DJ Mustard Claims Ex-Wife Is Exposing Children To 'Predators' Online

DJ Mustard is concerned for his children, claiming his ex-wife is exposing them to "predators" by using them on social media for her "brand."

According to new legal documents, obtained by The Blast, Mustard -- real name Dijon McFarlane -- is responding to his ex-wife's request for a massive amount of child support with new details of their ongoing bitter custody battle.

In the filing, Mustard claims his ex Chanel is attempting to monetize the children by being a part of a "brand deal" on her social media. The famous musician says he does not consent to the children being used in this way and is very concerned about them.

"He is concerned that publicizing the children may expose them to predators and unfriendly media and he is also concerned that as mere children they lack the ability to consent to the use of their images in a manner that will become a permanent feature of the internet," the document states.

DJ Mustard addresses the situation in his declaration, saying, "The children deserve to have a safe, private childhood, and I am concerned that their exposure on public social media will expose them to predators and unfriendly media attention. In using images of the children to secure or promote a “brand deal” Chanel is putting her needs before the best interests of the children."

Shockingly, the former couple exchanges their children in a Whole Foods parking lot because Mustard doesn't trust his ex-wife coming to his home. "Chanel and I effectuate our custody exchanges at Whole Foods because it is halfway between both of our homes. We have been exercising our exchanges at Whole Foods for many months now," he says.

He continues, "Given Chanel’s propensity to stalk me, I am not comfortable having Chanel at my home (or curbside) and I am not comfortable being at her home. I also prefer the custody exchanges to be at a neutral public location in that it gives Chanel less of an opportunity to create a scene."

Wow.

The famous DJ outlines the insane details of their custody exchange due to his ex-wife's alleged behavior. Mustard's lawyer -- Samantha Spector -- writes, "Whenever he attempts to communicate with her, she lashes out in anger, undertakes stalking behavior, and creates conflict that unnecessarily harms the children."

Adding, "Because Chanel is so aggressive and hostile, Dijon believes that it is in the best interest of the children to have as few custodial exchanges as possible, and in fact, the parties’ week-on week-off custody schedule has been working well even though Chanel continues to use custody exchanges as an opportunity to stoke conflict."

As for the "stalking" behavior, Mustard's lawyer described it in a letter to Chanel's attorney -- saying she dropped hints in private communication about his whereabouts while on a vacation with his new girlfriend, including the exact location of his hotel.

The point of this filing is to answer Chanel's request for an insane amount of support. According to reports, she filed a request with the court claiming she is entitled to between $49K and $62K in monthly support. The number is connected to an assumed monthly income of Mustard being over $600,000. But, the famous DJ says numbers are just not accurate.

Interestingly, Mustard argues the bills Chanel claims to have are not accurate. In his filing, the DJ says "Chanel also claims that she needs $6,010 per month (or $72,120 a year) for “Entertainment, gifts and vacation” and an astounding $6,350 per month (or $76,200 a year) in the “Other” category for “Hygiene, Health Care, Pets, and Hobbies,” however, on the designated line for “Health-care costs not paid by insurance”, Chanel wrote “$0.00."

He added, "Therefore, it is not clear to me what “Health Care” costs she is referring to in the catch-all category of “Other."

In the end, he writes, "Once Chanel’s exaggerated and inflated expenses are reduced to what is reasonable, it is clear that guideline child support in the amount of $23,443 is more than sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the children."

The bottom line, it's now all up to a judge.