E-MAIL
IM
DIGG THIS
FACEBOOKKevin is an awesome father and I wish nothing but the best for him and his family ;)
Lawyer: Kevin Federline Wants Britney Spears Back in Boys’ Lives
Tuesday February 19, 2008
February 12, 2008
x17online.com
Tuesday February 19, 2008
x17online.com
Lawyers for Britney Spears and Kevin Federline met at L.A. Superior Court this morning for a hearing in their ongoing custody battle.
No changes in the custody of their two sons were made. Therefore, Spears remains without visitation rights.
Spears' father Jamie, her temporary co-conservator, was also present, as well as Anne Kiley, Spears’ lawyer from Trope and Trope.
Neither Spears, 26, or Federline, 29, were present.
At the beginning of the hearing, Kiley asked that a gag order be placed on those connected with the case.
A judge denied her request, explaining, “We’re dealing with very critical issues. The hearings are public. The public does have a right to know what the courts are doing.”
The courtroom was then sealed.
Though no major change in their custody arrangement was expected today, Federline wants Spears back in their boys’ lives. (TMZ.com reports that Federline would approve of Spears regaining visitation rights if her parents are also present.)
"Both sides want to see the day that visitation can resume. It is a question of working out details on how that can happen. Mr. Federline looks forward to his children having their mom in their life," Federline’s attorney, Mark Vincent Kaplan, told the press.
It’s been seven weeks since Spears has seen her boys, Sean Preston, 2, and Jayden James, 17 months, and Kaplan says Federline “is doing everything that he can to make up for the fact that the boys are with him and keeping family around and trying to have them not aware that there’s any change whatsoever.
“He’s doing great at being a parent,” Kaplan adds.
Federline, Kaplan says, “is evaluating two or three [acting opportunities] right now, and he’ll decide shortly which one he wants to put his energy into.
“Regardless, it won’t require him to be away from his children on any extensive basis,” Kaplan insists.
Tell Us: Would seeing her sons help Britney Spears get healthier faster?
|
Posted by Lindsay Powers at 1:08 pm ET
Categories:
139 Comments
6:31 PM
Anonymous Says:
12:31 PM
Anonymous Says:
"PS. I never heard about the teeth whitening. Can you fill me in? And to add to my post. Kevin would not be looking forward to her seeing her children again in some capacity if he felt she was really a threat to his children safety, and this wasn't a case of some form of treatable psychological pitfall she's been on."
The teeth whitening was a tabloid report that stated she had tried to get Sean's teeth whitened. His teeth were supposedly discolored from drinking soda and high-sugar juices. I have not seen *any* verification of that in court papers.
As to Kevin wanting her back in their lives and therefore not feeling she is a threat, that is not necessarily true. Not speaking specifically to this case, but many parents will try over and over to allow an abusive parent into the lives of their children, hoping for change. Just as many abused spouses will go back to the abusive partner.
My own pulled-out-of-my-butt opinion: I do not think she is traditionally abusive. I do think she is sick. I think those around her know this. I think those around her want her well. I think they know the best case scenario is for the boys to have both parents in their lives. I think they are going through what many people with an ill family member go through: they don't know what else to do. I think they understand that her illness will cause her to act as she might otherwise not. I also think they, like many others with the ill relative, don't want to think she could be a threat. And she might not be. The problem with these illnesses and the unstable patient is the unpredictability of their actions. Which is not to say that a sick person is always a threat, just that they could be. It could be that they are now considering the visits as a result of her father's conservatorship. It's a new tactic, a new hope. And more than likely he will more strict than the monitor was.
12:17 PM
Anonymous Says:
"Just to clarify. Are you referring to the the 50/50 custody arrangement? The 70/30 arrangement (really 5050)? Or right after the first hospitalization when she completely lost her kids. Since then I don't remember her having any supervised visitations until her 2nd hospitalization till now."
