Jim Cummings Accused of Sexual Assault

[Sotiris]

When the court found that the evidence presented by Stephanie supports a finding of sexual assault/rape, committed by James Cummings, only to then find that text messages sent by Stephanie threatening to disclose his years of abuse, both sexual and emotional, somehow has parity with his sexual deviance so as to support a finding that both Cummings and his wife should be viewed in the same light as primary aggressors, necessitating mutual restraining orders, that conclusion is lost on me,” he said.

Well, surprise surprise. He did in fact sexually assault her. I'm sure his fans will try to present the court ruling as if he were innocent. And I don't care she threatened to expose him or even tried to blackmail him for it. That's nothing compared to what he did to her.

[Disney's Divinity]

What a p.o.s. judge. So threatening to reveal the rape is "equal to" the rape itself? WTH. I'm sure she'll appeal the ruling.

[Mickeyfan1990]

Someone over a twitter made an interesting point:

https://twitter.com/IGmp3/status/1128667242135265280

"Judge Kaufman clearly misworded himself during the court case. if he believed @Jimcummingsacme had ''sexually abused'' his ex, why are the kids now in HIS prime custody? Everyone should ignore that statement."

[Sotiris]

In my opinion, the judge didn't take into consideration the sexual assault claims when giving out the ruling on the custody of the children because it was deemed irrelevant. Cummings was likely awarded sole physical custody because: 1) He wasn't accused of being abusive towards his children or being an otherwise unfit parent 2) So that the children won't uproot their lives i.e. continue living in the same house and attending the same school. 3) He is the wealthiest parent of the two and can support the lifestyle their children were accustomed to.

[willard]

When the court found that the evidence presented by Stephanie supports a finding of sexual assault/rape, committed by James Cummings, only to then find that text messages sent by Stephanie threatening to disclose his years of abuse, both sexual and emotional, somehow has parity with his sexual deviance so as to support a finding that both Cummings and his wife should be viewed in the same light as primary aggressors, necessitating mutual restraining orders, that conclusion is lost on me,” he said.

Well, surprise surprise. He did in fact sexually assault her. I'm sure his fans will try to present the court ruling as if he were innocent. And I don't care she threatened to expose him or even tried to blackmail him for it. That's nothing compared to what he did to her.

But that's what her lawyer says. I would be careful in taking it as absolute fact.

[JeanGreyForever]

Well, surprise surprise. He did in fact sexually assault her. I'm sure his fans will try to present the court ruling as if he were innocent. And I don't care she threatened to expose him or even tried to blackmail him for it. That's nothing compared to what he did to her.

What a p.o.s. judge. So threatening to reveal the rape is "equal to" the rape itself? WTH. I'm sure she'll appeal the ruling.

I can't believe some people are really saying that trying to expose rape is as heinous as rape now. That judge is sick and represents everything wrong with law in this country. I feel bad for the poor kids as he has primary custody over them now.

[RyGuy]

Edit: Apologies for the duplicate response

[RyGuy]

As a lawyer, I think a few things are worth pointing out here:

First, I think the judge was a woman

"In her order obtained Monday by the Daily News, Judge Kaufman said Jim would retain sole physical custody of the kids but that the couple should share joint legal custody."

Second, from the article this seems like it was merely a hearing to rule on requests for restraining orders. The articles don't really shed a lot of light on exactly what issues the judge was asked to rule upon. Typically, a judge won't rule upon issues that have not been brought up in the petition. Stated another way, if all Cummings and his ex-wife were asking for in this hearing was restraining orders, then it's probable the judge's decision would be limited to just that, and it's unlikely the judge would revisit custody at that hearing.

From the article, it sounds like there were requirements from a prior custody order that the ex-wife hadn't yet met. Without a copy of the petition, the order, and the hearing transcript, the best I could do is speculate. It may very well have been that the judge was ruling simply on the petitions for restraining orders and the commentary about the ex-wife completing other tasks was simply the judge addressing extraneous issues that came up during testimony.

In any event, restraining orders are pretty widely granted so long as there is a reasonable basis for them. Sure one could try to spin it that the judge was saying each side was as badly behaved as the other. In reality, it's probable that this judge found there was enough evidence to grant Cumming's restraining order request and there was enough evidence to grant the ex-wife's restraining order request. Doing so would not equate to any valuation judgment on the part of judge as to whose request was more justified.

It may very well be that Cummings is a horrible, abusive person, etc. but I'm not sure any of that is necessarily a reasonable deduction from what are relatively routine proceedings in family court.

