The custody discussion, as I recall also, was largely propagated by VI-1.
VI-1 seemed to be acting in much the same role as a defense attorney would in the courtroom, doing the best job possible to paint a picture of the accused as a "victim"; a poor, helpless, shy, mild mannered mom who was only looking out for her kid's best interest but who had been wronged by several men around her and yes, perhaps made a few bad choices out of desperation. In that context she brought up the (now believed to be inaccurate) support payment story, which gave CL further cover for her "poor choice" in falling for AL's flash the cash scheme... it was made to sound as if she were so cash strapped due to all these circumstances beyond her control, AL strolled up with her only solution.
Much/most of what we heard about CL needs to be re-reviewed carefully now, IMO, given there are so many instances of discrepancies and unfounded unverified info that was presented. Unfortunately the mind assimilates that stuff when you first read it and forgets what the source was. The whole phone explanation (and over explanation) for example...we now discover, may have been all wrong.
Sorry to TKL for any impingement on you and your family's privacy that might have occurred in sleuthing here. But I do think that the ongoing effort to paint CL in a better light by the VI partially relied upon some discrediting of others around her. You included, unfortunately. Trying to make the accused seem like more of a victim... Some of it has fortunately been deleted as well.
Just my opinion.