Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Court Denies Sia’s Estranged Husband Emergency Custody Request Amid Substance Abuse Allegations
A judge has rejected an emergency custody request from Sia’s estranged husband, Dr. Daniel Bernad, concerning their 19-month-old son Somersault, affectionately known as Summi. This decision is part of their ongoing divorce proceedings, as noted in court documents obtained by Fox News Digital.
Earlier this week, Bernad filed the request seeking sole legal and physical custody of Summi, citing alleged reckless behavior by the pop star. He claimed Sia is an unfit parent suffering from issues related to substance abuse and addiction. These serious allegations prompted immediate legal responses.
Initial Custody Arrangements and Accusations
Sia countered these accusations, asserting that Summi had never spent more than two hours alone with his father without her presence. She pointed out that the original custody arrangements, which were agreed upon in August, were a direct response to his involvement in an investigation related to alleged child pornography found on his computer.
The response from the court indicated that there was insufficient evidence to justify emergency custody at this time. The court’s ruling stated that significant facts related to the case were previously known when the custody arrangement was made.
Details of the Emergency Custody Request
In his emergency custody filing, Bernad alleged that Sia had deliberately concealed her hospitalization for two weeks in September, a period during which he claimed she was supposed to be with their son in Italy. He further accused her of testing positive for barbiturates and benzodiazepines without a legitimate medical reason.
Additionally, he claimed that she violated their joint legal custody agreement by unlawfully transferring power of attorney for Summi to her nannies. Bernad emphasized the need for the court to act to ensure his son’s safety, underscoring his own credentials as a doctor and emphasizing his lack of any substance abuse history.
Substance Abuse Allegations Surface
Within the context of the custody dispute, Bernad alleged that he witnessed Sia engaging in drug use throughout their relationship. He provided claims that Sia had purchased a significant amount of ketamine during a trip to Egypt and suggested that she felt immune to legal consequences due to her celebrity status.
On another occasion, he reported finding her in a vulnerable state in their home with a substantial quantity of ketamine. These allegations paint a troubling picture of the family dynamics and have profound implications for their son’s custody.
Financial Requests and Response from Sia
In addition to the custody battle, Dr. Bernad is seeking over $77,000 a month in child support, alongside a request for Sia to cover all childcare costs. The financial aspect of their divorce is as contentious as the custody issues, adding layers of complexity to an already fraught situation.
In a formal response to her estranged husband’s accusations, Sia asserted that she has maintained sobriety for over six months and has consistently agreed to drug testing as part of the custody arrangements. She also noted that an LAPD investigation into the alleged child pornography was deemed inconclusive and ultimately unfounded, resulting in its closure.
Divorce Filing and Financial Contributions
Sia filed for divorce from Bernad in March, citing irreconcilable differences after two years of marriage. Throughout the proceedings, she claims to have provided substantial financial support to Bernad, totaling around $300,000 since the start of their divorce process.
She has made significant payments, including a one-time contribution of $100,000 in May and a monthly support of $50,000 since August. Sia argues that Bernad’s actions to leverage her sobriety journey against her are damaging to their family dynamics and serve only his financial motives.
A Disturbing Narrative Unfolds
Sia’s statements highlight her frustration with Bernad’s attempts to twist her past in a legal context, suggesting that his strategic moves primarily reflect personal gain rather than concern for their son’s welfare. The dynamics of their relationship appear fraught, with both parties positioning themselves not only for custody but also for financial security going forward.
With ongoing public interest in this increasingly complex case, it remains to be seen how the court will navigate the contentious issues of custody, substance abuse, and financial obligations in the upcoming hearings. Both parents face the challenge of finding a resolution that prioritizes the well-being of their child amidst a backdrop of personal strife and public scrutiny.
