Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, PepSinger said:

Furthermore, I have no fucking clue how she is only worth $60 million. That seems abysmally low. In 2002 she was worth $40 million. How in the hell has she only amassed an additional $20 million in net worth in 19 years???? That doesn't even make any sense!! This conservatorship is costing her money.

 

 

The $60 million is the number given by her father's legal team.  They claim that, at the time the conservatorship was put in place, Britney was deeply in debt with only a few million in assets and that the estate has grown considerably under the conservatorship and thus, it should remain in place.

If she was worth 20 million almost 20 years ago and then in debt 13 years ago when Jamie went to court, that may have been part of the information presented as part of the reason she needed a conservatorship.

Of course, all of  these figures come from her father's team, so may not be a true picture.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Of course, all of  these figures come from her father's team, so may not be a true picture.

The first thing that I think needs to be done is hire an independent forensic accountant. 

  • Like 21
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Once someone hits 18 they should be able to be completely independent and do whatever they want.  Britney is almost 40.  I don't trust parents of these wealthy entertainers, not one little bit.  If you put your kid in show business the onus is then on YOU to prove you're trustworthy to be around your kids after the age of 18.  Fuck what those parents tell us; it is all suspect.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

Britney has to be worth more. It's also hard for me to believe her financial situation was super bad before her dad stepped in. Even if she wasn't good with money and had bad habits/spending, I don't think she is THAT extravagant. She's only dolled up when she has to be. She loves Cheetos. She gets clothes from Old Navy. She shops at Walmart. She's not like Erika Jayne. 

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

Britney has to be worth more. It's also hard for me to believe her financial situation was super bad before her dad stepped in. Even if she wasn't good with money and had bad habits/spending, I don't think she is THAT extravagant. She's only dolled up when she has to be. She loves Cheetos. She gets clothes from Old Navy. She shops at Walmart. She's not like Erika Jayne. 

Kevin Federline, who had been receiving $20,000 a month in child support; took Britney to court several years ago claiming that he was unable to provide for the kids at the same level that Britney could on that amount.  He wanted his payments tripled, they reached a confidential settlement and she also has been paying his legal costs in all custody matters from the start.  So, she's got some very major expenses that are fixed, including supporting her ex.

As I recall, part of his suit claimed that he couldn't afford a larger house on his income and Britney's boys had to share a room since he is remarried and has a wife and other kids; two with his current wife and two from pre-Britney times.  So, essentially, in order to provide her kids with their own rooms, Britney purchased bigger house for Federline, his current wife and kids to enjoy, too.

Of course, at the time they went to court, Federline claimed that Britney, due to her Vegas residency, was making more than $30 million a year.  Meanwhile, outside of child support, Federline claimed he was making about $3 grand a month because he was too old to get dancing gigs and his rapping career was going nowhere.  Apparently, going back and getting trained in another line of work or finding another job outside of showbiz was out of the question.

Edited by Rootbeer
  • Like 7
  • Useful 8
  • Surprise 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Kevin Federline, who had been receiving $20,000 a month in child support; took Britney to court several years ago claiming that he was unable to provide for the kids at the same level that Britney could on that amount.  He wanted his payments tripled, they reached a confidential settlement and she also has been paying his legal costs in all custody matters from the start.  So, she's got some very major expenses that are fixed, including supporting her ex.

I just checked and saw that Spears sons are now aged 14 and 15.  Hope Federline has been saving some of that child support because at least in theory in about 4 years he's going to be losing that income.

Edited by WinnieWinkle
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

If she's in such great shape why is she asking to skip the mental competency exam to end the conservatorship? You'd think Britanny would welcome the chance to prove her stability.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bobalina said:

If she's in such great shape why is she asking to skip the mental competency exam to end the conservatorship? You'd think Britanny would welcome the chance to prove her stability.

As she stated in her testimony, conservatorships have ended without needing to take a competency exam. Also, as she stated, she has been left traumatized due to the “treatment” she’s already received, so she doesn’t trust her own doctors and therapists to perform a fair examination. I don’t blame her.

  • Like 17
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I just checked and saw that Spears sons are now aged 14 and 15. 

