Britney Spears is ‘extremely concerned’ that K-Fed will stop letting her see their sons

29th Annual GLAAD Media Awards - Arrivals

The situation between Kevin Federline and Britney Spears is about a lot more than money. Back in February, Kevin Federline’s lawyer served notice to the court that K-Fed wanted an increase in his child support payments. Since then, accusations have been lobbed back and forth between the two camps (Camp K-Fed and Camp Britney), but all of this isn’t just about money. It’s about how Kevin still has full legal custody over Jayden and Sean Preston, and how Jamie Spears still has a full conservatorship over his daughter Britney Spears. Jamie makes all of Britney’s decisions, from which doctors she sees to which medications she’s on to which contracts she signs and much more. Britney doesn’t have any legal custodial rights over her children. She only gets to spend time with her sons because Kevin Federline allows it as their sons’ sole legal guardian. And now that the fight about child support is getting more heated by the day, Britney is apparently worried that K-Fed will “keep her kids away from her.”

Things could get uglier between Britney Spears and Kevin Federline before they get better. The pop icon has concerns that that her ex-husband could keep their two children from her if she does not agree to increase his child support payments, a legal source close to Spears exclusively tells Us Weekly.

“Britney is extremely agitated and extremely concerned that Kevin is going to no longer allow her to see their children because he has sole custody as retribution for not agreeing to the $40,000 in child support payment, which would be a $20,000 increase from what he is getting now,” the source tells Us.

“Britney’s father, Jamie, had signed off on a modest increase of $25,000, but demanded a monthly accounting of how that money was being spent,” the source explains. “Kevin has four other children from previous relationships, and it’s not Britney’s responsibility to pay for their care.” (Federline shares Kori, 15, and Kaleb, 13, with ex-fiancée Shar Jackson and Jordan, 6, and Peyton, 3, with wife Victoria Prince, whom he married in August 2013.) The source adds that Spears and her father “want to know” what Federline currently spends the $20,000 a month on, claiming that “all of Preston and Jayden’s expenses are paid for while they are with Kevin, from schooling, clothes, insurance.”

“There is nothing that Kevin has to pay for,” the source continues. “Nothing has changed in the care Britney has given the kids and Kevin has acknowledged what a great mom she is … Lost in all of this is the kids, they are the ones caught in the middle.”

[From Us Weekly]

Again, Kevin is under no legal obligation to account for how he spends the money. This isn’t about that. This is about Britney’s finances and Britney’s conservatorship. What I said at the beginning of all this was that I really didn’t understand why Jamie Spears couldn’t just pay what K-Fed was asking and do it quietly. I still don’t know why that hasn’t happened, because if things keep going the way they’re going, it will get a lot worse for Britney. Kevin doesn’t have any legal obligation to allow Britney to have access to the boys. I think Kevin could even make the argument right now, this very day, that he should still have sole legal custody of their sons because Britney is unable to care for them. But what do I know. None of that is going to stop Team Brit-Brit from running to Us Weekly with these “poor Britney!” stories.

29th Annual GLAAD Media Awards - Arrivals

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

72 Responses to “Britney Spears is ‘extremely concerned’ that K-Fed will stop letting her see their sons”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Elisabeth says:

    If she, by his own admission, is a good mom…why hurt his sons by denying her visitation with them? I agree she should just pay what he asks but it does sound like Britney is paying for all his kids not just her two.

    • Zip says:

      It’s always said “she has concerns” that he might do that, never that he definitely will deny her visitation. That’s a difference.

    • K2 says:

      Because a story saying he may do this distracts from the legal reality that California has a formula for child support, and she is drastically underpaying. It just sounds a really suspect manufactured PR job.

      He gets the same money Halle Berry pays for her child, and Britney isn’t just a lot richer – Berry has true shared custody, while Federline has sole. People are saying she pays a lot of other expenses on top, which may be right, and may need to be factored in. But… she’s earning insane money. These are her kids, and this is where they live most of the time. This is their primary lifestyle. Just how much does she need, and why is there a problem increasing it? As soon as they’re grown, she can and should cut their father off, and they aren’t exactly toddlers. It seems really petty, to argue the toss. And I wonder how much money her entourage are being paid, including her father, as opposed to the guy raising their sons.

