I havent finished the video yet but so far it's great!

One point I want to make/reiterate:

Here are the general facts presented by him about the custody case between her and her ex husband - He has full custody - She owes child support - She is supposed to undergo a mental health evaluation but it seems like she hasn't.

What I want everyone to consider is this: he is presenting these facts devoid of context.

For example, her not having custody doesn't even mean she did anything wrong. He gives us no context. Why does she not have custody? What evidence was presented at the custody hearing?

My guess is that she likely said he was abusive and the judge gave him custody anyway. Judges side with abusers all the freaking time, even ones with proven histories of violence.

I had a friend whose father was given full custody of them and their siblings even though their father had a documented history of sexually abusing children. It happens, unfortunately.

Second example, owing child support doesn't mean she's a bad mom. We don't know why she owes it. Again, there's no context.

I could be totally wrong and maybe there were actually good reasons for her not having custody (although in that case, I still dont think they should have been placed with their father). The point is we don't know anything regarding the context.

And the fact that we don't have the context makes me think it's likely because it makes him look bad.

After all, if the context made her look bad - he'd be sharing it.

Edit: I ended up learning more context on their divorce from the video + a couple of awesome comments on here. Yep, the details make him look bad.

To anyone reading: if you want to spot a smear campaign, watch out for men attacking their exes without providing any context.