[Disney's Divinity]

First, I think the judge was a woman

And you think that would mean she's supportive of and fair to other women? Tell that to Susan Collins.

[RyGuy]

First, I think the judge was a woman

And you think that would mean she's supportive of and fair to other women? Tell that to Susan Collins.

Oh my gosh, no. I thought I had read a comment above that essentially was someone was complaining about the judge not getting it because he as a man. Perhaps I'm conflating what I read elsewhere. My apologies if I gave anyone that impression.

[Wonderlicious]

In the words of Winnie the Pooh: oh bother.

What an absolutely awful scenario. I obviously feel for his ex, but the people I think I feel for the most in this whole situation are their children – no child should have to endure such levels of dysfunctionality as this.

[Elladorine]

Something I cannot stand is seeing others immediately jump to the worst possible conclusions about strangers they only know through the media. Most of us here don’t know these people personally and seem to assume accusations = proof. I’ve met Jim, and while I’m not claiming to be his best friend or anything, he’s been kind and generous to his fans throughout the years and was no different with me. People that do personally know him within the industry have been standing up for him in the midst of these allegations.

There’s always two sides. This ex seems bitter, vengeful. Their marriage didn’t work for reasons we are not privy to, and it appears that she intends to lash out and endanger his career by smearing his reputation. Speaking personally as a victim of sexual abuse, I do realize everyone copes differently, but her actions come off as suspicious to me. I’ve also personally seen how nasty and over the top allegations can get when it comes to divorce and battling for child custody; people will say anything about their ex while playing the innocent victim card in hopes of getting as much money and sympathy as possible. The legal documents mentioned in these articles are simply a record of filed charges; the fact that these documents exist is in no way proof of guilt.

I do feel bad for the daughters caught in the middle of all this, but that’s why we have family court. And I do believe the fact that he’s the one currently granted custody is telling; there are several best interest factors the judge must consider when granting custody to either parent, including but not limited to: any evidence of abuse or neglect, the wishes of the children if they are of sufficient age, which parent is more likely to allow the children to have frequent associations with the opposite parent, the mental and physical health of the parents, and whether either parent has engaged in an act of domestic violence against the children, a parent of the children, or any other person residing with the children. The "evidence" briefly mentioned in later articles that "supports a finding of sexual assault/rape" as stated by her lawyer has not been made public and must be pretty insignificant when he's the one granted custody and the ex-wife is the one issued certain requirements before she can resume regular visitations with them. And of course her lawyer is "mystified" by the ruling, lawyers are paid to represent their client's side unconditionally and do whatever it takes to spin evidence and hopefully win the case.

I haven't seen any irrefutable proof that he did those things he was accused of, and I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon armed with torches and pitchforks. I often see that in the wake of Harvey Weinstein and the whole “me too” movement, people are quick to make general conclusions, and there’s been a growing trend to sympathetically (and mindlessly) chant “we believe you” to all the supposed victims’ stories without considering the fact that false accusations do indeed exist (which I also personally have an extremely unfortunate experience with). It may be an unpopular opinion I'm sharing, but these cases need to be considered individually instead of lumping together all the accused as irredeemable predators and all the accusers as helpless victims; we clearly don't have the whole picture.

[Disney's Divinity]

1.) I haven't seen anyone in this thread say Jim Cummings is guilty. Arguing that his personal statement of his innocence isn't proof of his innocence, is not the same as calling him guilty.

2.) Even if there were someone here calling him guilty, I find it funny that you would criticize them for assuming the worst about someone they've never met while then going on to do the same yourself. His ex is just bitter and vengeful, only out to smear his reputation, he is the true victim here and she's the real monster. Rich.

[Elladorine]

1.) Wow, are we reading the same thread? *glances at previous posts* Um, sure ... whatever you say. I did see a few rational posts here, but it seems many of them were about a “garbage person,” an interesting, obviously non-judgmental term that seems to be thrown around rather flippantly at good ol’ UD here.

2.) Did I claim anyone was a “monster” or the “true victim?” I was not attacking her, I was just stating the possibility that she’s in the wrong based on my own personal experience, from BOTH sides of the coin. Because these situations need to be seen as individual cases, rather than having people relying on stereotypes enforced by the recent cultural climate. I clearly said that she seems bitter, etc., not that she is. And I wanted to suggest that perhaps people think for themselves rather than jumping the bandwagon and assuming the worst over his “level of evil.”

