Kevin Federline: ‘Everything for me is all about family, I’m the modern-day Mr. Mom!’

Kevin Federline celebrates his 40th Birthday and performs a DJ set in Las Vegas

Now that all of the lawyers and – presumably – forensic accountants are involved in Britney Spears-Kevin Federline child support situation, I wonder how much we’ll be hearing about the closed-door stuff. Kevin reportedly wants his child support doubled, from $20K a month to $40K a month. Sounds like a lot, for sure, but keep in mind (again) that Kevin still has sole custody of their sons and that Britney has easily made about $200 million in the past decade. It feels like Jamie Spears is leaking (or trying to leak) damaging information about Kevin so that Britney can “win” in the court of public opinion. Well, Kevin spoke directly to In Touch Weekly and in a few words, he just painted himself as a happy, homemaking Mr. Mom.

In an interview with In Touch, Kevin Federline talks about his No.1 priority.

“Everything for me is all about family,” Kevin, who is currently in a legal battle with his ex Britney Spears over his request for more child support (he reportedly wants her to double the $20,000 he receives per month), shares. “I’m the modern-day Mr. Mom!”

When it comes to co-parenting his sons, Sean, 12, and Jayden, 11, with Britney, his philosophy is simple. “I want to do everything in my power,” he says, “to give our kids a great upbringing.”

[From In Touch Weekly]

In truth, many people shade the Mr. Moms of the world, but some guys genuinely want to be around to raise their kids as much as possible. By all accounts, Kevin IS a devoted father, a Little League dad and a hands-on “Mr. Mom.” If the genders were reversed, what would we say about a housewife and stay-at-home mom wanting an increase in child support payments commensurate with her ex’s increase in income? But because K-Fed is a dude, they’re trying to say that he’s emasculated because he takes care of his kids. Speaking of, Us Weekly has another shady story about how Britney (or Jamie?) doesn’t want to give Kevin any more money:

“Kevin seems to believe it’s fair and much lower than what a judge would order based on her income,” the Spears insider reveals, noting the singer recently wrapped a lucrative Vegas residency.

The pop star, 36, already covers their sons’ expenses, notes the source, so “they believe this is nothing but a shameless money grab. Kevin hasn’t had a full-time job in a long time. He just continues to sponge off Britney.”

Though Spears cannot have full custody of the boys while under her dad’s conservatorship, “she absolutely will not allow Kevin to take advantage of her,” asserts the insider. “If he even dares to withhold her kids from her after asking for a child support increase, there will be hell to pay.”

[From Us Weekly]

No, really, what kind of “hell to pay”? Because Kevin holds more cards than Jamie and Britney understand. Or maybe they do understand and that’s why they’re throwing slime at Kevin all over the place. Kevin has full custody. If he wants to stop allowing Britney to have any kind of visitation, that’s completely his call. If Britney herself wanted to hire a lawyer to argue that she should have joint custody or visitation, she and her lawyer would have no standing because of her conservatorship. Ugh, why are the Spears peeps making this so dramatic? JUST PAY K-FED. The amount he wants is a drop in the bucket of Britney’s fortune. Or it should be! Which is why I’m glad Kevin wants an audit.

4th Annual Hollywood Beauty Awards at Avalon Hollywood

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

139 Responses to “Kevin Federline: ‘Everything for me is all about family, I’m the modern-day Mr. Mom!’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kitty says:

    My husband would have loved to stay at home with our daughter, but he makes more money so it just made more sense for me to stay home

    • Erinn says:

      We don’t have kids yet, but at this point my husband is WAY more of a hands on uncle than I am an aunt. He just adores kids – and he’s good with them. If I made more money I’d 100% be on board with him staying home. Unfortunately/fortunately, he makes almost double what I make.

    • Lela says:

      Also there is nothing wrong with being a stay at home dad, and people aren’t shading that at all, what people are shading is that he’s a stay at home dad and his wife is a stay at home mom so they all live off of Britney’s child support, one of you should also work to provide for your kids because in 7 years the child support stops and those 4 other kids will not be getting a free ride from Britney any longer.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Maybe his wife isn’t working because her two kids are 4 and 7yo. Even with help, I’m sure that having 4 young children at home must be a lot of work and there is certainly many people that would rather enjoy those years with their kids instead of going to work every day. She’s a teacher, no? She’ll probably go back to teach once the youngest one is starting school.

        I’ve read a lot of shade about KFed’s wife and the fact that she’s not working, but you know what? She’s the one taking care of Britney’s sons on a daily basis, not Britney. She and KFed are the ones parenting Brit’s kids, sending them to school, making them lunches and making sure that they’re doing their homework. By all accounts, those kids are happy and striving and it’s in part thanks to her.

      • Lady D says:

        You make it sound like she should be paid by Brit for doing what she signed up for when she married him. I wonder if he told her Britney would pay the bills?

      • Georgia says:

        Thank you Lela for pointing out that no one is criticizing Federline for wanting to be a stay at home dad. What I find infuriating is that he will not work beside dj-ing a few times a year, his new wife has no job either and Britney shouldn’t have to maintain Federline and all his other kids.
        Brotherly affection between her kids and their half brothers is not Britney’s problem.

      • holly hobby says:

        I believe it was mentioned that one of the things Brit pays for was a nanny? Or housekeeper? Whatever it is, let’s not pretend poor Victoria (Federwife) is waking up at 6:00 AM to make breakfast and pack lunch for the kiddies.

        I agree with people here. One can stay at home and not both. This gives the impression that they are using that extra cash (and it is if Brit pays for living expenses) on themselves and their own kids.

        I do believe the Spears is holding the better cards. If the judge orders them to pay more then that’s fine. However, they have every right to stop payment on all those extra goodies (house, car etc). He can use the extra money to pay for those things.

      • magnoliarose says:

        None of us know anything about her situation. We only know what Jamie is putting out there, and it is biased. She could have a trust fund or get money from annuities. We don’t know, and it isn’t essential in this situation.

      • Felicia says:

        I think that both parents being voluntarily “stay at home” is a luxury you need to be able to afford. Kevin seems to have blown through his divorce settlement, so it’s probably safe to say that he doesn’t have income coming in from investments. Unless his wife has some sort of independant income of her own that allows her to choose to stay at home, the $ that Britney pays for child support is what is affording her the luxury of making that choice.

    • Eliza says:

      But this is her ex husband. Her ex husband is choosing to stay home watching all of his kids (4? I forgot) on his ex wives dime. No shame to any say at home parents, i tried to get my husband to stay home but he got promotion and it didn’t make sense as now we both make the same: i switched to work from home.

      If it’s true… she paid for his house, all of his children’s school, and her boys expenses, what does he need 40k a month for? To buy them the same large presents as Britney can? I’m all for keeping kids in the same lifestyle with both parents, but it seems they already are so doubling seems odd. I can see a 15-30% increase if it hasnt changed in a few years but a 100% increase is just odd.

      • Dutch says:

        It not odd because the figure is tied to Britney’s income. Breaking down the figures of the story if Brit has made $20 million a year over the past 10 years that’s $1.6 million a month. $20k is 1.2 percent of that monthly income. In many states the percentage of income calculated for child support is as much as 25 percent of the non-custodial parent’s income. Even if Britney is paying for other things, I’d be willing to bet it’s not close to the $400k a month K-Fed would be legally entitled to. $40k a month is a bargain.