...okay, well, as if I didn't have enough reasons to feel old. 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 22

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Kevin Federline, who had been receiving $20,000 a month in child support; took Britney to court several years ago claiming that he was unable to provide for the kids at the same level that Britney could on that amount.  He wanted his payments tripled, they reached a confidential settlement and she also has been paying his legal costs in all custody matters from the start.  So, she's got some very major expenses that are fixed, including supporting her ex.

Curious, is the higher-earning spouse required to pay for the other spouse's legal bills when it comes to custody of their children? Because why on Earth is she paying for her ex-husband's attorney?

22 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

As I recall, part of his suit claimed that he couldn't afford a larger house on his income and Britney's boys had to share a room since he is remarried and has a wife and other kids; two with his current wife and two from pre-Britney times.  So, essentially, in order to provide her kids with their own rooms, Britney purchased bigger house for Federline, his current wife and kids to enjoy, too.

Siblings...sharing a room?!?! The audacity. Clearly they were being raised in a third-world type of environment because no one can be raised appropriately when sharing a room with their same-sex sibling.

25 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Of course, at the time they went to court, Federline claimed that Britney, due to her Vegas residency, was making more than $30 million a year.  Meanwhile, outside of child support, Federline claimed he was making about $3 grand a month because he was too old to get dancing gigs and his rapping career was going nowhere.  Apparently, going back and getting trained in another line of work or finding another job outside of showbiz was out of the question.

Totally ridiculous. If I were the judge, I would've mandated he find a new line of work. Let's be blunt; Federline wanted Britney's money to support his four other children and uses the two kids he has with Britney as a backdoor way to support them. Let's see how all this is going in four years because at that point, Britney shouldn't be required to continue paying on Federline's house. 

 

 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post

Britney has been used by her parents and ex-husband for years. Scum they all are. If Britney had someone in her life who truly loved and cared for her she wouldn't be so troubled. It is a sad situation. 

  • Like 8
  • Sad 12

Share this post


Link to post

Last year, when her son Jayden was 13 he did an Instagram Live and someone asks him about his Mom's career pause and he says this:  

"Actually, I haven't seen her doing a lot of music at all. I remember one time I asked her, 'Mom, what happened to your music? And she was like 'I dunno honey I think I might just quit it.' And I was like, 'what? What are you saying? You know how much bank you make off that stuff?'"

That last sentence is so cringe and tragic on many levels.  That a 13 year old kid would even use such an obnoxious 'industry' term like that and that he would use it in regards to his Mother.  A sad little bit of insight into her world.  This bullshit is coming at her even from her kids!

Video snippet here:

https://www.tmz.com/2020/03/04/britney-spears-son-jayden-federline-says-she-might-quit-music/

  • Sad 20

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Curious, is the higher-earning spouse required to pay for the other spouse's legal bills when it comes to custody of their children? Because why on Earth is she paying for her ex-husband's attorney?

 

In custody and divorce cases where there is a large income discrepancy between the parties, it is not unusual for the court to order the wealthier person to cover the legal expenses of the other.  There is no public defender type legal system for family court cases involving divorce and custody; so it would be inherently unfair if one person could hire the best legal help while the other couldn't afford to pay an attorney.  Happens all the time. I know several non-showbiz regular people who were responsible for the legal bills of their partner in a divorce because they had higher paying jobs, or even had a job.

I know someone who has been ordered to pay alimony to his ex for the remainder of her life because she became medically disabled during the time between their separation and divorce.  Her medical issues had nothing to do with the marriage collapsing, but, she is now unable to work and her condition is such that this is not going to change.  So, her attorney petitioned for permanent alimony and it was awarded.  They were married about 20 years and, after their kids were born, she stayed home while he worked.  He expected to pay alimony for a period of time.  Turns out he will pay it forever.

Edited by Rootbeer
  • Like 7
  • Useful 4
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Cementhead said:

Last year, when her son Jayden was 13 he did an Instagram Live and someone asks him about his Mom's career pause and he says this:  

"Actually, I haven't seen her doing a lot of music at all. I remember one time I asked her, 'Mom, what happened to your music? And she was like 'I dunno honey I think I might just quit it.' And I was like, 'what? What are you saying? You know how much bank you make off that stuff?'"

That last sentence is so cringe and tragic on many levels.  That a 13 year old kid would even use such an obnoxious 'industry' term like that and that he would use it in regards to his Mother.  A sad little bit of insight into her world.  This bullshit is coming at her even from her kids!

