Britney Spears custody agreement - seems wrong.

[tortoiseSHELL]

Is it just because she is their mum that this seems wrong? According to BBC News, the agreement is;

KF gets the kids
Britney gives him $250,000 as a one off payment, and then $20,000 a month.

This seems very harsh to me!

Also Britney had a pretty sheltered upbringing really didnt she? KF had been around a bit, already had two kids and numerous partners etc. I agree with dittany, I can imagine him behaving like a real tool and then putting it all on her. Who had she been with before? Justine Timberlake in a nice little Mickey Mouse Club sweetheart type relationship thats who. She just didn't have the experience to cope with someone like him.

It is every parents worse nightmare really isn't it. Shithead of a husband, who forces you to leave because of his behaviour and then gets your kids.

Oh come on! She wasn't just a bit scatty, she was in and (more often) out of rehab. And the reason Kev got the kids is because she wouldn't come to any of the hearings about their future. At one point she went into the building, then just turned around and went shopping with some new bloke! What on earth was the judge supposed to do? Say, 'Ok, she's on drugs, keeps running out of rehab, refuses even to come to court when her children's future is at stake, but I'll award her the kids anyway."
She was clearly - for a while at least - absolutely unable to care for the children. And I'm sure the court was privy to a lot more information than we have. All the hearings were private, but there were many of them, they were constantly postponed to try to get Britney into them, and they involved expert witnesses. If any mother was on drugs, kept skipping rehab and didn't even turn up to court then yes, I'd say the father was likely to get residence.
Plenty of couples split up when the kids were small, particularly if they were already living apart as Kevin and Shar were (god, I have such a memory for celeb crap!). It happens. It's often pretty shit, but it doesn't mean someone is incapable of being a father, or a mother.

harsh?

she's depressed and taken advantage of and blah blah blah BUT she also has substance abuse problems and isn't getting on top of them.

and that is a problem when you have kids no matter which way you slice it.

she is an adult and needs to the accept the responsibility that goes with that and having kids at some point, no matter what the circumstances.

and i think it's downright sexist to assume the father can't be as good a parent or that he's just in it for the money when the mother is in and out of rehab.

the custody can be amended when she hopefully decides to help herself one day.

so can the maintenance agreement.

she started going off the rails once she split with justin timberlake.

the press didn't help.

I don't feel sorry for KF or BS.

I feel sorry for ths kids.

No one would say it was wrong if it was the other way around.

It is 2008, not 1958.

I read he was told if they divorced he would get so many dollars per child.

Baby is nearly one, lovely wifey, fancy another?

'Hundreds (if not more) heroin addicts get to keep their children in this country.'

Yeah, in this country.

Trouble is, she isn't in this country.

Just like in this country, you see a lot of kids farmed out to foster parents who are strangers, whereas US courts will almost ALWAYS try to find a family member willing to take on a child.

And there's none of the secrecy that has lead to lots of kids here being permanently adopted with little recourse for the birth parents.

Not saying it's better, it's a different system.

I never worked in family courts there, only in criminal courts where you'd see divorces that had gone sadly wrong, however.

Not true at all, Fio, because the family members can apply for state welfare benefits on behalf of the child and/or you are entitled to declare a child for whom you are legal guardian or an adopted child as a dependent on your taxes (their tax structure is different, instead of child tax credit, you declare a dependent child as a deduction and pay less tax off the top)

But because the research there has shown that it is usually better for the child if he/she can be fostered or adopted by a family member where possible. Not always, but can be.

the court has obviously seen fit that it is, fio, and they are privy to a lot of information that we are not.

kev is probably a twat, but he doesn't have significant problems that would appear to impair his ability to look after the children in fashion that is acceptable to the court.

i mean, heather mills mccartney is mad as a march hare, but so long as she can reasonably look after her child she's left to it, regardless of whether she married macca and had a kid with him for money or not.

If it was the other way around, everyone would be shouting the man shouldn't even get visitation

No matter what kf motives were, he is still the better parent at this time and I'm glad the courts recognised that

I say at this time but personally I believe those kids should stay where they are forever and not be shunted back and forth just because BS is behaving

I would say, considering Britney's mental health issues, those kids are lucky to have a dad who's around for them!

it can also make handing back the child to the birth parent who was having trouble much easier and less stressful when the birth parent can prove to the court that his/her situation has improved or after he/she is released from custodial care.

a couple of my mum's friends have their grandkids whilst their daughters are in rehab and/or serving prison or jail sentences.

they are able to claim non mean-tested benefits for these children if they have been made wards of the state, and if not then they are eligible to claim the children as deductions on their taxes and even their taxable pension income.

a family member is more likely to try to maintain contact with the non-custodial parent and/or make regular visits to the non-custodial parent if they are incarcerated (which can sometimes be at some distance from teh family home if, for example, the parent is having to serve time in a maximum security facility).

Actually Social Services here look at family placements for children who can't be left with their parent(s) very seriously. In some cases relatives feel they can't cope with the kids or the parents concerned, in others you're dealing with families where several generations have been in and out of care etc.
But perhaps those cases don't get so much media coverage?

I know nothing about Kevin F and not much about Britney. But he seems to have made a competant job so far of caring for the two boys, she has started to get her act togetehr and as a may result now has access and may well succeed in getting joint custody. I don;t see whats so wrong with that.

The children were removed after she had been given several chances by the court. 50:50 custody was conditional on her doing various things - drug testing, meeting drug counsellor, attending parenting classes, not driving the chidlren without a valid drivers licence signing the judges order and she did none of them.

If I split with my dh and I started taking so many drugs that I was off my head more often then not, was publicly clearly incapable, endangered the kids in the car, kept skipping rehab and didn't even turn up to the court hearings about our children, I'd say there was something very wrong if I got the kids and he didn't. I'm sure he's not a perfect person by any means, but the court (which had a lot more information than we have) wasn't judging his morals, just who was more capable of looking after two very small boys.
I think it is very sad that a troubled young woman should lose custody of her children, but the kids are the important people here.

the social workers report (leaked so possible not accurate) said that whilst she obviously loved the boys she clearly wasn't capable of looking after herself let alone two toddlers.