      • Obvious is Obvious says:

        Her EX husband is probably the only person that didn’t sell her or her story out to the tabloids when she had her breakdown. Her mother, her ‘team’ and various other people around her sold her out, when Kevin kept his mouth shut.

        He kept the kids away from the media, and Britney is incredibly lucky that he has agreed verbally for her to spend any amount of time with the kids. She had those kids locked with her in the bathroom, threatening suicide.

        Pay the man. It seems more and more like he’s the only person in Britney’s life that didn’t and doesn’t continue to sell her out. There’s so much he could say to make a quick buck off of, and he’s never said anything.

  2. Nicole says:

    These guys are either really stupid or unaware of how this works. He could be getting high 5 figures per month based on what she makes. The fact that this order has been in place for more than five years is amazing because she’s been raking in the money for a while from her tours.
    And yes he holds all the cards. He’s stable and by all accounts takes care of the boys full time with no issues. Team Britney is not winning this

    • Char says:

      The real issue is Britney’s conservatorship. Why isn’t she able to live her own life? How can someone be able to work hard, make lots of cash and legally not be able to buy a bag without asking for permission? If she’s examined by doctors and proves to be stable, she could have her kids back. Obviously Daddy Spears and Kevin wouldn’t want that, so Kevin is threatening them to get more and eventually Daddy Spears will have to pay and shut up. Poor Britney, she is stuck in between people just wanting her money.

      • Nicole says:

        Except if Kevin didn’t want her to have her kids she wouldn’t ever see them. Fact is we do not know what her diagnosis is and we probably only know a fraction of what happened during her spiral. I don’t like either guy but her dad is the reason she is not flat out broke and dead. You would be surprised how easily she could be taken advantage of even if she seems stable from our end. We don’t know anything in reality.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Her life is a very strict routine and perhaps that’s the only way for her to actually feel comfortable, that is the only reason why Britney “seems” fine. If she’s been under a conservatorship for more than decade now, it’s because she needs it and you can be sure that she gets a medical evaluation every time her conservatorship is renewed. Conservatorships are extremely hard to get (we had to request temporary ones twice, for my granddad and my aunt), it’s not something a court wants to grant easily as it means that you’re stripping someone’s freedom away.

        Now, that doesn’t mean that she’s not surrounded by vultures, however, it seems like it’d be even worst if the conservatorship was lifted

      • Wren says:

        When she did her first Vegas residency, this issue was brought up a lot. How can she be able to perform but not, say, buy a pair of shoes or take care of her kids? I remember Jaime talking a lot about how she loves work and thrives on the pressure and energy of performing. So the idea was that “work keeps her stable”. Show business was the only life she’d ever known, and the argument was that she didn’t know what to do with herself if she wasn’t recording or performing, thus downtime made her problems worse.

        I have no idea if that was true or continues to be true. Just looking at her it’s hard to imagine that the life she has now is really what’s best, but we don’t know.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Jamie is a scumbag. I wish that would be understood.
        In January they moved to get her a conservatorship for life. He has no interest in helping her become independent. Now when Kfed asks and wants to go to court to have her money and taxes examined then two days ago, they announce to end it. But only after a tour. We will see.
        Hmmm, what changed in that time?
        Does that seem like the actions of honest people?
        They have done this before when people look closely. They pretend she is making progress and soon. But that was several years ago. They won’t let her even discuss it in interviews when she tries.

        I believe Jamie is sweating bullets now that Nickelodeon fired Dan Schneider and their role in what happened to their other daughter Jame Lynn. When that scandal gets exposed, and victims speak out it will shine a bright light on why Britney is the way she is. Amanda Bynes was a Nick star under this pedophile. He is worse than Singer in many ways. Let that come out, and these PR plays will look like what they are.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Char,
        Evidence has to be presented to the court to have something this serious not only put into place, but kept in place for an extended period of time. Obviously her medical records and other pieces of information support the need for a continued conservatorship. You can’t get one of these for a family member just because you want one, there is a high standard to be met legally.

    • still_sarah says:

      @ Nicole : But I don’t know if the $20,000 per month includes all of the other kids’ expenses that Britney pays 100%. Maybe it doesn’t, so Brit is actually paying much more than $20,00 per month when it totals up. However she has made MILLIONS in the past few years since the $20,000 was agreed to and I believe a judge would eventually award K-Fed more money even taking the “extras” such as schooling and travel costs into account. Yeah, he’s a bit of a grifter in finding a rich woman and having kids with her but he didn’t plan on having full custody since they were toddlers, so I will cut him some slack. And I agree he does seem to be a good dad – a good dad who admittedly makes a habit of having kids with many other women (6 kids in all with three women).

      • Nicole says:

        She makes hundreds of millions of dollars PER TOUR. I remember reading about how her Circus tour was a smash and raked in more than 100 mil. It was her first tour post breakdown. She’s not hurting for money and again any judge would take into account all of this. I doubt even the extra expenses would make the increase seem unreasonable.
        Aside from that I actually think he loved her at some point. They were stupid in love but it did not end well. Regardless of how I feel about him he’s been shouldering the bulk of the parenting their entire lives.

      • Merritt says:

        @Nicole

        After all the bills are paid from a tour, it is unlikely that Britney or her team is taking in that much money.

        https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/30/where-does-concert-ticket-money-go

      • magnoliarose says:

        Tours are where they make the most money because of merch added to the gross and the act gets all of that. Jamie takes on many of the jobs that others would do and gets paid for it on her tours. Already her ten shows in Asia alone brought in 10 million dollars. They also get paid when the shows are televised.
        Around a million a show.

      • Merritt says:

        @Magnoliarose

        And everyone involved with the shows gets their cut. The promoter, the dancers, the sound crew, the lighting crew, arena costs, and travel fees.

      • Lady D says:

        Would there be an accountant or lawyer on these tours? Who manages the money from ticket sales, merch sales, etc. Does someone run the night’s take to the bank deposit at the end of the evening? I guess she would also pay for someone to literally sell the merchandise while on tour, and make sure supplies stayed stocked. She probably also has personal staff and occasionally nannies. Just how many people does it take to run a successful tour, 150-300 people per? Oops, I forgot security.

    • Lela says:

      Except the money is not Britney’s it belongs to the Britney estate which is a corporation. Britney is not a majority shareholder in the estate, she gets paid a salary and child support is based on her salary, hence why it’s so low. Jamie has very smart financial advisers, Kevin can’t go after the estate because Britney technically doesn’t own it, all her homes, cars etc are owned by the estate and he has no claim to them. In the documents for the conservatorship the estate was listed at a net worth of $250million whereas Britney’s personal net worth was only $46 million, this was over a decade ago I imagine the estate has tripled by now. Celebrities never ever take all the money as payments under their name or they would be paying half of it in taxes.
      Kim Kardashian for example has 31 corporations, one for her perfume, one for makeup etc. This is how diddy got away with paying $20,000/month in child support only, his corporations are worth an estimated $365million but he pays himself a modest salary so pays very little in taxes and child support. 50 cent filed for bankruptcy because he himself had very little under his name and all the money, properties and whatnot were also under a corporation.
      This is why I think Jamie is okay to fight, he knows Kevin won’t be entitled to much more anyways since the money is held in the estate, I bet Jamie is also the primary shareholder of the estate so Kevin again has no claim to that.