Video snippet here:

https://www.tmz.com/2020/03/04/britney-spears-son-jayden-federline-says-she-might-quit-music/

Like father like son unfortunately.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rcc said:

Like father like son unfortunately.

Like grandfather, like son, too.  Britney's kids are chips off the old block(s).  They've been raised to view her as a money making machine, their own personal ATM.  The whole thing is just tragic.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 9

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

As she stated in her testimony, conservatorships have ended without needing to take a competency exam. Also, as she stated, she has been left traumatized due to the “treatment” she’s already received, so she doesn’t trust her own doctors and therapists to perform a fair examination. I don’t blame her.

The judge could easily choose a neutral party to conduct the exam. And should have a disinterested party evaluate her.

Edited by bobalina
  • Like 1
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Let's see how all this is going in four years because at that point, Britney shouldn't be required to continue paying on Federline's house. 

Yep he has certainly managed to maintain a very nice lifestyle for a long time but he had to know it couldnt' be a permanent thing.  Or you'd think that anyway.  It's interesting how many women (yes in my case it was always women) I knew who divorced when the kids were small counted on that monthly cheque being a permanent situation.  Reality check.  Kids grow up and if you think child support lasts forever you are in for a big day of reckoning.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I hope Britney never has to perform again if it will get those leeches off her case. After all, they can't actually force her to open up her mouth and sing. God forbid they should actually GET JOBS and stop sponging off her. I hope this judge really takes all this into consideration. This is just not right.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

Something else I worry about is that she's been on medication for so long that she might not have needed, that it did permanent damage to her. She needs an independent team that has no financial stake in this to diagnose her, treat her, and determine what it is medically, therapeutically and/or personally, that she actually needs.

And there concludes my armchair diagnosis of the day.

Edited by LexieLily
  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

 The situation with Britney is not just unfair, it's misogynistic, IMO.

I don't know much about the situation, but it reminds me of The Yellow Wallpaper.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

I always wonder how so many of our favourite celebrities have died too young on drugs or drowning in bathtubs or taking dangerous flights on tiny planes etc. etc. etc. and the answer has got to be partly that they have really bad people around them who don't care enough to take care of them and make sure they're okay.  

  • Like 8
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

It appears that Federline has provided the primary care of the boys for years.  Being able to be a full time parent is a great benefit to children.  I never thought much of him in the early days, but apparently he stepped up and took parenting seriously. If he had been working outside the home the boys would have been with paid nannies.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I always wonder how so many of our favourite celebrities have died too young on drugs or drowning in bathtubs or taking dangerous flights on tiny planes etc. etc. etc. and the answer has got to be partly that they have really bad people around them who don't care enough to take care of them and make sure they're okay.  

Any time immediate blood relatives are involved, it seems like a bad mix. It's sad when parents only see their kids as walking ATMs. A parent should be someone their child should be able to trust the most in this world--no matter how old or successful they get. It's not the job of the most successful child of the family to support everybody else either.

Imagine how different Michael or Whitney or Britney's story could have been different if their parents actually tried to protect them and had their best interests at heart.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post

40 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I always wonder how so many of our favourite celebrities have died too young on drugs or drowning in bathtubs or taking dangerous flights on tiny planes etc. etc. etc. and the answer has got to be partly that they have really bad people around them who don't care enough to take care of them and make sure they're okay.  

I would imagine the vast majority, yeah. Unfortunately, in this business, it's all about the "yes men", and everyone wants a piece of the famous person. They care more about what they can get from them (usually financially), or they're bad people who make their living off of preying on the young and the vulnerable.. This business can be nasty no matter how old one is, of course,, but thrusting children and teenagers into that spotlight with no stable support system and no way to teach them how to handle this sudden fame, you're just asking for trouble. 

And then when those kids act out or start spiraling, people act like they can't figure out why. Gee, yeah, it's a real mystery. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Annber03 said:

And then when those kids act out or start spiraling, people act like they can't figure out why. Gee, yeah, it's a real mystery. 

The example that immediately comes to mind is Lindsey Lohan.

