Iman Shumpert Denies Ex Teyana Taylor’s Claim He Hasn’t Paid ‘One Cent’ in Child Support Since Leaving Family Home
Iman Shumpert scoffed at his estranged wife Teyana Taylor’s claims he hadn’t been providing financial support to his children following their split.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the ex-NBA star asked a court to deny Taylor's recent motion for contempt.
In her motion, Taylor said since Shumpert left the family home, he had not paid “one cent of child support … for anything for the minor children such as food, clothing, shoes, grooming, extracurricular activities, or anything else, other than the oldest minor child’s tuition.”
As we previously reported, Taylor filed for divorce from Shumpert in January 2023 after 7 years of marriage. She demanded primary custody of their 2 daughters and support. He asked the court NOT to award Taylor primary custody.
In response, Shumpert said it wasn’t true that he failed to provide financial support for his children, “as confirmed by the complete absence of any request by [Taylor] for a temporary hearing, temporary child support, or temporary relief of any kind until she filed this [recent] motion.”
Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.
- Iman Shumpert Demands Ex Teyana Taylor Not Receive Spousal Support, Denies Being ‘Irresponsible’ With Daughters
- Teyana Taylor’s Estranged Husband Iman Shumpert Awarded Temporary Parenting Time With Their Daughters as Divorce War Rages On
- Teyana Taylor Accuses Ex Iman Shumpert of Having Female 'Friend' Sleep Over on His Weekend With Daughters in Divorce War
His lawyer said, “The likely reason why [Taylor] has not demanded child support is because [Shumpert] has handsomely provided financial support for his children and his family, including but not limited to providing a luxurious home and utilities. [Shumpert] denies that he has obstructed any efforts toward settlement of this case by agreement.”
In addition, as we first reported, Shumpert denied the claims he caused the utilities to be shut off at the home Taylor lives in with their children.
He claimed Taylor had demanded the bills be transferred into her name. In her motion, Taylor’s motion read, “[Shumpert] has willfully and with no regard for the parties’ minor children, violated said STANDING ORDER by causing the disconnection of water, cable, and Wi-Fi at the marital residence where the minor children reside.”
It continued, “[Taylor] anticipates that the gas and electricity at the marital residence will be disconnected next [Shumpert].”
Shumpert said he, “never requested or directed disconnection of any utility services such as would have left [Taylor] and the children without electricity, water, gas, or other basic utilities for any period of time.”
A judge denied Taylor's motion for an emergency hearing but the matter remains unresolved.