      • Sherry says:

        @Lela – +1000 Most of Britney’s life can legally be paid for as business expenses. She has an obligation to perform in Las Vegas? The home there is a business expense. She has an interview to promote her tour? Her clothes become a business expense. Hair, makeup, clothing, etc. are all part of “branding” Britney for her business. She doesn’t need a huge salary to pay for her lifestyle and she can churn most of what she’s earned back into Britney, Inc.

        As long as celebrities have good accountants, business and legal advisors to guide them, they can get away with paying themselves very little as a salary and still live large.

      • Lela says:

        Yes Sherry! I worked in forensic accounting and now in financial law and the number of corporations and trusts that just moderately wealthy people have is astounding, and all legal. A huge multi-million $ earner like Britney would never have all the money paid directly to her. The Britney estate is the larger corporation that owns dozens of smaller corporations, each dealing with various aspects of her businesses, a la Kim Kardashian, It would all depend on how much she owns respectivly in terms of shares. A decade ago she only owned something like 10% or so, so Kevin’s support would only be based on the income she gets from that 10%. She also as more leverage because his home, cars, hired help etc. is all owned by the estate and the estate can easily pull those away if it wanted.

      • ravynrobyn says:

        @ Lela-”ONLY $46 MILLION”?!?!?!

        In all due respect-pay up Jamie & Brit!

    • SNAP says:

      Dang! He could probably request for the increase to be retroactive to Britt’s Vegas residence start…that would be a nice chunk of money 0.o…

    • Geekychick says:

      I can not believe I’m writing this, but I’m team Federline in this case. those kids could have ended up….bad. really bad. I remember what the court appointed officer(or however it is called, the guy that checks on children’s welfare)-they lacked basic care under Britney’s care. They would be returned dirty, hungry with unchanged diapers. ffs, she did drugs in front of them. she locked herself in a bathroom with a youngest one and created hostage situation! he is the one who made normal, healthy family life possible for them-and decided to change his life to accomodate them: I see absolutely nothing wrong with him getting appropriate financial support. and honestly, I expected more from Spears: like, thanks to this guy, your kids are happy and healthy, well adjusted children. I’d expect her to shower him with money in gratitude, for giving them something she obviously never had: a normal childhood with parent who cares for his children’s wellbeing forst and foremost. At least she should know how important that is for a child.

    • CatFoodJunkie says:

      @nicole. Believe it or not even the great state of California has a CAP, per se, on child support. It is not automatically a given that income vs income is the deciding factor. Personal, situational knowledge, here.

      imho, he doesn’t deserve a huge, 100% increase JUST because she can afford it. She can likely send him $100k without dropping a beat, but that’s not the point. I truly do wonder what that man will do when the CS stops.

      PS I love Cali – it’ll always be home to me. But by golly does she spend a lot LOL!

  3. Snowflake says:

    I think it looks bad for them to be fighting Kevin over this. She makes tons of money, she probably does pay less than what the court would order. IMO, a lot of people would see it as being cheap and low class to not give him an increase. I think that’s gonna be the public perception of this

    • Ehhh says:

      I’m not so sure about that. From what I have seen on other blogs and twitter, people are pretty firmly team Britney. I think this is the only site I’ve been to that is predominantly on K Fed’s side.

      • Kitty says:

        I think you have to look at the legal side of it, she earns more money than she did back then, therefore he can ask for more child support. No doubt he’s a douche bag, but he has full custody and seems like a good father. He lets Britney see the kids when she wants. If it was me, and my husband put our babies in danger, I don’t know if I’d ever trust him again

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is because people don’t like him and don’t realize all the information is coming from Jamie. They also don’t understand the background of this situation and how much a host of people are raking in millions living off her. But 20 thousand extra is really about principle. Nope.
        Now her finances will be opened up and show who makes what. It needs to be.

    • Wren says:

      I don’t know about “bad” but it does look strange. Like, why? If the genders were reversed we’d all be shouting “get that money, girl!” Britney makes a mind boggling amount of money. Why fight this so hard? It’s actually a bit difficult to believe that Britney herself is taking such a hard line. It’s not like increasing child support will make a dent in her lifestyle or like she’d even really notice it. It really makes me wonder if there’s something hiding in the offing that Jaime doesn’t want to come to light.

    • Sherry says:

      I think the problem, for me anyway, is that K-Fed wants to be Mr. Mom, but he has a wife and four other kids to support. It’s not Britney’s responsibility to provide for Kevin, Kevin’s wife and his 4 other children.

      • Evie says:

        @Sherry: I totally agree. I do think this should go to court where both parties have to come clean. If a judge decides KFed should get more money, so be it.

        But Britney should not be responsible for paying child support and expenses for his other 4 kids. He was chronically in arrears paying Shar Jackson child support for their 2 kids. Also, he got a generous $1.2 million lump sum settlement when he and Britney divorced in 2007 after just 3 years of marriage. And according to court documents he received $15,000 monthly in spousal support from 2007 through 2013 when he married Victoria Price when they were expecting their second child. That works out to $180,000 a year and almost $1.1 million in six years.

        Sean and Jayden are 12 1/2 and 11 1/2. Under California divorce law, when a child reaches the age of 14 they can petition the court to live with the parent of their choice OR request visitation rights. Obviously, Britney’s ongoing conservatorship would prohibit her from regaining custody. But I think Kfed would have a difficult time keeping the kids from her altogether — especially when they hit 14. Britney appears to be much healthier in 2018 than she was when she had her much publicized breakdown in 2007. The most important thing is the health and well being of the boys.

      • Janetdr says:

        Exactly Sherry!

  4. TheBee's says:

    You can Mr. Mom ( which is just called being an evolved Dad), but do you need more money for your boys with Brittany or money for you whole family. I don’t know the age of all of his kids but if they are school age, what is preventing him from working exactly. just because he cant travel the world dancing doesn’t mean the he cant invest in a local dance studio or something related and make a living. He would find a way if he wanted to!

  5. ellieohara says:

    THANK YOU KAISER

    The comments on this have been crazy. Women here seem to think they are arguing for equality but it’s just further internalized misogyny. If a man staying at home to look after kids is being called a bum and a loser even on feminist websites, then guess what? DON’T COMPLAIN WHEN YOUR PARTNER CAN’T GET PATERNITY LEAVE BECAUSE OTHER MEN THINK IT MAKES HIM A BUM AND A LOSER.

    The arguments people have made here make no sense. Child support is to equalize out the lifestyles of the child. He doesn’t have to get minimum wage in child support. Yes, he’s been out of the workplace for years and now doesn’t have skills so he’s worried about the future? So what? That’s the situation for plenty of women and guess what – the courts order financial support commensurate with this. Especially since he’s been out of the workplace mostly to facilitate contact between Britney and the children.

    The judging over him having kids to different women is HILARIOUS given that posters were defending Cardi B’s childrearing ability a week ago. People cheer every time a woman takes money from a man no matter what. Sorry but a feminist society is not one where you get to change the rules every time a woman might lose.

    • Snowflake says:

      Agree

    • Eleonor says:

      Co-sign.
      This is a standard situation for thousands of women.

    • Jamie says:

      I feel like most people side eye him not because he is a stay at home dad but he and his wife are both say at home.

