Singer Grimes Accuses Elon Musk Of Taking Oldest Son to Texas Without Her Permission On Multiple Occasions, Having Her Under ‘Constant Surveillance' While Together
Canadian singer Grimes has accused tech billionaire Elon Musk of allegedly taking their oldest son to Texas on numerous occasions without her consent and using the child as a bargaining chip in their vicious Texas custody battle, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal.
“He has on countless occasions secreted [the 3-year-old] from mother and taken him to Texas over her objection,” Grimes wrote in a scathing 17-page court document obtained by RadarOnline.com.
As we previously reported, Grimes has been attempting to have Musk's Texas petition dismissed. She believes the fight should be heard in a California courtroom where she claims is their three children's home state.
In her motion, Grimes claimed that she did briefly live with Musk in Texas but never considered it home. She said while in Texas she was under constant watch by a team of Musk's security guards.
“While mother was in Texas, however, [the] father and his security team controlled nearly every aspect of mother’s life,” the document stated. “They dominated and sought to wrongfully control her and the children’s lives to the extent it was detrimental to the mother’s and the children’s well-being to remain in Texas.”
“They worked to keep her isolated and kept the children and her under constant surveillance.”
Musk filed a petition seeking custody of his three children in Texas’ Travis County Family Court while Grimes, whose real name is Claire Boucher, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco, California where she claims the children and their nannies reside most of the time.
Grimes’ renowned lawyer Becky Beaver argued that by taking the children to Texas without her client’s permission, Musk “has engaged in unjustifiable conduct from which he should not be allowed to benefit jurisdictionally.”
What’s more the 52-year-old X owner allegedly used the 3-year-old as a bargaining chip.
“He has refused to let mother see [the 3-year-old] unless she consents to jurisdiction in Texas,” the court document stated referring to the fight over where the case should be heard.
- 'Pronouns Suck!' Elon Musk's Controversial Tweets About Gender Identity Resurface After Transgender Daughter Petitions For Name Change
- Read The SHOCKING Court Filing By Elon Musk's 18-Year-Old Trans Daughter Vivian Cutting Ties With Billionaire Father
- Baby Boom! Meghan McCain Trashes Elon Musk & Nick Cannon Over 'Impregnate The Planet' Mentality, Calls It 'Creepy' & Cult-Like
DAILY. BREAKING. CELEBRITY NEWS. ALL FREE.
Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.
“And when mother temporarily resided [in Texas], he had her under constant surveillance and controlled her to such an extent she had to leave for her and the children’s wellbeing. Father should not be able to benefit from this wrongful behavior.”
As RadarOnline.com has previously reported, Grimes recently asked the judge to sanction Musk for allegedly refusing to waive a non-disclosure agreement that prevents Europa 100 LLC, the firm that provide the nanny service, from handing over records or allowing its employees to talk. She also accused Musk of short-changing her legal team on the subpoenaed documents.
“[Musk] apparently believes that the rules of discovery simply do not apply to him and that he can thumb his nose at any obligation to disclose information to [Grimes] if he believes such information might level the playing field in this litigation," the court documents seeking the sanction stated.
Messages left at the offices of Musk's Texas lawyers were not returned.
The Tesla founder meanwhile wants the judge to seal the court records and prevent Grimes from demanding a bucket of invasive discovery documents detailing his private life because the information could be used by various nefarious figures that want him dead.
Musk said he "faces an array of security threats to himself and his family members from both state and non-state actors,” according to a December 4, 2023, motion to seal the case.