This testimony was given to the court after the order given to restrict her to a total of 3 visits for 36 hours a week; 12pm-7pm twice a week, 12pm-10am once a week. I guess that would be 80/20 technically, if not legally technical. She had 50/50 up until October 1. The parenting coach referenced her initial attempts to meet with Britney on three different occasions were unsuccessful. Those were 9/28, 10/3, and 10/18. It was after those dates that she was able to meet and observe.
"These are usually verbalized orders during proceedings in family court. They are standard in court papers depending on the jurisdiction. If not, one party can ask it to be apart of the order for protection. It is never indicative of abuse. More indicative of two parents who never agreed on how children should be punished, and that children should not be made a part of the tensions between the two parties."
I did not say it was indicative of abuse. Perhaps it is standard in *some* jurisdictions, but *some* is not all. Does anyone know if this is the case within this specific jurisdiction? The order specified that they were both barred from making derogatory remarks about each other, their parents, and significant others. It specified that they both refrain from corporal punishment and would not allow others to use it either. In my experience this indicates (unfounded) accusations from one side or both. If one buys that tabloids get some things right, it lends credence to the reports that she yelled at the children, calling them mistakes.
12:11 PM
Anonymous Says:
SHE IS A HUMAN AND THUS IS GOING BY A TRAUMA SINCE NO ONE IN NATURE WOULD BE MADE TO ENDURE THAT ANXIOUS STATE.
THE LAWYER IS LOOKING OUT FOR HIS POCKETBOOK.
SHE MAY BE THE SANEST OF ALL BUT WITH THE CASH COW.
11:20 AM
Anonymous Says:
4:14, in out crazy American court system, regarding custody, the primary focys is the welfare of the child, not the health of the parent.
4:14 AM
Anonymous Says:
Are you serious that it is not OK for a mother to see her kids even under supervision?
Of course her rights are violated... She hasnt seen her kids in seven weeks... She has problems but denying her her kids is cruel and doesnt help her situation. Everything she does will be magnified.
Give me a break, havent you ever yelled at your child and felt bad afterwards? I am surprised with some of you. You play the perfect mother that never gets angry, never does anything wrong always perfect. Of course nobody is looking at you all the time.
Then I wonder why AMerica has all these crazy kids who shoot in their schools if you are all such good mothers.
Hypocrite Americans
11:53 PM
Anonymous Says:
PS. I never heard about the teeth whitening. Can you fill me in? And to add to my post. Kevin would not be looking forward to her seeing her children again in some capacity if he felt she was really a threat to his children safety, and this wasn't a case of some form of treatable psychological pitfall she's been on.
11:50 PM
Anonymous Says:
"Mind you, these were the supervised visits AFTER she had lost custody."
Just to clarify. Are you referring to the the 50/50 custody arrangement? The 70/30 arrangement (really 5050)? Or right after the first hospitalization when she completely lost her kids. Since then I don't remember her having any supervised visitations until her 2nd hospitalization till now.
"In other words, when most parents would be happy to see and play with their kids. The court papers also did say that they were both not allowed to use corporal punishment and they .."
These are usually verbalized orders during proceedings in family court. They are standard in court papers depending on the jurisdiction. If not, one party can ask it to be apart of the order for protection. It is never indicative of abuse. More indicative of two parents who never agreed on how children should be punished, and that children should not be made a part of the tensions between the two parties.
11:39 PM
Anonymous Says:
11:23:
Attention: Bite me.
11:36 PM
Anonymous Says:
11:16, oh she should be able to see them, but just like you said: once she has stabilized on her medication, passed the previous required court orders, etc. I think it's clear she is not stable any more than she was before. Her hygiene still appears poor. She still needs attention of paparazzi. She still defied her parents after her release. She is still fighting the court case claiming her rights have been violated, per the new attorney. It was thought the new attorney (the one who filed the federal conservatorship papers) had something to do with Lutfi. So if he's been in contact with both, Britney does not want to be away from Lutfi, another form of defiance.
