Is “sexual foreplay” in front of a man’s family a crime? In the case of Wade vs. Wade, instead of a whodunit, the court may be considering a “what had happened was …”.
By now, we all know the parties involved: Basketball star Dwyane Wade and his estranged wife Siohvaughn Wade have swapped plenty of accusations and lawsuits against each other in the past couple years, but ears burned earlier this month when it was learned she filed suit against her hubby’s “girlfriend” movie star Gabrielle Union.
With the bold lawsuit, Wade’s wife is obviously trying to do two things: Set legal precedent and raise the stakes for man-stealing heifers. The suit says Gabby “engaged in sexual foreplay with Dwyane Wade” in front of the couple’s sons — ages 2 and 8 — at Wade’s Miami home, causing them “emotional distress.”
I got six words for Siohvaugn: I am not mad at her.
At the same time, in life – much like basketball – the ball bounces every which way. She must temper her expectations. Basically, Siohvaughn is claiming not only should it be illegal to get booty in front of the kids, but that a side piece should also shut her mouth around the family. According to the lawsuit, Gabby allegedly claimed she “will be their new mother soon and Dwyane Wade is already divorced from Siohvaughn Wade, their mother.” Siohvaughn, who lives in Chicago, says the 8-year-old calls D-Wade’s Miami residence “the house where the woman kissing daddy lives.”
Does Siohvaughn have a case?
As controversial as the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is, she may be on to something, but she’s suing the wrong person. All of this should be on D-Wade, not Gabby. A husband and father has a legal right to protect his children, especially in his own home. That’s what this case– if you’re going to bring one like this– should be about. Gabby’s presence in said home is by implied consent though (from daddy). That being the case, as long as she’s not threatening anyone Gabby can yap about anything she wants– legally.
By the laws of the street, though, girlfriend is dead wrong. Despite all the egregiousness, the most revealing bombshell – if true – is that the children are being physically sickened from their father’s exploits with Gabby. According to the suit, Zaire Wade has suffered physically, with “hair loss and bald spots,” while Zion Wade is “suffering from rejection and depression.”
The children apparently fear for their safety, the suit says, because daddy is preoccupied with his “girlfriend”.
It’s not for me to call a mother’s bluff when she alleges that her children are ill, but if the allegations are true, then the ante in Wade vs. Wade just got raised. Gabby, for her part, hasn’t taken the accusations lying down.
Union’s attorney, C. Anthony Mulrain, released a statement to the media saying, “Each and every allegation made is entirely false. Not only was Ms. Union not named a defendant at that time but the court ultimately rejected these claims as frivolous.” But while they may be “frivolous” in Gabby’s case, it’s not so cut and dry in D-Wade’s. Siohvaughn’s attempt to drag Gabby in it clearly means she’s not settling for the car and the house. No, she’s trying to take the kids.
A conflicting revelation though is Siohvaughn is only asking for $50,000, which tells D-Wade, and more importantly, the lawyers involved, she’s not really in it to win it. I mean, $50,000? D-Wade made more than $15 million last year.
No, this isn’t about stacks, it’s about Iraq: Dragging out the divorce proceedings into a long protracted, tangly mess of a war, and taking down as many people as you can. But D-Wade’s lawyers are likely busy putting together a laundry list of grievances against Siohvaughn in an attempt to prove that she is an unfit mother. Did she ever lock the keys in the car with the children inside? Did she drink too much and miss soccer practice? It’s all coming out now.
Wade vs. Wade is about to officially get ugly.
In other high-profile cases of alleged fidelity, such as hip-hop producer Swiss Beatz and singer Alicia Keys, a wife and husband parted ways, but the child was kept out of it. (Mashonda aint no punk either, confronting A-Keys via Twitter). It’s an old adage that if you lose a husband or wife it doesn’t mean the children have to lose a parent. But Siohvaughn is clearly aiming for the “scorched earth” approach here, throwing every charge, lobbying every alleged misdeed in court to not only sever D-Wade’s relationship with his kids, but ruin Gabby’s life as well.
You can do the latter part, personally, emotionally and verbally–but not legally.
It’s not for me to say how a heart-broken wife and mother should respond to a man who she suspects of cheating, but the “sexual foreplay” thing? Misdirected for sure, but a gutsy play for all the marbles.