      I despised him during their marriage – everyone did. But he could have sold his story for a hell of a lot of money, and he could have been extremely obstructive over her contact. He does seem to have put those kids first. And he’s also not gone for anything like as much money as he could have done, either, if money was his only concern.

      I don’t see him as the bad guy here.

      • Evie says:

        I don’t believe Federline could have sold his story without violating the NDA under the terms of his very generous divorce settlement from Britney. He received anywhere from $2 to $3 million for just three years of marriage. Then Britney paid him $15,000 a month in spousal support for the next six years from 2007 when they divorced until 2013 when he married Victoria Prince. That’s $180,000 in spousal support which works out to nearly $1.1Million over six years.

        All of this is very generous for such a short lived union. KFed is a grifter pure and simple.
        And if he decides to withhold visitation rights, he will hurt his two boys who will turn 13 and 12 in September. They’re well aware of what’s going on. Bottom line: KFed only has another 5 to 6 years of leverage for child support and visitation rights – if that. The kids could go before a judge prior to turning 18 to state whether or not they want to see their Mom.

        There’s a LOT the public doesn’t know about Britney’s conservatorship and why it’s still in place. Britney appears to be stable and happy. She does not seem to pose a danger to herself or her boys the way she did when she had her much publicized breakdown in 2008. I sincerely hope Britney is better and will one day get out from under the conservatorship.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        The California formula is a starting point for support calculations, but there are exceptions to this rule. One of the exceptions is for extremely high earners/wealthy people like Britney. If the courts followed the formula in her case, Kevin would receive far more money than he would ever need to pay for the boys’ care. Moreover, the law does not require absolute equalization of lifestyles between the parents’ homes. So K-Fed’s comments about Britney’s home and the boys’ electronics and other luxuries are largely irrelevant in this matter, particularly when it appears Britney has done a lot to ensure K-Fed could provide a better than average living environment for their sons (e.g., bought him the house in which they live, paid spousal support, and pays for the boys’ education, healthcare, clothes, etc.).

      • Cine says:

        BearcatLawyer — ding ding ding.

        Also, if the court orders Kevin to produce an accounting of expenses he by god will have to do so; all it takes from Britney’s team is to allege misuse of funds. He’s lucky she hadn’t pressed it before. Worse case scenario, her father ends her conservatorship, she has legal standing to fight for physical and legal custody. The hiccup would be if the physician who certified her as being incompetent does not now certify her as competent.

        As written above, Kevin is a leech … just because he’s doing what’s in the best interest of his kids with Britney, doesn’t mean he’s going above and beyond. He’s simply doing a decent thing any parent would do.

        Calif law does not allow child support to interfere with custody visits, unless an extreme situation arises…Even then, the non-custodial parent has rights. Period.

    • Amaria says:

      I believe she’s a good mom (at least relatively good compared to what kind of mom she used to be) because of her conservatorship and very controlled environment. There’s a reason behind every long lasting conservatorship – no psychiatrist or judge takes these things lightly.

      • Oik says:

        Exactly. Britney is stable but she is not well, that much is very clear. For her conservatorship to still be in place her ability to manage her own life is non existent. Even if her father & other paid people were grifting, the courts are not. She is an extremely unwell woman.

    • Alice says:

      He cannot deny visitation and access in the absence of a court order specifying precisely that. This complete no*sense. Sole custody does not entitle anyone to deny access. Custody is about decision making and it doesn’t include deciding that the kids won’t see the other parent. One can lose all custody and still have the same access and visitation schedule.. Only extremely dangerous parents who have exhausted even supervised access and still proved dangerous are denied access and visitation as access to both parents is The Child’s Right and it s firmly believed to be in the child’s best interest barren serious crime. No parent can deny this right without the court’s decision stating so.

      “Kevin doesn’t have any legal obligation to allow Britney to have access to the boys.”

