Mathew Knowles has been swamped with child support drama ever since it was revealed that he fathered children with other women while he was still married to Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles. Although news about Knowles’ custody and child support drama has been pretty sparse in recent months, Knowles found himself back in the headlines this week when it was revealed that he was ordered to pay a hefty price to one of his baby’s mamas.
Previous media reports claim that a woman named TaQoya Branscomb became pregnant with Knowles’ daughter in 2009 and gave birth to a girl named Koi in 2010. In 2014, Branscomb sued Knowles for paternity, which is also the same year that he and Tina got divorced.
According Bossip, a Houston family court judge claims that Knowles was aware that he was the father beforehand and he tried to give Branscomb hush money to avoid having to financially support his daughter.
“Mr. Knowles knew of his paternity in September 2009 and clearly sought to avoid the establishment of a support obligation based primarily on the tolling agreement and the payment of monies pursuant to said agreement, which the court can only reasonably conclude was hush money,” judge David D. Farr reportedly wrote in his ruling.
The report claims that the judge awarded Branscomb full custody and criticized Knowles for abandoning his daughter.
However, Knowles defended himself, saying that he shouldn’t be financially responsible for Koi because he paid Branscomb to have an abortion, which she clearly never got. He also argued that he shouldn’t have to pay child support because he already paid her $225K in hush money.
Unfortunately for Knowles, the judge wasn’t hearing it and he ordered Knowles to pay $70,822 in back child support plus interest, as well as $1,496 a month in regular child support. Knowles must also pay for Koi’s health insurance, plus $50K for Branscomb’s legal fees.
“By way of findings to the issue of retroactive child support,” the judge wrote, “the court notes that it has considerable doubts concerning the veracity and credibility of Mr. Knowles’ testimony based on numerous observations at trial.”
Well, clearly that hush money didn’t pay off for Knowles.