But I really knew better than to make a post here..

[Disney's Divinity]

I'm perfectly aware of my own words. I said he's a garbage person for being a Trump supporter anyway after other posters brought the fact up, regardless of whether he turns out to be guilty of these accusations or not. And I completely stand by those words, too.

To me you absolutely were talking dirt about the ex-wife in defense of a celebrity you once met. I'm happy if you had a positive interaction with him. But that doesn't mean anything in regards to this story either way.

[Disney Duster]

I guess because she said "he seems nice" and then she said, "the ex wife seems bad"...I know it means diddly squat but I'll say way to go Disney's Divinity. Though I do also appreciate elladorine's first post in this thread.

[Mickeyfan1990]

Between the two of them, Jim is probably better than the ex, I'm sorry.

And again, who cares if he's a Trump supporter? I like Trump too, doesn't me I'm a bad person.

Whatever he did, I'm sure he's sorry and regret it and I know he's a good man and a good father.

[Elladorine]

This isn’t the only time I’ve seen a flippant reference you’ve made to “garbage people” or a “trash actress” or even an “asshole” that appeared completely questionable to me ... but regardless of the reasons or politics it’s all “talking dirt” anyway, right? And despite any reasons I offered for my opinions I’m basically just a hypocrite. (Although I must admit I’m left wondering how much of our trash talk has to do with Lin-Manuel Miranda murdering everyone’s families ... but I digress.)

Sure, you and anyone else can claim I that I simply formed a positive opinion for some celebrity that I once happened to meet and had a great experience with. But I also attempted to explain several points that helped me form that opinion, because I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone could immediately take the initial allegations as gospel, as some so obviously did here. Why are people jumping on the accusations instead of taking a moment to question it? Why has the “me too” movement been so adamant about handing out blanket judgments without taking individual cases into consideration?

And I’m not even saying the “me too” movement is bad, it’s actually one of the wake-up calls our society has been needing, while we still admittedly have such a long ways to go. But as long as we continue to generalize behaviors and gender roles and blindly ignore the fact that false accusations do actually happen, we’re not making a whole lot of progress.

To reiterate a few points I attempted to make in a previous post, people in the industry that personally know him are publicly defending him after all this came out (Can we say the same for Lasetter, Krisfaluci, or Savino? Yeah, didn’t think so). He’s done charity work. He’s called sick children in hospitals speaking in the voice of favorite characters, and has offered free recordings for fans. He’s generally known in the industry as being a generous guy that’s great to work with, and while I suppose it would be easy to suggest that none of this has absolutely anything to do with his personal life, I’d wager it at least somewhat reflects his true demeanor. But who am I to judge? Perhaps we best leave that for the courtroom?

Oh, wait! It seems the court has granted custody of the children to him ... while providing conditions to his ex before she can even earn back her visitation rights and eventual joint custody. Once again, I believe this is telling; this logically means that any evidence presenting this particular line of alleged abuse had little merit in the eyes of the court if the judge was indeed considering the well-being of the children. Granted, logic doesn’t apply to the law, and judges don’t always do what’s right, so maybe I’m totally in the wrong here. And sure, I imagine both parties said and did things they aren’t exactly proud of; no one is perfect and extremely stressful events like divorce bring out the worst in all of us, and it’s likely that restraining orders on both sides was a reasonable requirement for the sake of everyone’s sanity.

But wait, what about the subject of rape?

I’ve personally been a victim of sexual abuse several times over, and perhaps that’s why her side feels “off” to me and has hit me so personally. So anyway, let me get this straight ... she’s raped and repeatedly abused by this guy, yet she invites him over to spend time with their kids in her Utah home? And after what he supposedly did then and in front of their young daughters, apparently she was totally cool with leaving them alone with him for the ten months she couldn’t be bothered to visit? Yet when she wasn’t invited to the premier of Christopher Robin, she threatened to tell the world that “Winnie the Pooh is a woman beating, drug addicted freak!” What a scandal! Attending some big movie premier is far more important than attending visitations for the better half of the year with your own kids, right? This is pretty much why I stated that she seems bitter, vengeful; that her actions come off as suspicious. Look, I’m not trying to pass off any of it as fact or outright accuse her of being some “monster,” I could totally be wrong here ... but I absolutely cannot fathom any kind of mother willingly exposing her young children to a sexual predator and rapist in such a manner if what she claims is true. Her story simply does not add up.