As far as her particular case goes, I pay no mind to the tabloid reports (teeth whitening) but I have read the court papers. The monitors do say they feel she loves her kids, as even some abusive parents do. They also say that she very often does not interact with them. Her actions are not child centered. Depending on the extent of that pattern, it could be seen as emotional neglect/abuse. Mind you, these were the supervised visits AFTER she had lost custody. In other words, when most parents would be happy to see and play with their kids. The court papers also did say that they were both not allowed to use corporal punishment and they had to not speak ill of the other parent to the children. This shows there were accusations from at least one side. If you do happen to buy into any tabloid reports, this would lend credence to the stories that she yelled at the kids.
My use of the abuse examples was in response to the ridiculous assertions that a mother should always be able to see her kids. The fact is, some should not.
11:34 PM
Anonymous Says:
7:14.. I have to agree with the others. I'm sure you will be back before a week. And if we are so bad then why do you come back every week? You didn't need to say what you did. You just look like a moron. Chicken-Fried by the way?? Who are you? Do you think as one person you know every person in the US? Maybe you should go back where you came from since America isn't doing that much for your dumb self. Oh and you must be 12 because what grown-up says byeeeeeeeeee. Seriously...
11:16 PM
Anonymous Says:
11:05 PM Anonymous Says:
You make an interesting argument. I'd like to point out that so far there has been no evidence of her doing any of the things you mentioned in your questions. (So far from what I have read.) All of what you have mentioned are serious cases of abuse where a parent can not see their kids, but people who suffer from depression to any degree are not forbidden to see their kids IF SO FAR no rape verbal or physical abuse or neglect has been shown.
In my opinion given her previous conduct and or the possibility that she really feels she doesn't want to be a mother (I know too late) she should be allowed to see her kids, with supervision, (as I think this case will go) once she is on her medications regularly, has settled down to a normal health life routine, passes drug tests regularly, sees her therapists regularly, etc.
11:14 PM
Anonymous Says:
10:54, exactly. While she is not stable, there is no telling what she would or could do. First and foremost is the safety of the children. NOT her health, NOT getting her well. That is not what the judge is deciding in regards to custody. Obviously the judge would do all he can to see she will be given the tools to be a fit parent, but he cannot force her to do anything.
She is likely ill. Almost certainly in one fashion or another, or more. People want to explain away her behaviors, indicating a lack of responsibility on her part, but at the same time give that person who cannot act appropriately the responsibility of caring for CHILDREN? How does that make sense?
At this point in her illness, parenting should not be the first thing on her mind to improve. Her health is first for her. An ill person likely cannot cope with parenting two young children. She HAS to be well to take that on.
Of course, SHE has to accept she needs help. Not just in regards to being ill, but as far as her parenting skills. She will NOT get better as long as she denies that the problem is HERS. Her actions even now do not show she is getting well.
11:05 PM
Anonymous Says:
9:24, she was acting out before Lutfi was around. She very likely does have an illness or even more than one, but it does not mean she should be allowed with her kids. There ARE cases of mothers and fathers being stripped of their rights, and rightly so. There is *NEVER* *ANY* excuse for abuse. Giving birth does NOT make one a mother.
She should ONLY be allowed with the kids if she can keep it together while with them. She has shown in the past she CAN NOT. It is not acceptable at any time to place children in that situation. It is more harmful to the children to do so than to keep them away from a person who very well could amount to someone they just knew, not a parent. The parental bond does not come from shooting a kid out. It comes from nurturing and caring for the children. By the court's own account, she has a hard time with that.
"She is their MOTHER and MOTHERS should never be separated from their children"
Really? I guess had Susan Smith's children been found before they had drown, she should have been able to see them? Or the mother who beats her child? Or those who sexually abuse them? Or those who simply humiliate them with words, beating them down verbally? You obviously know NOTHING of child abuse or the effects of a mentally ill parent. That's good for your sake, bad for you being able to comprehend the reality of the safety risks facing children at the hands of their parents.