  • Like 11
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's been my private theory for years that Britney doesn't have a specific mental illness, but fried her brain on drugs and has some actual brain damage.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

It appears that Federline has provided the primary care of the boys for years.  Being able to be a full time parent is a great benefit to children.  I never thought much of him in the early days, but apparently he stepped up and took parenting seriously. If he had been working outside the home the boys would have been with paid nannies.  

Not being a stay at home parent doesn’t mean that you aren’t a full time parent. Working doesn’t make you any less of a full time parent. Parent is a 365 days a year job until the day you die.

In addition, I don’t applaud people for doing what they should be doing. Those are his kids. He *should* be taking care of them.

  • Like 22
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, LexieLily said:

The example that immediately comes to mind is Lindsey Lohan.

A perfect example, indeed. Speaking of someone who grew up with shitty excuses for parents...

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like this might be an extreme opinion, considering the popularity of child acting in Hollywood, but I see it just like any other kind of child labour.  Maybe people were ignorant "back then" but seeing as how so many former child actors/entertainers/stars are now dead because of drugs or suicide I think you'd really have to be scum to put your kids into acting (or music).  There can't be any more excuses anymore.  There's no ignorance about this anymore.  This is why I can't trust any parent who would do this.

Whitney, Michael, even Prince died way too young.  I don't know much about Prince's history or his surroundings.  But when I watched "Framing Britney Spears" what struck me was the difference between Britney Spears and Madonna.   Britney was 16-17 when she released her first album.  Contrast it to Madonna who was 25.  And Madonna obviously presents a very strong, independent image of a woman in control whereas when Britney wasn't 18 yet her image made me really uncomfortable (the image being, a child being sexualized.)

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 9
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I always wonder how so many of our favourite celebrities have died too young on drugs or drowning in bathtubs or taking dangerous flights on tiny planes etc. etc. etc. and the answer has got to be partly that they have really bad people around them who don't care enough to take care of them and make sure they're okay.  

In the bios I've read about celebrities with tragic ends, it's a pretty common feature, sadly. Either exploiters or enablers or both. 

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

I would imagine the vast majority, yeah. Unfortunately, in this business, it's all about the "yes men", and everyone wants a piece of the famous person. They care more about what they can get from them (usually financially), or they're bad people who make their living off of preying on the young and the vulnerable.. This business can be nasty no matter how old one is, of course,, but thrusting children and teenagers into that spotlight with no stable support system and no way to teach them how to handle this sudden fame, you're just asking for trouble. 

And then when those kids act out or start spiraling, people act like they can't figure out why. Gee, yeah, it's a real mystery. 

One of the most insightful comments I've ever read about fame was from Robert Plant. I don't remember the exact wording, but the gist was that when you become really famous, most people stop saying "no" to you, and once you lose those guard rails, you basically slide out of touch with reality. I think about that any time I read a comment about a celebrity behaving in either a really bizarrely entitled way or behaving in a very self-destructive way. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 3
  • Useful 2
  • Sad 8

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, rcc said:

Britney has been used by her parents and ex-husband for years. Scum they all are. If Britney had someone in her life who truly loved and cared for her she wouldn't be so troubled. It is a sad situation. 

Kevin Federline is a goldigger. Britney is responsible for supporting her sons and only her sons. If the roles were reversed and a woman wanted her former husband to support children that weren't his she would be laughed out of court. Her dad shouldn't be taking extra money for looking after her interests.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

Kevin Federline is a goldigger. Britney is responsible for supporting her sons and only her sons. If the roles were reversed and a woman wanted her former husband to support children that weren't his she would be laughed out of court. Her dad shouldn't be taking extra money for looking after her interests.

K. Federline may be a gold-digger (I don't remember the details of their divorce) but @Ms Blue Jay brought it up earlier that he did successfully get a restraining order against Jamie Spears on behalf of Britney's kids, I'm wondering now if this child support amount to Federline, enough to support Britney's boys and all of the half-siblings, isn't some form of a hush-money payout to keep Federline from talking about things concerning Britney and/or the conservatorship. Hasn't her allotted custody time/parenting time dwindled down over the years?

Edited by LexieLily
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

But when I watched "Framing Britney Spears" what struck me was the difference between Britney Spears and Madonna.   Britney was 16-17 when she released her first album.  Contrast it to Madonna who was 25.  And Madonna obviously presents a very strong, independent image of a woman in control whereas when Britney wasn't 18 yet her image made me really uncomfortable (the image being, a child being sexualized.)