      There is nothing wrong with a stay at home mom or dad if the other parent is working. If both parents don’t work then yes. they are bums. There is nothing around it. If neither parents in the household works, they are bums and leeches.

      This is a different story if kevin is a stay at home dad and his wife works a full time job.

      • LadyT says:

        It just comes down to a benefit-cost ratio. Call me a bum but the truth is I don’t see the wife working as hard as a teacher does for a teacher’s inadequate salary as the best use of her time under the current circumstances.

      • Jamie says:

        If you want to think benefit-cost ratio. I think the benefits of teaching you kid how to be a responsible adult that works for a living is the best use of their time. RIght now they are teaching the kids that you dont need to work to live a luxury lifestyle. Since both mom and dad don’t work but they have money for nice houses, maids, and nannies. What kind of message are those kids learning?

      • Bridget says:

        I’m side eyeing him because his children that he’s currently “staying home” for are the ones with his 2nd wife. His and Britney’s boys are 11 and 12 and are in school full time.

    • Wren says:

      Exactly. Honestly, while I’ve always thought that Kevin was more or less a wastrel, what he is doing is precisely what many women do. Not pursuing their career in order to raise children instead. It’s expected of us, so when we do it, it’s no big deal and barely worth mentioning. Of course you deserve child support and/or alimony! You’ve given up the “best years of your life” to support your spouse and raise your children! But if a man does it? Oh no, he’s sponging! Get a job you pig!

      Considering what Britney makes, the fact that they’re fighting this so hard makes me wonder if they’re trying to get out ahead of something.

    • magnoliarose says:

      The nitpicking is missing the point.
      Agreed.

    • Geekychick says:

      preach! Agree wholeheartedly. It also shows all the pitfalls of celebrity culture: she is a beloved celebrity so she must be right and he must be a deadbeat. it was the same with Berry and Aubrey.

    • Shasha says:

      No, we don’t think he’s a bum and a loser for being a stay at home dad, we think he’s a bum and a loser for expecting Britney to support his 4 other children with his current wife when his current wife doesn’t bother to work either. They kept on having kids they didn’t want to pay for expecting Britney would just do it.

    • MissMarierose says:

      YES! THANK YOU!

  6. Frome says:

    The Spears family and her fan army have been disgusting in how they have tried to present this. All this “he should get a job” crap is nauseating not just because of the gender roles problem but because there is no job he could possibly get that would earn him even close to what she makes a year.

    The idea that a man whose co-parent is not only severely mentally ill but works away from home, should let his children to be raised by a non parent so that he can make peanuts that don’t even make a dent in the larger picture is cruel.

  7. Levin says:

    Granted, I haven’t read much about this, but do we know how often she has her kids? It feels like they’re with her a lot.

    • Jamie says:

      Kevin said they are with her half the time in some articles.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Not when she’s touring, and it hasn’t been half lately. Also, he and his wife go with them sometimes.
      She can’t be alone with the kids, so I think she has a nanny. It was going smoothly before because he was willing but that might not be the case now.

  8. Brooke says:

    I am going to side with the Spears side here. I think it was one of your posts last week that made the point that Kevin was also using the
    money to take care of his other kids. I don’t care what you say, he has no real job. A few club appearances a year isn’t enough to take care of six kids. Britney is not responsible to take on that burden either. The money she gives is only to support her sons. 20k is more than enough when you consider that she probably also pays for school, sports and any other thing that pops up.

    If the roles were reversed and Kevin was a woman trying to do the same thing, I would still think it was shady. He also doesn’t deserve a medal for stepping up and taking care of his kids.

    • bma says:

      THIS. he is being a parent. the other parent is ill & so he is the primary caretaker. its admirable (regardless of gender) but it doesn’t mean he’s entitled to more money–that’s just rewarding him for doing what he should be doing anyhow—caring for his children. that’s kinda what you sign up for when you have kids with someone.

      • Lady D says:

        When her income goes up, his child support goes up. It’s the law and it’s fair. I personally think he’s paying child support with the support he’s given from Britney, and I think it’s an ignorant thing to do to Brit. Also, if she’s paying the household/car/nanny bill on top of the $20 grand, he’s getting more than enough. Again that is just my opinion. The law says he will get an increase and it might even be retro-active to when she started in Vegas.

      • bma says:

        that’s literally not the law when you have the kind of wealth that britney has. the guidelines do not extend all the way to her wealth because at a certain point, the money isn’t benefiting the children, its just a windfall for the other parent and is actually unfair to the higher earning parent.

    • Wren says:

      Except that the kids, well four of them I think, all live together full time in the same house. Let’s say the money was only going to Britney’s two sons. What of the other two? Are they to watch as their siblings have the best of everything while they don’t? Are Britney’s sons to be the golden children while the others make do with whatever? What will that do to the relationships between the kids? Kevin is taking care of children instead of pursuing full time work, something that would be expected of a woman. That he wants to care for all his children equally is actually laudable.

      No, it isn’t fair. It isn’t even slightly fair. But if Britney (or Jaime) truly want what’s best for her sons, what’s actually BEST as opposed to what’s “fair”, she won’t kick up a fuss about providing for her son’s half siblings too. Strained or outright broken sibling relationships are very harmful to kids, and her sons will have the best upbringing if there is relative equality across all the siblings. Fair to Britney? No. Best for her sons? Yes.

      • Jamie says:

        shouldn’t kids be taught that life is not fair in a young age? They are going to grow up and people will have things that they dont have. Thats life.

        people like you are the reason why we have this entitled generation, where they feel like they are entitled to everything.

        Britney’s kids have more because they have a mom that works. Kevin’s other 4 kids have less because they have a mom and a dad that doesn’t have full time job. The kids should grow up understanding that if they want things in life they should work hard for it and not be like their mom and dad who does nothing.

        If anything that is a better lesson to them than what kevin is teaching them. Kevin is basicly teaching them that you dont have to work and still have a luxury lifestyle by leeching off a mentally ill person.

      • Merritt says:

        Ultimately that is Fenderline’s problem. The other kids are already in for a rude awakening in about 7 years because at that point Britney is unlikely to be giving Federline anything.

      • Wren says:

        How do you know they’re not learning that lesson in a different way? No, life isn’t fair but is having major disparity of standard of living between siblings (who live together full time in the same house) really the best way to teach that? That’s the quickest way to breed resentment, something most “least favorite” children with obviously favored siblings can attest to. I have yet to meet someone who experienced that as a kid who didn’t carry bitterness into adulthood, usually accompanied by being estranged from their family. I can’t think of one person who said, “my sibling was given everything while I had to watch from the sidelines and goshdarnit it sure taught me gumption and I’m grateful for that early life lesson! my parents were great!” Maybe these people exist, but I haven’t met any.

        No, life isn’t fair but if it’s always unfair against you or always unfair in favor of you, there’s not really much of a lesson there.

      • Frome says:

        Well said Wren. I don’t know what kind of petty human being would demand that child support from a wealthy multi millionaire not cover her children’s siblings who share the same house. Her kids would grow up to be little sociopathic adults.

