Kandi Burruss Takes Steps to Protect Children Amid Escalating Divorce Battle with Todd Tucker

  1. HOME
  2. ENTERTAINMENT
  3. Kandi Burruss Takes Steps to Protect Children Amid Escalating Divorce Battle with Todd Tucker
Kandi Burruss Takes Steps to Protect Children Amid Escalating Divorce Battle with Todd Tucker

Kandi Burruss continues to battle through an increasingly hostile legal fight with her former husband, Todd Tucker. Despite the tension, her primary focus remains protecting her children. In a recent move, the reality television star submitted a request asking the court to keep sensitive information connected to their divorce and custody proceedings out of public view, citing the well-being of the children as her main concern.

This legal step follows shortly after Tucker filed papers seeking primary custody of their two children, Blaze and Ace. Burruss responded by asking that all records tied to the case including financial information and legal filings be sealed to prevent public exposure.

Request to Keep Court Records Private

In her filing, Burruss explained that both she and her former spouse are public figures involved in the entertainment industry. Because of their visibility, she argued that releasing intimate details about their family life could negatively affect their children. She insisted that privacy is essential to prevent sensitive information from spreading across social media, websites, and news outlets while the case is still ongoing.

At this time, Tucker has not issued any formal response to her request to restrict public access to the proceedings.

Todd Tuckers Push for Primary Custody

Tuckers recent request for primary custody surprised many. He told the court that Burruss would be unable to provide daily care for the children due to her demanding work schedule and commitments that often require her to travel out of state. According to his filing, she is expected to be away for an extended period, and he believes he is in a better position to assume the main caregiving role.

Still, he acknowledged that Burruss is a devoted and capable mother. He also expressed hope that ongoing discussions between them could eventually lead to a resolution of all remaining issues.

Dispute Over the Prenuptial Agreement

Beyond the custody battle, Tucker is also challenging the validity of the prenuptial agreement he signed before their marriage. He claimed that he agreed to the document without proper legal guidance and has asked the court to declare it unenforceable.

Burruss has pushed back on that claim, requesting that the judge review footage from the television series that documented their wedding preparations. Her legal team pointed to scenes where Tucker allegedly stated that he had already consulted with his own attorneys and believed signing the agreement was appropriate.

Emotional Impact of the Divorce

The prolonged legal conflict has taken an emotional toll on Burruss. She has admitted that the process has been difficult, describing her feelings as unpredictable and overwhelming. She explained that she usually prefers to keep her vulnerable moments private, but much of her life has played out in the public eye.

She also shared that the decision to end the marriage was not sudden, as the relationship had been struggling for a significant amount of time before the official split.

Separate Legal Issues Involving Their Business

In addition to their personal legal disputes, Burruss and Tucker have also been involved in another court matter related to their shared business interests. Their company, Burruss Tucker Restaurant Group, was sued by the landlord of their restaurant, Blaze Steak & Seafood, for allegedly failing to pay overdue rent and other related expenses.

The landlord claimed the company owed a substantial amount in unpaid rent, along with additional costs for damages and repairs. The business, however, denied these accusations, stating that the landlord acted improperly by leasing out the location and removing the restaurants signage without permission.

Further claims indicated that the restaurant had been prevented from operating since July 2024. As a result, the company requested an emergency court hearing over the matter, though the landlord moved to have that request rejected.

Author: Riley Thompson

Share