Those parents in prisons who SEE their children, odds are they are not there for what they did TO their child. They are not considered a risk TO that child. Britney apparently IS or WAS.
Her illness does not excuse this. Not at all.
11:02 PM
Anonymous Says:
9:18, I'm not the grammar police. I did not attempt to correct anyone. I am aware there are many reasons for spelling and grammar mistakes and that they are not always indicative of intelligence. However, I do find the comparison interesting.
10:54 PM
On the KIDS' side Says:
It takes time to stabilize someone with mental illness. Britney does not deserve to see her kids until she's been stabilized and that she can demonstrate consistent, acceptable behavior. Then, it might be good for her to have supervised visits with her children. She is sadly lacking in parenting skills and doesn't seem to comprehend the responsibilities of being a mother. I think that the courts are acting in the best interest of the children at this point, and that she needs to show solid and consistent improvement before she regains the privilege of being a parent to her sons.
10:50 PM
Anonymous Says:
How many times do you all suppose 7:14pm has checked back to see replies to their post? I'm betting at least a dozen. LOL!
10:31 PM
Anonymous Says:
10:23 PM Dorian Gray Says:
Well I guess we can rule you out as a bra burning feminist.
10:23 PM
Sarcasm Says:
you sure do know a lot about crackheads and murderers.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
10:23 PM
Dorian Gray Says:
Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!! Somebody BUY BRITNEY A BRA!!!!
10:23 PM
Anonymous Says:
She has class and dignity and pride just like she always has. She is lost and if you were being followed everyday since you were 16 and were on magazine covers week after week I'd be a little messed up aswell. So for all you Britney haters, go somewhere else.
9:31 PM
Cindy Cell Says:
Agreed, but she has been acting without class for many years.
9:18 PM
Anonymous Says:
To the grammar police: This is not an essay. It's a BLOG. Jeez, go eat some spaghetti.
9:16 PM
Cindy Cell Says:
She is a redneck you know? Had she stayed in her home town it's unlikely she would have been a debutant. She would be a challenge for any cotillion. She lacks pride and class. Both of which money can't buy.
8:31 PM
Anonymous Says:
8:21 yessssss there are still brains out there. thank god. yes it is interesting because people don't realize their own hypocrisy!! i can't believe someone actually wrote something worthwhile...finally.
8:21 PM
Anonymous Says:
I think it's interesting comparing the spelling, grammar, and overall structure of the posts defending Britney versus those who do not.
8:08 PM
Compensation US? Says:
The lawyers couldn't agree amongst themselves -- so Brit will not get visitation with Sean Preston and Jayden James.
There is no change in the custody order. Also, the Commish made it clear - the issues with the conservatorship being removed to Federal court have no bearing on the custody case.
Also, Trope and Trope is out as Brit's lawyer. Stacy Phillips is now the new lawyer on the case.
It's ironic, we know K-Daddy wants Brit to have visitation and the lawyers came to court today trying to accommodate that, but it didn't happen. Daddy Jamie also has wanted to create some normalcy in Brit's life and wanted visitation restored in a bad way, but it wasn't meant to be.
8:01 PM
andy Says:
jennifer
he's being a smartass, duhhh.
7:55 PM
Anonymous Says:
7:14 PM Anonymous Says:
When you check back in a week--
Maybe you are visiting the wrong site. If you expect to find the brightest light bulbs amongst gossip columns, you need to check whether or not you are setting your expectations a bit too high. You don't go to Kentucky Fried Chicken to order gourmet sushi. You also don't go to KFC to make a statement about all food chains/restaurants/eateries AND the people who frequent all of them AND those that don't eat out at all. A bit silly to think that this site, or any site, gives you a clear picture of a whole population of Americans.
7:55 PM
Jennifer Says:
I never thought I would write these words but who knew that K-Fed would be the responsible one?
And 6:59 Blurb, what the hell is your problem? He didn't "make" her do any of that stuff! Her choice to do all that stuff!