      • holly hobby says:

        Child support does not extend to half siblings. Those other kids already enjoy an elevated lifestyle when they are living in the house that Spears paid and sitting in cars that she paid as well. He has an extra $20K/month of fun money since he doesn’t have to pay for living expenses. He is most likely using that fun money on his other kids. Not saying it’s right or wrong however Spears does not have an obligation to see to his other kids’ needs.

        life is not fair. Everyone does not get a medal.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They already know life isn’t fair. Their mother is mentally ill. They get it.

    • CrazyCatLady says:

      I’m with you on this too, The kids are physically with Brit a lot, and she has no responsibility for their half siblings and his exes. NONE WHATSOEVER. I don’t buy this twisted as a pretzel logic that it’s Brittany’s responsibility to level the playing field for half siblings. Nah, it the playing field needs to be leveled (and I’d argue that a bit because I live in the real world) , it is THE PARENTS responsibility. And doing it by grifting off of Other Peoples Money is hardly good parenting,

      Totally Team Brit.

    • Merritt says:

      I’m Team Britney too. She is already providing beyond the $20K. She has to be because there is no way that Federline or his wife are pulling in enough to cover schooling and other stuff.

    • Sherry says:

      Something else I’m wondering regarding K-Fed – If he’s not working much, what kind of child support can he offer the first two children? It won’t be figured on the child support he’s receiving from Britney. That can’t be calculated.

      So those talking about it being unfair, two of the half-siblings are living in a great home and living a great lifestyle provided by Britney, plus $20K a month in spending money, while K-Fed’s other kids are probably living with their mom most of the time and she’s only getting a nominal amount of child support based off of Kevin’s minimal (at best) work load.

  9. Smokey says:

    The goal is to provide the same lifestyle for the children in each household. If her lifestyle and what she provides for the children haven’t changed since her increase in earnings then it doesnt matter how much more she made. The court determined it would take 20k per month to provide a lifestyle equal to what Britney provides them in her house. Sure, give him a cost of living increase but he doesnt automatically get more money just because she made more money. That’s why these claims frequently get tossed. If he decides to stop all visitation from Britney, which is his legal right but a cheap thing for a dad who’s all about family, then he still doesn’t get an increase because now there’s not another household to compare standards of living.

    I’m all for him getting child support. He’s raising those kids. I also think that her child support is paying for his 2 other children living in his house and his 2 with Jackson (if she gets any child support it’s coming out of what Britney is paying Kevin for her 2 kids because he and his wife have very limited income except for her child support). Her support money is paying for his 6 kids. It has to be because showing up to Vegas parties doesn’t pay the bills for 6 kids. That’s what Britney is ticked off about.

  10. Veronica says:

    What would we say about a woman with six children by three fathers asking their wealthy ex to increase their spending while staying at home with their spouse, neither of whom are working in the general working market? We’d call her lazy and a gold digger and a slut. Let’s not even kid ourselves. Gender roles certainly plays a factor here, but homemaking and child raising as a profession is disrespected by our culture as a whole, regardless of who’s doing it. Taken by its literal definition, child support should raise when income does, I agree. Granted, this is a slightly more complicated situation than the usual because the actual money maker is under a conservatorship.

    IMO, *Jamie* is the one who’s making this really difficult. Britney doesn’t have the financial control to be the one arguing against the child support increase to this extent. This being said, if KFed does start keeping the kids from her as a form of retaliation, he’s a jackass. Kids are not leverage or bargaining chips. The kids are being met even without a raise in income, so there’s no excuse for that.

    • megan says:

      If she is paying all the expenses for the kids, plus providing a free house for Kfed and his kids and wife to live in, isn’t she already paying more than 20K a month?

      • Veronica says:

        Is the house hers? I’m honestly asking. I couldn’t find data regarding it.

        We do know that she’s paying more than just the child support, at least as of 2010, because she reported a higher amount of child expenses on her taxes, but not so much that she’s likely paying for everything. Ultimately, it’s going into the hands of a court system, so a judge is going to have to make that decision. She is making more money – A LOT – more money than she was ten years ago, so for most cases it’s cut and dry as far as the increase goes.

        Ultimately, I’m not impressed with any of the men involved here since they all strike me as grifters (that most definitely includes Jamie Spears) benefiting from Britney’s mental health issues to some extent, but it is a unique situation and KFed does seem to have been fairly amicable in regards to letting her have access to the children. I can’t really shit on him for that, even if he’s an idiot when it comes to money. He likely has a case for an increase. My suspicion lies more with Jamie for fighting it so hard – either there’s money under the table they’re not reporting, or her income isn’t as high as they’re making it out to be. (Which wouldn’t surprise me because her wealth is subsidizing the careers of a lot of other people.)

      • CrazyCatLady says:

        I don’t buy the “Kevin let’s her have access” so he’s a saint and deserves more money. She is their mother. He has custody because she had mental health issues well over a decade ago which for the last several years seem to be well managed now through medication and oversight. She is healthy enough to work, to tour, etc. so she is no threat to anyone and it is in those children’s best interests to have a relationship with their mother,

        The kids are with her a lot. And they should be, there is no reason they shouldn’t be. I don’t chalk it up as being the grace of Kevin that “allows” that,

        He doesn’t deserve a cookie or money or accolades for doing the right thing by his children which includes supporting their relationship with their mom.

        Is this how low our standards are at this point? Oh he’s wonderful because he isn’t an impediment to his kids being with their mom?

        FFS that’s just weak. And wrong.

        Aaarrrggthhhhh that line has been pissing me off,

      • Veronica says:

        Oh, trust me, I am not arguing for this man’s sainthood. I think a lot of people here are overstating his case where his parenting is concerned because LOL @ the idea that women wouldn’t be given equal amounts of shit for similar behaviors. He’s getting a lot of credit for basic human decency and doing the job women are expected to do “naturally” all the time, and he’s getting a hell of a paycheck to do it. Plenty of single parents out there that don’t have the benefit of $240,000 in child support with a $1.2 million dollar divorce settlement and six years of $100,000 spouse support preceding it, after all.

        Ultimately, though, he’s not the one with severe mental health issues and is providing the stable home environment. That sucks for Britney because she didn’t ask to be mentally ill, and she didn’t ask to be abused for most of her early life, but the situation is what it is. Her untreated mental illness contributed to her failing them as a parent when they were younger. She can’t be the stable parent those children need, so their needs have to come first. That means they stay with Kevin, and she foots the support bill. Simple as that.

  11. Svea says:

    I thought post divorce, assessing the parties assets is over. A deal is a deal. What is it with this business of going back on it?

    • bma says:

      when it comes to child support modification (either direction) its not unusual to look at current/recent financials. the issue here IMO is that people are conflating how much BRITNEY makes versus how much the brand of Britney pulls in. Her brand pays a lot of other salaries than her own and I don’t doubt her “income” has increased but I don’t think its quite what people are saying it is.

  12. Luca76 says:

    People saying he needs to get a job are not only misogynistic but also illogical.
    He isn’t ever going to find a magical job that makes him a multimillionaire. So he could still work full time and be eligible for the same amount in child support. Her income is just way higher and her children are entitled to be supported by her. End of story.

    • Lady D says:

      Problem is, it’s not just her children she is being expected/forced to pay for.

    • Anne says:

      No, of course Britney’s children are entitled to be supported by her. But the thing is, she is already paying for ALL of their expenses. They are supported by her.