Debbie Gibson had a relatively short career as a teenager that didn't survive the transition into her 20's but she pretty much called the shots and you can just tell she didn't get messed with. She wasn't sexualized in her videos and you can tell her mother gave a damn about her besides being a money printing machine.

Contrast that to Tiffany, who had shitty parents and horrible management and her 20's and 30's seemed like a bumpier ride. 

They both seem to have come out the other side pretty well, though. Of course, they didn't have to try and survive the ugly tabloid culture of the 2000's.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

Kevin Federline is a goldigger. Britney is responsible for supporting her sons and only her sons. If the roles were reversed and a woman wanted her former husband to support children that weren't his she would be laughed out of court. Her dad shouldn't be taking extra money for looking after her interests.

K-Fed didn't ask for money to support his kids with other women,  What he asked for was enough support to allow his and Britney's kids to live at a standard commensurate with what they would have if they were living with her.  From what I understand, although they have a 50/50 shared custody agreement; the kids have been with him about 90% of the time for years because Britney isn't able to have them with her for extended periods.  She also is still required to have supervised visitation with them, which means the court has some pretty big reservations about her ability to parent them on her own.  None of that is KFed's fault; he stepped up and did what was needed for his kids, as he should.  And, when he asked for an increase in support, he did point out the reality: that he was responsible for the kids way more than half the time which was the original agreement.

To Britney's credit, when her father manhandled her son, she did manage to remove them from his presence and called KFed who stepped in and took them back to his place.  He specifically mentioned her good judgement in handling the situation in his complaint, so it sounds like he's trying to maintain a good parenting relationship with her.

A side effect of K-Fed receiving enough child support to give his and Brit's kids a certain lifestyle is that his current wife and kids get to benefit from the bigger, nicer home too.  Short of the judge ordering the wife and other kids to live in the garage, I don't know how to remedy that.  I presume that Britney's kids benefit from having their stepmother and half sibs in their lives and living as a family unit.  Expecting KFed to live apart from his current family doesn't seem to be in the interest of Brit's kids either.

  • Like 15
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

11 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

A side effect of K-Fed receiving enough child support to give his and Brit's kids a certain lifestyle is that his current wife and kids get to benefit from the bigger, nicer home too. 

I get this but in some ways is this the best situation given that it has to be temporary?  I mean theoretically the sons Federline and Spears have together will always have a different life style from Federline's other children but especially when the child support money runs out.  Giving the other children a lifestyle their own parents can't support, possibly within the next 4 years, seems a little unfair.  But hopefully Federline has made sure that the house is paid off and he can keep things going even without the child support because if it's true that he is only making about $3000 a month (I thought that's what I heard) there is going to be a really big change coming otherwise!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

She also is still required to have supervised visitation with them, which means the court has some pretty big reservations about her ability to parent them on her own.

If this is still true then the court knows things we do not. Her kids are teenagers now presumably not in physical danger by being around her.  And who exactly supervises the visits?

My take on this is yes Britney had some serious problems and needed  help getting though them but now when she is (hopefully) better the people in charge don't want to let that power (and money) go.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I took an estate planning course several years ago. One thing I remember them emphasizing it that your medical power of attorney and financial power of attorney should be different people, and ideally, neither of them should be your estate's main beneficiary. Basically, you don't want the person deciding whether to pull your plug to stand to gain financially from that decision. 

This is exactly the same to me. The person who decides if she's mentally well enough to tour should not be then deciding where the money goes. The people who gain the most from her continued conservatorship should not be dictating her mental health care. It's completely insane. Literally EVERYONE around her has a financial stake in continuing. Who stands for her?

In the juvenile system, there's an organization called CASA that provides volunteer advocates to children who have experienced abuse or neglect. The volunteer helps the child until they've aged out of the system or been placed in a permanent home. They speak up for the child in court to make sure the child has someone in their corner who doesn't have ulterior motives. Britney is an adult, but I think she needs someone like this.

  • Like 15
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I get this but in some ways is this the best situation given that it has to be temporary?  I mean theoretically the sons Federline and Spears have together will always have a different life style from Federline's other children but especially when the child support money runs out.  Giving the other children a lifestyle their own parents can't support, possibly within the next 4 years, seems a little unfair.  But hopefully Federline has made sure that the house is paid off and he can keep things going even without the child support because if it's true that he is only making about $3000 a month (I thought that's what I heard) there is going to be a really big change coming otherwise!

