A judge in Georgia on Monday ordered actor and singer Tyrese Gibson jailed over his failure to make child support payments.

The “Fast and the Furious” franchise star was taken into custody after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kevin M. Farmer ordered the actor to pay upwards of $73,500 to his ex-wife, Samantha Lee, who divorced him in 2020 after three years of marriage.

Gibson was found in “willful contempt” of court for allegedly failing to make child support payments for their 5-year-old daughter, Soraya. (The actor is also father to 17-year-old daughter Shayla, whom he shares with ex-wife Norma Mitchell.) The judgment came during Lee’s third motion for contempt hearing, and the judge said that the actor had to be detained until he made the payment, according to court documents reviewed Tuesday by The Times.

Gibson, 45, owed $73,525.73 in child support, according to the order.

The actor’s team also filed a notice of intent to appeal the ruling. Representatives for Gibson did not immediately respond Tuesday to The Times’ requests for comment.

Gibson’s ex-wife, Samantha Gibson, also known as Samantha Lee, filed for divorce in 2020. Court documents in the case indicate he is legally appealing having to pay $10,690 per month in child support, which is how much he was paying in child support for another child from another relationship, according to court records.

Legal Battle and Contempt of Court

The order was issued by a Fulton County, Ga., judge on Monday after Lee made a motion that Gibson had fallen behind on child support payments for their 5-year-old daughter Soraya.

The ruling determined that Gibson was to “be taken into custody and incarcerated” for being “in willful contempt for failure to make child support payments.” The judge said the actor could be released from custody after he “purges himself of contempt” to the tune of $73,500.

Gibson and Lee share their daughter Soraya. The “Fast and Furious” star was ordered to pay $10,000 per month in child support in 2023. However, Gibson refused to comply. He has repeatedly refused to pay child support since then, leading to his arrest.

Tyrese Gibson’s Response

The singer was similarly on Instagram Monday before the hearing to let his followers know there was a chance he’d be arrested.

“I am dad. And you know why I’m dad? Not because of what I bought them, not because of the clothes, not because of the square footage of the house, not because of the cars in the driveway and definitely not because of this fake jewelry I wear,” he said. “I’m a father because that exchange between your son or your daughter is nothing that can be purchased.”

He also posted a slideshow of photos of himself and his kids with the caption, “The love that a father can have for his children can’t quite be explained … Whatever the outcome is today … I am and will forever be their father.”

Tyrese Gibson pushed back Tuesday about his arrest in Georgia after he was held in contempt of court for failing to pay child support.

The “Fast and Furious” star posted a pair of Instagram Stories on Tuesday commenting on his short detainment.

“Getting arrested wasn’t fun, as a matter of fact, it was very traumatic,” Gibson wrote. “One would ask why does this judge Kevin M. Farmer hate me so much? Well, attached is his nightmare details of the appeal.”

A second story mirrors the first word for word but includes the names of his ex-wife Samantha Lee and her lawyer Adam Glickman. The case in question dates back to 2020, as per docs obtained by TheWrap.

Gibson’s attorneys also argued that the judge awarding Lee a retroactive, lump sum child support payment “will undoubtedly send a chilling effect to other divorcees who voluntarily financially support their minor child(ren) during a divorce proceeding without the need of a temporary hearing and temporary court order.”

Gibson also included Google Drive links to appeal documents dated May 13, 2024, describing the appeal as a “nightmare” for the judge. The documents, though unclear if they had been filed in court, listed three “key issues and arguments” that the appeal was based on and characterized the child-support demand as “over-reaching and punitive.”

Gibson’s Legal Team’s Arguments

Gibson’s attorneys, Graham and Beverly L. Cohen, first argued that an arbitrator in the couple’s divorce case found that Gibson and Lee’s premarital agreement was valid but somehow invalidated a portion of it that dealt with attorneys’ fees. (Lee is seeking $7,500 in attorney fees.)

Second, his attorneys said that Gibson “has been voluntarily financially supporting” Soraya since birth and during the divorce case “at the highest Basic Child Support Obligation.” His attorneys argued that the court awarding a retroactive, lump sum child support payment “will undoubtedly send a chilling effect to other divorcees who voluntarily financially support their minor child(ren) during a divorce proceeding without the need of a temporary hearing and temporary court order.”

Lastly, they argued that Gibson was “de facto” paying spousal by awarding Lee child support with a high-income deviation, which allowed her to buy a house, work less and cover 50% of their child’s school tuition. (The document said that “the trial court found that alimony was not warranted.”)

“Instead of applauding the Appellant [Gibson] for doing what he was supposed to do voluntarily by financially supporting the minor child without court intervention, the Appellant was punished for doing what was right,” the document said.

The attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Conclusion: A Father’s Love and the Law

The judge’s decision to jail Gibson for contempt of court highlights the seriousness of child support obligations. While Gibson maintains his love for his children, his failure to meet his financial responsibilities has led to legal consequences. This case raises questions about the balance between a father’s love and his legal obligations. The legal battle will likely continue as Gibson appeals the contempt ruling.

The events surrounding Gibson's arrest highlight the complexities of child support cases and the consequences of failing to fulfill financial obligations. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to court orders and fulfilling parental responsibilities.