      I’m saying KFed needs to get a job not because that way he wouldn’t be eligible for child support, because he really should be eligible for child support. I’m saying he needs to get a job so he can support the four other children he has. Those kids are NOT entitled to be supported by Britney, and they are not entitled to live to the same standard as Britney’s kids. Britney is certainly under no obligation to increase the amount of money she pays so that they can live beyond their own parents’ means.

    • Merritt says:

      People are saying he needs a job to support his other four kids.

  13. aenflex says:

    He isn’t a housewife or stay at home mom. He isn’t a single dad. He’s a married guy who barely works, has a wife and multiple other children, who wants to get rich off his rich ex-wife.

    Britney’s children will never want for a thing, ever, regardless of how much support she pays or doesn’t pay.

    This isn’t about the kids, this is about him.

    • CrazyCatLady says:

      Succinct and on point, Britneys kids are well fed, housed, clothed and educated now as it is, they want for nothing,

      this isn’t about providing anything more for her kids than they already have.

      This is about wanting more for KFeds OTHER responsibilities…..those that have zilch to do with Brit.

  14. Tania says:

    I’ve been avoiding commenting because everyone puts Federline down. It kind of reminds me of needing to be a “perfect victim” when you’re insulted because you have to have lived a perfect life to be believed and valued.

    Kevin is not a perfect victim, he has 6 kids from 3 different mothers, one whom he’s married to. People use that as a weapon against him in this case. Why? He’s raising his kids and by all accounts they’re happy and healthy and in a stable environment. He’s not wrong for asking for more support given how much she’s made.

    Let’s flip the switch and look at Britney’s life. Remember that post with that huge Christmas tree and all those decorations and lights? Why spend so much on that and not want to give the kids the money instead? Doesn’t she love her children more than she loves wasting on frivolous things? Because if she were a dude, conservatorship or not, and we saw how much they wasted and fought child support everyone would be judging that as well.

    I love reading this site but how it goes off the rails on posts like this remind me we still have a long way to go in this far too privileged society.

    • Jamie says:

      I’m sorry i didn’t know that when you are divorced you can’t have a christmas tree.

      She pays 20k a month and all expenses to the kids but britney is not allowed to have a christmas tree and decorations? Which cost what 100 bucks?

      Isn’t child support all about making lifestyles the same. If britney isn’t even allowed a 100 dollar tree and decorations, then she is paying way too much child support since britney lives a lifestyle that she cannot even use 100 dollars for christmas.

      • Tania says:

        You’re completely missing the point Jamie Spears. I’m saying if the roles were reversed and HE was spending a lot of money on Christmas trees and decorations WHILE fighting her on child support after earning $200 Million people would be jumping on him.

        Check yourself.

      • Jamie says:

        if my ex husbands pays all my bills (which goes up as the kids get older) and gives me 20k a month. I would not be asking for more child support and would not side eye him for spending a few hundred dollars on Christmas decoration. If anything i would ask him where did he get that giant Christmas tree because i would like to have one too.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        If you think that tree and those decorations cost only $100, I’ve got some prime real estate to sell you in the Okefenokee. Britney can spend her money anyway she wants, but she is still going to have to pony up more for those kids as they get older.

      • Tania says:

        @Jamie: I see you. Replying to comments on all this thread trying to disavow Kevin. That might work on other sites but please stop trying so hard here. You’re embarrassing yourself.

        As I said – and you don’t seem to be comprehending – if the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be up in arms over what the father wastes money on while fighting the mother over what amounts to pennies in their stratosphere.

        So just stop. I can troll with the best of them. If your ex-husbandS are okay buying you a Christmas tree equal to theirs, more power to them. If they are refusing to pay for their kids AND STILL buying the Christmas tree you’d be up their business.

      • Jamie says:

        I’m don’t see how i’m embarrassing myself in thinking that in a household with 2 parents, at least one parent should work unless they are somehow independently wealthy.

        They are living off Britney clear and simple. I’m not saying Britney shouldn’t pay child support. Those are her children, she definitely should pay child support. But she is under no obligation to support her ex husband and his new wife and their children.

        This has nothing to do with gender. If Kevin was the rich one and Britney was the stay at home mom, i would say the same thing. I would be here calling Britney a bum to make Kevin support her other kids and new husband.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You can smear Jamie. But there are a lot of people who know what is going on behind the scenes. I highly doubt you want that coming out. All it takes is one investigative journalist and a look at the taxes and how much money everyone else is getting.
        I think it is petty af to claim you don’t want the other two kids to benefit. You are so focused on that and not the health of children.
        There are many stories to be told. Keep going. Keep the spotlight on your situation. I am sure some of those paid boyfriends have PLENTY to tell. Even if the NDAs are a thousand pages.

      • annabanana says:

        Jaime, you keep on saying this in each and every post about this. That she pays for everything and that it’s 20k per child and you’ve been asked numerous times to share where you got this info from and you still haven’t shared any proof of these claims. The only thing out there was her tax returns a few years back which showed how much she spent on childcare which kinda doesn’t support your claims

    • Merritt says:

      No one is suggesting that Federline should stop getting child support. Many of us feel money from Britney should be for her children and beyond things like housing, should not be used for his other four children.

    • Wren says:

      Yeah, I agree with you. It’s dumb that I feel compelled to defend Kevin, but I do. If the roles were reversed none of these comments would even be thought of, much less written. It’s like we all agree to ignore how difficult and expensive raising children is when it’s a man doing it while his partner or ex-partner works.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Especially since it was reported she spends over 100 thousand dollars a year on massages and spa treatments. Cool she deserves it. But to fight over 20 thousand extra is silly. He isn’t a criminal. Just not the best guy in the world.

  15. xena says:

    It bothers me incredible to read how easily people jump to the conclusion that one parent can just interrupt the contact to the other parent, just because of having full custody. Visitation rights are kids rights and do not depend somehow on the mercy of the parent with full custody. Doing this is a major traumatizing violation of the kids rights and is nothing that should be joked about or described or presented to a public in a neutralising way. I know, what reality says, but as a child to whom it happened twice, that I was forbidden to see my parents, this really really upsets me and if I could change anything about laws or peoples perception than honestly this would be on my list. Having custody does not entitle you to violate your children or to scare anybody else of by threatening to harm them.

    • Luca76 says:

      In a case where a parent is legally incompetent and has a history like Britney’s which included negligence in supervising the kids Kevin absolutely can limit visitation.

      • Lady D says:

        But it would be a lot more difficult for him to deny her visitation, because they have a decade of normal behaviour from Brit to prove to the court she can be with her boys half the time. He can’t just say, ‘nope, she’s unfit to be near them’ and refuse visits. The court can limit visitation, but he can’t.

      • Luca76 says:

        She’s still legally incompetent. You can’t give someone who is legally a child supervision over children. It all goes back to the supervision and Jamie can’t have it both ways.

      • Merritt says:

        But some states also take grandparents’ rights to visitation into consideration. So if Federline tried to cut off visitation, not only would there be a legal battle, he is risking his own relationship with his kids.

      • Veronica says:

        It would seriously undermine his position about his requests being “all about the kids,” though, and read as a money grab to any judge that isn’t brain dead. Denying your children access to their other parent because they won’t pay you more money is utilizing them as leverage for financial gain, which is a shitty and extremely selfish move for any adult even when this kind of money is on the line. It’s not fair to the other parent (especially one in Britney’s position of limited access to her own money) and it is most definitely not fair to the children.