I think K-Fed’s other kids are in for a very rude awakening when the child support payments from Britney end. From what I read a few years ago, the increase he demanded in the amount was not just for a larger, nicer house but also so all the kids would receive similar quality of possessions, so for example Britney’s kids might get the newest, most expensive phone, then the other kids would get something comparable. But to me this is an approach that creates a sense of entitlement in the other kids. Because if K-Fed is pulling in only $3K a month, once the child support payments run out, no way he’s going to be able to drop the same kind of money for electronics and so forth on his other kids the way they have gotten used to. 
 

I am unsure of the details but my impression is that Britney has gotten increased visitation in the past couple of years. Her family has obviously exploited her for financial reasons, and her father has been the primary person doing so. I find it appalling that her father gets to make reproductive choices for her. Also, no way would this conservatorship have occurred if she were male. FFS, if Kanye West is still running around making horrible choices in romantic partners and wasting money frivolously, Britney should absolutely have that same level of freedom. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BookWoman56 said:

I think K-Fed’s other kids are in for a very rude awakening when the child support payments from Britney end. From what I read a few years ago, the increase he demanded in the amount was not just for a larger, nicer house but also so all the kids would receive similar quality of possessions, so for example Britney’s kids might get the newest, most expensive phone, then the other kids would get something comparable. But to me this is an approach that creates a sense of entitlement in the other kids. Because if K-Fed is pulling in only $3K a month, once the child support payments run out, no way he’s going to be able to drop the same kind of money for electronics and so forth on his other kids the way they have gotten used to. 
 

 

They will be.  I highly doubt much has changed with K-Fed's finances since 2018 when he petitioned the court for more money.  Britney was already paying all of the boy's expenses plus $10.000 a month per child.  He wanted a substantial increase because he had zero savings.  There is no way that all of the $20,000 per month was only going to Britney's sons.  She's been financing his whole family for years while Kevin keeps on spending.  

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They will be.  I highly doubt much has changed with K-Fed's finances since 2018 when he petitioned the court for more money.  Britney was already paying all of the boy's expenses plus $10.000 a month per child.  He wanted a substantial increase because he had zero savings.  There is no way that all of the $20,000 per month was only going to Britney's sons.  She's been financing his whole family for years while Kevin keeps on spending.  

K-Fed may be a gold digging douche, but child support isn't set up to buy things for individual children. Child support is pay the mortgage, keep the utilities on, make sure there's car insurance, etc. It can't be parsed out between children in a household.

On top of that, to say "you're Britney's children so you get the larger bedrooms, more toys, better quality sheets/food/activities" is very, very bad for all the children involved. 

I get really, really upset when there's this notion that child support obligees should account for the money they receive to ensure it's spent "correctly." It's paternalistic and gross. 

  • Like 16
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, Jane Tuesday said:

I took an estate planning course several years ago. One thing I remember them emphasizing it that your medical power of attorney and financial power of attorney should be different people, and ideally, neither of them should be your estate's main beneficiary. Basically, you don't want the person deciding whether to pull your plug to stand to gain financially from that decision. 

Having watched more than my fair share of true crime shows, this is indeed very good advice. 

  • Like 11
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

From what I understand, although they have a 50/50 shared custody agreement; the kids have been with him about 90% of the time for years because Britney isn't able to have them with her for extended periods.  She also is still required to have supervised visitation with them, which means the court has some pretty big reservations about her ability to parent them on her own.  

To Britney's credit, when her father manhandled her son, she did manage to remove them from his presence and called KFed who stepped in and took them back to his place.  He specifically mentioned her good judgement in handling the situation in his complaint, so it sounds like he's trying to maintain a good parenting relationship with her.

 

4 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

If this is still true then the court knows things we do not. Her kids are teenagers now presumably not in physical danger by being around her.  And who exactly supervises the visits?

My take on this is yes Britney had some serious problems and needed  help getting though them but now when she is (hopefully) better the people in charge don't want to let that power (and money) go.