Regardless, I imagine many here have already formed their opinions so it’s kinda pointless for me to continue. But it’s such a juicy story, right? BELOVED CARTOON STAR ACCUSED OF RAPE, ANIMAL ABUSE. Disney sucks now anyway, at least according to practically every thread I read here. Criticism is one thing, but damn ... I can’t even finish this thought as I might offend people more than I already have here, lol. I honestly don’t get it. So I kinda just ... back off and go back to enjoying Disney with my family instead. I do suppose it can be satisfying to get worked up and outraged over every scandal or mindless acquisition/remake cash-grab, but I really don’t have the energy for that; I’d rather focus on what I love and retain my sanity.

Which is why I knew better than to bother responding here, but silly me, I felt the need to defend someone who wasn’t just some celebrity I happened to meet, but a person whose career I’ve closely followed and enjoyed for the past thirty years. I don’t confuse him for the wholesome characters he plays (in fact I’m not even a Winnie the Pooh fan) or the family-friendly company he often works for; I realize he’s just an actor. But if it makes me an oblivious, apologetic fan to take a few moments to look beyond the accusations rather than accept them as undisputed fact when something smells fishy, so be it. Someone has to question these things..

[estefan]

Before anyone else responds to you, Elladorine, let me be the first to tell you what a fantastic post you've written. I'm sure a few people will throw insults your way (I was once yelled at on here, because I stuck up for the "Once Upon a Time" show-runners), but don't let them get to you.

I do suppose it can be satisfying to get worked up and outraged over every scandal or mindless acquisition/remake cash-grab, but I really don’t have the energy for that; I’d rather focus on what I love and retain my sanity.

This has been my philosophy for a long time, too. I'd rather spend my time talking about and getting excited for the things I love than wallow on pop-culture that underwhelms me. There are times when I wonder why I stick around, considering so much of the negativity and baseless conspiracy theories that pop up, but it's also a good place to read about Disney news, even if most come from unreliable scoopers like DisInsider. And someone has to be here to provide some positive outlook on Disney's current output and future.

This was what I was trying to get across some posts earlier and you said it so well. We need to use our critical thinking and research skills to figure out what is a proper source and what isn't. It's our responsibility as news readers. Too much of what is stated on the Internet is blindly believed, especially if it's an attention grabbing headline. We need to look at what website is reporting the news, how trustworthy are they and if they are a tabloid and gossip column or are they a legitimate newspaper or trade paper that was spent decades trying to build their reputation. Why did I immediately believe the Harvey Weinstein stories? Because there was actual legitimate investigative journalism being done by reporters with a solid reputation and working for a reputable news source, not some paparazzi digging through trash cans. Ditto the Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., John Lasseter, Bryan Singer stories.

The way the Jim Cummings story was reported, the tabloid-esque nature of the writing, the use of photographs in the original article, the background of the website were all suspect to me and gave me an indication we weren't getting the full story.

Keep on being amazing, Elladorine, and keep up the great work!

[Disney's Divinity]

This isn’t the only time I’ve seen a flippant reference you’ve made to “garbage people” or a “trash actress” or even an “asshole” that appeared completely questionable to me ... but regardless of the reasons or politics it’s all “talking dirt” anyway, right? And despite any reasons I offered for my opinions I’m basically just a hypocrite.

You're the one who decided to come in here with a lecture about how much better than everyone else you are for supposedly not jumping to conclusions (something few in this thread had even done in the first place) while simultaneously smearing the woman who made the accusations. That must be that critical thinking estefan liked so much; he displayed the same eagerness to dismiss the woman's accusations on the second page of the thread before anything had even happened.

Opinions you deem questionable is not a concern of mine. And if you think you're pointing out some big "secret" that's supposed to intimidate me by bringing up past quotes of mine, you're quite mistaken. Lin-Manuel Miranda is an asshole and Zendaya is a trash actress. What about it? Not that I see their relevance to this conversation about Jim Cummings being accused of rape and predatory behavior, but I'll say again that I stand by those statements 100%, too! Sorry if they bother you. You can believe whatever you want to and so can I.

The way the Jim Cummings story was reported, the tabloid-esque nature of the writing, the use of photographs in the original article, the background of the website were all suspect to me and gave me an indication we weren't getting the full story.

As Sotiris already explained to you, twice, the source for the story was the ex-wife's legal documents. Which website decided to report on those legal documents first or third or fifteenth and whatever indulgent language they decided to use is entirely irrelevant and was--is--just a flimsy excuse for you to ignore her accusations.