        Do I think he should get an increase based on her income increasing? Sure. Do I think there is anything about this situation where it warrants using the children to effectively punish Britney for not increasing that support given the money already being provided? Absolutely not. And I guarantee you a legal team would feel the same way.

      • xena says:

        Why is it so difficult to understand that forbidding your children the contact to a beloved parent is primarly a violation of the kids rights? And has nothing to do with “educating” the other parent.
        Something similar like to Britney happened to my mom, she was put into psychiatry against her will and brutally tortured (nobody will ever make describe this as treated because it doesn’t come anywhere close to what was done to her and I know that it wasn’t necessary to this extent, it was convenience and major power abuse) and I was forbidden to see her over the course of mor than a year. Because not seeing us was also used to break her. By doctors. We desperately wanted to see us and were even denied supervised visits. Murderers and their children have more rights then we had. I am not grateful for having been abused, it was not in my interest and it effects every relationship in my life.
        In Britneys case it would even be easier because of all the money involved, because of that thing called supervised visits, she could still see them with bodyguards and nannys and pyschologists present. All the time. And she has obviously shown that she loves her kids and is present in their lifes. The entire speculation about him denying her access to her children is completely baseless and harmful because repeating it constantly does something to peoples perception.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They can go back to whatever court ordered visitation was put in place. That seems fair. I don’t think he would keep them away.
        I remember people behaving the same way when he wanted full custody. They kept saying it was all about the money. Until they saw for themselves why he did that. He didn’t sell her out to the press. It was revealed on its own.

        So they should let the courts handle it. Then all the facts will come out, and the public will have an opinion based on facts and not rumors or press releases.

      • MissMarierose says:

        I don’t know that you can assume that she has a “decade of normal behavior.”
        If that were true, she wouldn’t still be under a conservatorship and Britney would’ve gone to court to get joint custody by now.
        The fact that she’s still under a conservatorship and still can’t buy a blessed thing without permission from her dad and her lawyer a decade later is powerful evidence that she’s still not well.
        When one parent is still unfit to have custody after a decade, the stability of the other parent is paramount.
        He’s still there for those boys every day in ways that we’ll never know and most deadbeat dads would ever even contemplate.
        Pay him.

  16. Mariposa97 says:

    I don’t think Britney should “just pay” Kevin simply because she has the money. The court will decide what if any increase he should get. They should take in consideration the amount she already pays and the other expenses she covers and go off that. I’m sure Britney has accepted that the money she pays in child support benefits his other kids in some way and she has not put up a legal fight (that I’m aware of) to make sure the money is only being used on her kids. The article on this site the other day mentioned he made 1000 per club appearance. If he is the one working to support his wife and all of his other kids then this would not be enough if he only works a couple times a year. The child support money should not be the only income he relies on to support the rest of his family. Every person I know who shares custody has a job, both parents. Even the one who receives the payments. I don’t know if his wife works but both shouldn’t be stay at home parents, how lucky if everyone could do that and still receive money.

    • Jamie says:

      i just can’t imagine what kind of example they are setting for those 6 kids.

      You don’t have to work for money at all. See how we have a big house and can go on vacations and neither mommy or daddy has to work!

  17. HK9 says:

    Brit & Jamie need to look at the long game here. The fuss this makes is not good for the kids, and this is what this is all about. So, pay him. Just.pay. him. And if it’s access to her kids is what she’s looking for, when the kids reach 18, give Kfed a lump sum payment (with and air tight NDA or whatever) to set him up for life so he can’t continue to drag her ie:tell all stories and the like to make money. How she treats the kids’ father will be a barometer of how they treat her when they have the chance to choose.

    • Bosandi says:

      ^good point HK9
      If access to the kids is paramount, then pay him and be done with it.
      But, as I said below, if they just can’t stomach paying him, go to court. Let the judge decide.

    • Merritt says:

      Why should she pay him after the kids turn 18? At this point given everything the public does know about her breakdown a decade ago, there isn’t much he could reveal that would interest people. If he decides to sell stories once the kids are adults, he would be risking his own relationship with their kids.

      • Lady D says:

        With you there. No way she should have to make a lump sum payment to him. He wants to blab, it’s his relationship with his children he will be harming and I don’t think he wants to do that. He is probably depending on the boys to support him from their trust funds after they age out of child support.

      • bma says:

        agreed– i don’t think anything he reveals will really damage her reputation (her state of mind or self-worth is another story though)…the public is generally pretty sympathetic towards her (minus some commentors here who can’t seem to understand her inability to care for her children at the time was due to untreated severe mental health issues–not her willful negligence) and probably would only feel ever worse for her if he spilled dirt on her.

      • Evie says:

        @Merritt: I don’t think Britney will be paying Kfed a dime once the boys turn 18 in 5 1/2 and 6 1/2 years respectively.

  18. Bosandi says:

    I’m a firm believer that the courts should decide on the amount. Period. They should put it all on the table – both sides – and let the chips fall. They had a private agreement, fine, but it’s not working, so call in the courts.

    I am concerned about visitation though. Although Kevin has full custody, shouldn’t Brittany have some visitation rights? Even if it’s supervised visitation? I don’t see how he can just stop allowing the kids to see their mom. How does that work?

    And IF he’s the super dad he portrays himself to be, he should want the best for his kids – emotionally, financially, physically, etc. Removing a parent from a child’s life can be very damaging. Yes, there are many instances where seeing a parent does more harm than good. Is this the case with Brittany? If so, then why has he allowed visitation for so long?

    • winter says:

      He may be possible be overreaching hell even tom cruise gets supervised generous visitation right’s he doesn’t care to use so did mel b ex husband and sadly even some rapist are granted visitation rights.

  19. Gaby says:

    I don’t see any problem with a man being a stay-at-home dad. I don’t think people are judging him because of this. I’m not. I judge him for the following:

    1 – He does have 6 kids. And he does have to pay Child Support to 2 of them.

    2 – His wife doenst have a full time job either, so how do THEY support the two other kids that they have?

    3 – It’s naive to think that Britney only pays for her children, and the decent thing would be to assume that the kids have the same opportunities. But shouldn’t one of them at least contribute to the support of 6 children?

    • Veronica says:

      Yeah, the wife is who I think makes the situation look somewhat exploitative, whether that’s fair or not. KFed staying at home makes sense to me given the complicated scheduling he’s dealing with where Britney’s career is concerned. Her bypassing the opportunity to use their income and his at-home status to further her career is pretty short-sighted in my book. Unless they’re really cutting back on the spending and putting more of it away for the future, they’ve got two kids that still need supporting after the gravy train ends.

      • Jamie says:

        He’s not really affected by britney’s schedule, since all reports say that jamie is the one that shuttles the kids around because kevin refuse to do so. So if anything jamie is the only one that gets inconvenienced by britney’s busy schedule.

      • Veronica says:

        To be honest, the bulk of the travel burden should be on the Spears side. She has the resources to manage it and has the more eclectic living style. He just needs to be available at home for the hand off. As I stated, KFed being a stay-at-home dad does not bother me, but his wife doing the same is what makes the situation look bad to an outsider’s perspective.

