her coping with her grief but silenced on the actual issue. How about as women we give other women the benefit of doubt?

Because then children die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're definitely only hearing from Jim's side. That report was crazy: she "*gets* to see the kids for a few weeks every summer".

It was presented in such an extreme way. Maybe there is more to the story.

Yes, the story is likely much worse for her to have agreed to only a few weeks custody per year.

This kind of stuff happens to women all the time. Look at Elon Musk's baby mammas. Powerful, influential, rich men win in custody battles. It's not a fair fight. We have no idea what happened in this case because we've only heard from Jim's PR team. Moral of the story - it's not a good idea to have babies with someone who has a massive power imbalance over you.

Elon is a great comparison. The only stable baby momma he had had custody of her kids. The rest have minimal. Similar to Jim. Jim’s prior ex’s had primary custody. Only Meghan doesn’t…

Yeah, I don't think Jim really wants primary custody but will step up in a case like this where it's needed. And I absolutely believe she'd be screaming about this unless the truth is very embarrassing.

She's screamed too many embarrassing things to count. She's been silenced by him and his attorneys, whether through a gag order or threats that led to a negotiated settlement.

There's no gag order or his side wouldn't be able to talk either. The only threat would be to release more embarrassing info, which would only be harmful if it were true. Your stanning is very odd.

Actually, there is a known gag order in the public records against her talking about Kortnie.

Yes, because of her behavior last Spring, right?

Meghan is not gagged about this case or Jim.

They've been in a legal battle that just settled, and Meghan, one of the most offensive over-sharers on social media, hasn't said a word, and you don't think her silence is court-ordered or a part of their settlement? I have a bridge to sell you.

I think you need to buy the bridge yourself. This woman isn’t speaking about this case because of what she has done. It’s insane to think she agreed to this agreement for any reason other than what would have come out in court is worse than what is already out there.

100%. Her newest Insta story is inspirational, not expressing grief or sadness. Something is most definitely up with her, whether mental health or substance abuse. Hopefully she will get treatment and win back more parenting time. She has seemed on the edge for quite a while.

Or, you could interpret that as her coping with her grief but silenced on the actual issue. How about as women we give other women the benefit of doubt?

I will leave you to your delusions.

[Anonymous]

There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're definitely only hearing from Jim's side. That report was crazy: she "*gets* to see the kids for a few weeks every summer".

It was presented in such an extreme way. Maybe there is more to the story.

Yes, the story is likely much worse for her to have agreed to only a few weeks custody per year.

This kind of stuff happens to women all the time. Look at Elon Musk's baby mammas. Powerful, influential, rich men win in custody battles. It's not a fair fight. We have no idea what happened in this case because we've only heard from Jim's PR team. Moral of the story - it's not a good idea to have babies with someone who has a massive power imbalance over you.

Elon is a great comparison. The only stable baby momma he had had custody of her kids. The rest have minimal. Similar to Jim. Jim’s prior ex’s had primary custody. Only Meghan doesn’t…

Yeah, I don't think Jim really wants primary custody but will step up in a case like this where it's needed. And I absolutely believe she'd be screaming about this unless the truth is very embarrassing.

She's screamed too many embarrassing things to count. She's been silenced by him and his attorneys, whether through a gag order or threats that led to a negotiated settlement.

There's no gag order or his side wouldn't be able to talk either. The only threat would be to release more embarrassing info, which would only be harmful if it were true. Your stanning is very odd.

Actually, there is a known gag order in the public records against her talking about Kortnie.

Yes because of her behavior, we know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is unfortunate in both this case and the Wolf case that so few posters care at all about the wellbeing and safety of the kids. The many posters insisting the mothers should have the kids regardless of the physical or mental harm they cause them shows many don’t care at all about the best interest or health or wellbeing of the kids. The push for kids should only be with their mothers so so strong for many that they are willing to risk or accept children being harmed to support that viewpoint. In both these cases external agencies have been involved and Meghan agreed to this deal after the CPS investigation was completed. Had Meghan been found to be a safe and competent parent, she would have her kids back with her at least part of the time. The kids matter and kids should not be kept in situations and homes where their physical or mental health is at risk and their safety isn’t assured just because of a personal view that fathers aren’t good parents and that mothers should always have their kids.

Your first sentences are so much bullshite. We know organizations are misogynistic. So much is stacked against women. I don't see at all what you are seeing. Your comment that few posters care about the kids is so off base. We all know dads who pull custody games just for $. You're just like the rest of the world in assuming the worst about women.

Thank you for perfectly proving the PPs point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

No. Anyone educated knows not to fall for one sided campaigns like One Mom’s Battle. Narcissists screaming about narcissists is not the team to be backing. Use common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One Mom's Battle, which is a community activist organization that supports women who navigate post-separation abuse through a variety of resources, posted this:

"What is happening to Meghan King right now is a crisis I have watched play out again and again. It is a war on mothers and the same pattern I see in my messages every day.

She has lost custody of her children. He has temporary full custody. This is not entertainment or gossip. It is a window into a system stacked against protective mothers.

People keep saying, “Do you know what it takes for a mother to lose custody?”
I do. It is very easy and very common for mothers to lose custody.

The comments from people who know nothing about family court have been infuriating. I do not care if you like her or dislike her. What has happened to her is inhumane. The people rushing into the comments with fast opinions are often the least informed about the family court crisis.

Money plays a role. Influence plays a role. Families are targeted by professionals who profit from conflict.

Women are pushed to the brink and when we finally react like any human under prolonged stress, that reaction is used as proof against us. “See, she is crazy.” This is the trap. This is the setup. This is the pattern.

I will say this plainly. In my opinion, he is a raging egomaniac narcissist. I have viewed footage from one of their custody exchanges. His behavior was rageful and frightening. He placed the children in the conflict while she did everything possible to deescalate. I thought about that video for a long time. The fact that he now has full custody is deeply concerning.

But this is not only about them. This is what is happening to mothers across the world. When a mother tries to protect her children, she is punished for it. When she speaks up, she is labeled unstable. When she reacts to trauma, that reaction is weaponized and used to justify removing her children.

It is a crisis. It is real. It is happening in plain sight. It needs to be called what it is."

This. Absolutely this.

LOUDER, for the people in the back.