KFed has the kids most of the time, but we don't know if that's because Britney might be a danger to them, or if the conservatorship is using them as coercion, not letting her see them if she doesn't do what they want. This is what she said....

Quote

If I didn't do any of my meetings and work from eight to six at night, which is 10 hours a day, seven days a week, no days off, I wouldn't be able to see my kids or my boyfriend. 

I would really like to hear what her conservator's reasons for this is.

  • Surprise 1
  • Sad 8

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

K-Fed may be a gold digging douche, but child support isn't set up to buy things for individual children. Child support is pay the mortgage, keep the utilities on, make sure there's car insurance, etc. It can't be parsed out between children in a household.

On top of that, to say "you're Britney's children so you get the larger bedrooms, more toys, better quality sheets/food/activities" is very, very bad for all the children involved. 

I get really, really upset when there's this notion that child support obligees should account for the money they receive to ensure it's spent "correctly." It's paternalistic and gross. 

I think you are misinterpreting my comment.  K-Fed has been horrible with money while also having 6 kids.  His other children have benefitted from him being married to Britney.  Kevin also has not really done much to rectify his income situation.  His chosen profession was one with an expiration date on it.  If he did not save for the future, then he is an idiot.  He is also an idiot for not pivoting to another career which could support him, his wife and his other 4 kids.  I'm not saying that there is something wrong with Kevin using the child support money to pay for his other kids and make their home life more equitable.  But, he needs to be able to support himself and his other kids after Britney's sons come of age.  That money also has an expiration date on it.  

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

How do we know anything about Kevin’s finances and how he has wasted money?    What did I miss?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Crs97 said:

How do we know anything about Kevin’s finances and how he has wasted money?    What did I miss?

Kevin petitioned the court to increase his child support in 2018.  He was receiving $10,000 per month per child plus Britney paying all other expenses (education, health insurance, school fees, etc).  He asked for it to be increased to $30,000 per month per child because he has no savings and only made $3000 a month as a washed up dancer.  They eventually reached an agreement that was not disclosed.  

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I get really, really upset when there's this notion that child support obligees should account for the money they receive to ensure it's spent "correctly." It's paternalistic and gross. 

My father went on disability when my brother was a teenager (I was already over 18) and my parents received a check for him.  My husband also went on disability when my son was a teenager and we received a check for him.  In each case periodically the Social Security Administration asked for an accounting of how that money was spent.   In my son's case we used the money to pay for his cell phone, his car insurance, part of the wifi bill and other things that were for him such as school clothes.  Each month any money not spent was kept and was used for when he went on summer vacation.

I don't have a problem with KFed being asked to account for where all the child support goes. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

My father went on disability when my brother was a teenager (I was already over 18) and my parents received a check for him.  My husband also went on disability when my son was a teenager and we received a check for him.  In each case periodically the Social Security Administration asked for an accounting of how that money was spent.   In my son's case we used the money to pay for his cell phone, his car insurance, part of the wifi bill and other things that were for him such as school clothes.  Each month any money not spent was kept and was used for when he went on summer vacation.

I don't have a problem with KFed being asked to account for where all the child support goes. 

And if KFed has to do it, all those women receiving the minimum monthly support in my state of 80/m would have to do it as well. It disgusts me the way child support obligors feel entitled to the details of the finances of the custodial parent. It's just another way to use the legal process to abuse women.

Child support is not money paid to the child, like social security. With social security, the parent is the payee, not the obligee. That money is more like a probate guardianship of the estate of the child. Further, the SSA has eliminated most of those reporting requirements. 

Child support is money paid to the custodian of the child. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I feel like this might be an extreme opinion, considering the popularity of child acting in Hollywood, but I see it just like any other kind of child labour.  Maybe people were ignorant "back then" but seeing as how so many former child actors/entertainers/stars are now dead because of drugs or suicide I think you'd really have to be scum to put your kids into acting (or music).  There can't be any more excuses anymore.  There's no ignorance about this anymore.  This is why I can't trust any parent who would do this.

I think there were also some cases of parents deliberately profiting from their children's careers, to the point they no longer had jobs on their own. I don't remember any specifics, but I think some sitcom child actor was a subject to this.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Please do not post only non-descriptive links to celebrity news stories.  Some context should be provided for your fellow members. Context may be as simple as a link that describes the story, or a line or two of text. Thanks.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size