  20. D-leon says:

    I dont know how its the law in the States. But in my country he would be having trouble asking for more. He is married and has two more children (who will stop getting money in a few years).
    Also, speaking about children living in equal conditions. They know they have a brother and a sister who obviously live in worst conditions because their dad left to marry Britney, right? I see people complaining about his current household, but why not applied it to his ex wife?
    If you reversed the roles, which court will agree to raise the money to support the ex wife and current husband, who already have two new kids together?

  21. Sherri says:

    So when you decide to have children you must also realize that you must work to support them. How does Kevin pay his first baby mama support if he is not working? Does he not financially support his first two children? As well since neither he or his current wife work who is supporting their two children. It is not OK to demand that someone else support your children. And honestly, if Britney is paying for her children’s needs and giving him $20,000 a month that is plenty to support two children. If Britney is working to support her children Kevin needs to do the same.

    • mela says:

      he was broke when he met Shar and wasn’t she financially supporting him? That’s clearly the dynamic in most of his relationships and if Shar is okay with that, that is on her for financially supporting him and enabling him being a bum.

      Seems like he finds women who are willing to support him. It seems to be the arrangement between him and Britney and him and Shar.

    • magnoliarose says:

      What bothers me in these comments is that they are the same comments conservatives use to cut social programs and entitlements. I volunteer at a food pantry, and since the cuts, we can hardly keep food available. They say well she should get a job. Why did she have children if she couldn’t afford them? It becomes a judgment about the character or perceived character. They demonize the poor so they can get away with giving less.
      Meanwhile, the staff in DC is flying private jets on taxpayer money and grifting the hell out of the treasury. But refuse to give a single mother a few hundred extra a month because her situation in their eyes is all her fault. It shouldn’t be about punishing Kfed. It should be about keeping balance for all involved in a difficult situation. I don’t believe for one minute this is Britney. They talk for her and we don’t know what she would want.
      Of course, this is a lot more money involved. But it is the same attitude.
      So hung up on maybe the two other kids might benefit. Custody will be over in 6 or so years. It seems like a lot to go through for a drop in the bucket.
      So it should be in the courts.

  22. Pandy says:

    I dunno. I do tend to think wow, 20K is a lot of money … and I don’t care if it’s a man or woman getting the payment. However – he was married to her, they have kids and he has sole custody. And she is rolling in money. So, why not go for more money? Sure, it supports his other kids and wives as he has sporadic DJ gigs (i believe), but hey, she married him and that’s who he is.

    You just have to look at Britney’s dead eyes to realize she probably will never really be capable of having full time custody of the kids. so pay him.

  23. Lala says:

    Child support is based on the income of the parent that is paying for it. That’s what I always remember when reading about stories like this…

    • Veronica says:

      To a large extent, yes, but it does take into consideration the amount of time the children spend with the non-custodial parent, whether there are other expenses to which they’re contributing, and how well the needs of the children are being met. A situation with such extreme income differences as this have more complicated calculations involved.

  24. politetia says:

    Britney Spears did everything in her power to get Kevin Federline away from his then ‘pay-all-the-bills pregnant girlfriend Shar Jackson
    Britney Spears just had to have the back-up dancer Kevin Federline and whisked him off to a very expensive honeymoon
    Every power-at-be begged Britney Spears not to have children with Kevin Federline, let the relationship die out. But NO, she had two kids with will-not-work Federline.
    It is time for her to pay-up and wise up about this guy. I have a feeling this will come up again in three years. This man has six children to support and no income nor condom in sight

  25. Tessa says:

    If this was a gender reverse nobody would bat an eyelid

    • Anne says:

      That’s not true. Quite a few people on this thread said they would be saying the exact same thing if the gender was reversed. I would be one of them.

    • Veronica says:

      You really believe an uneducated woman living off child support with limited income, a spouse who doesn’t work, and who has six children by three different men wouldn’t be the subject of public scrutiny?

  26. Lyla says:

    I’m one of the people who thinks that Kevin or Victoria should get a job. And yes, if the genders were reversed I would say the same. The reason I’m saying get a job is not that I don’t think Brit shouldn’t pay more, she should pay more, but she shouldn’t be responsible for paying for Kevin’s other four kids. People keep saying that it’s unfair to the other four kids if brit’s sons get better stuff, but shouldn’t that be on Kevin to level the playing field? When the boys turn 16, most likely they’ll get a car, should Brit buy cars for the other four kids as well? What about college? Should Brit pay for all six kids? Graduation presents? Birthday presents? Weddings? Wedding presents? And if we’re talking about fair, Kevin’s two oldest kids don’t live him, so they’re not growing up like the other four siblings. So how is Kevin paying his child support if he’s not working? And then there are people arguing that Kevin and Victoria will never make the same kind of money that Brit makes. So I guess they shouldn’t even try right? If Kevin wants to have more kids, will Britney be expected to provide for them too so that there will be no resentment among siblings? What happens after Britney’s youngest turn 18 and she doesn’t have to pay child support anymore? How will Kevin and Victoria provide for their kids?

    • mela says:

      The kids have their own mothers that also help support them as well and I would guess that he has 50/50 custody of his other kids with Shar because she is a fit parent. I have a feeling Shar probably is the main financial care giver for their children together (and has been the history of her and Kfeds relationship)

  27. mela says:

    The mother is mentally ill (i don’t care if she gets up and dances in vegas, mentally ill people also hold all sorts of jobs) and he is the primary caregiver and has been since forever. To be honest, she probably looks way more normal than she actually is because she has a PR Team, Make-Up and Hair Stylists, basically a whole team making her look good and even with that whole team – we still can see the cracks in her appearance and image, the illness in her eyes, and her odd behavior to this day. AND We all saw what she looked like 10 years ago left to her own free will and it was BAD.

    I think Britney posts the photos of her kids a lot online because she doesn’t seem them every day and it’s super special when she does see them. It’s clear she is not hands on or doing the day to day mothering – Kfed and his wife are.

    I don’t even care about the details – he is owed to him whatever the law requires her to pay him. It’s not about if he is a loser or a mooch or “should” get a job – the law is clear and he will get whatever the law says he deserves. To me, there is no debate on his character here. If the court thinks there should be an adjustment, thats it. He is going through the courts – not trying to blackmail her. He is doing the right thing, I don’t get all the hate.

    • Ummm says:

      Kevin said himself that Britney has the kids for half the month. So he gets $20,000 to take care of them for two weeks. Basically feeding them is his only expense for those boys.

  28. SJhere says:

    Oh Kevin please shut up!
    Just that headline was all I could stand to read. Stop acting as if you deserve a friggin’ medal for raising/parenting your own children. Boy that chaps my butt!
    Dude, plenty of ordinary men and women with less than $20K a month income work 40 hour a week jobs and still parent their own kids, you are not a Superhero. Jerk.

    Craig Ferguson on The Late Late show had the best line on K-Fed.
    “Never mind wishing The Luck of the Irish on someone, wish them The Luck of The Federline. He is surely the luckiest guy to have bs’d Britneyinto marrying him.”
    Right on.

  29. Duchesschicana says:

    EHH let them both be audited and let the judge decide. He can be a good Mr. Mom and a gold digger just like Brit can have a mental illness and be a decent mom clearly I mean she does have her kids half the time, and I think if they genuinely didnt like her or didnt feel safe they wouldnt see her.

    feel sorry for her in a way they meet im not sure how emotionally stunted she always been due to being wrapped in that Brit Bubble.