      See above. Completely untrue. Sole (or ny other) custody does not allow to deny access or visitation which is the Child’s right and is always defended by the court to the last possible option. In fact, custodial parents are usually held up to much higher standards to prove they are facilitating a healthy relationship with the non custodial parent because it is in the child’s best interest and the custodial patent has the hild most of the time. On this parent fall the main responsibility to ensure this relationship is thriving. He can try and deny access, many do an pay for it. It’s surprising how many try given how foolish it is.

      • Oik says:

        He could limit it to visitation only though, and given her situation almost certainly to supervised visitation only. He doesn’t and never has. This is a nasty smear put out by her people.

      • Alice says:

        @Pik This is incorrect. He on his own cannot do anything singlemindedly and of course he hasn’t. He can only stick to the court order and she can apply to change this court rder. Given the time she has spent with the boys and seemingly a good time, it is more likely a new status quo will be respected, i.e in court what matters is facts and the facts are in her favour re :visitation. There is no “her situation” to prevent her from seeing the boys regularly. These are two separate issues and family court in the absence of proof she is danger to the boys will not allow her other issues to be admitted as evidence. Even proven abusers have visitation albeit supervised. It is hard to limit it and denying it is nearly impossible except in cases of proven crime.

        P.S. Not sure if I understand what “limit it to visitation only” means in your post. In legal terms it is the time spent with the children. Access is the other term and often they are meant to be interchangeable. Visitation doesn’t mean her to visit the boys at his place. It means the boys to visit her and spend time with her.

      • still_sarah says:

        Former family lawyer here. With regards to visitation, I think it depends on what the existing order says. If the visitation is unspecified (i.e. “generous access to be agreed upon by the parties”, blah, blah, blah), then K-Fed could reduce her actual access. If the access is specified, then he would have trouble reducing the actual access because it is SPECIFIED, not unspecified. That is the big hitch. But I have no idea what the existing access order says.

  2. Lisa Giametti says:

    Well if he leverages visitation on money then we know exactly the type of creep he is.

    She is doing well and from pictures, the kids seem happy when they are with her. What a monstrous thing to do, hold money over her head in order to have a relationship with her children.

    It is up to the court, not Britney, Jaime or Kevin, how much of an increase he gets or may not get.

    Again, if he refuses to let her see the children, then my suspicions about him are right on the money.

    • runcmc says:

      “What a monstrous thing to do, hold money over her head in order to have a relationship with her children.”

      To be fair, nothing suggests that he’s actually doing this. This is a report from sources that Britney is worried that he MIGHT do that, not that he’s indicated he would in any way. This seems like a plant from Britney’s camp to make Kfed look like a money-hungry bad father, when there’s no actual reason to believe that.

      • Cine says:

        I would bet he’s given some indication that he might try to leverage visitation for increased support.

  3. rabbitgirl says:

    God help me, I can’t believe I even care about this drama. But here goes. He is the full time parent raising their children. She is the one making the money. By all accounts he is a dedicated father. She has the money. Why not pay him what he asks? Given what she earns, it should not be a problem. If the gender roles were reversed, we would want the woman who has given up her career to stay home with the kids to get a cut of the money. Spears is able to make this money because she is free from having to be a full time (or even part time) parent.

    • MadamNoir says:

      I don’t think any one is questioning if he’s a good father. I think the problem is, is he using the child support money he gets from Britney to take care his other 4 children. If he is then it’s a problem. It’s not Britney job to take care of his other children, him and his wife. It’s pretty obvious Kevin and his wife are supporting themselves with the money Britney gives him for child support because his wife doesn’t work and Kevin is a part time DJ.

      • rabbitgirl says:

        The contract can stipulate that all funds must be accounted for as going to the children. I would have thought that already is the deal? Does he have custody of his other two kids? If I recall, one baby-mama was an actress who is likely has full time custody of the child. In any case, I think it would be really strange if two children got to – for example – go horseback riding, while the other two had to watch because they were not part of the settlement. I mean at some point, the kids doing stuff together is going to overlap and I am not sure how one accounts for that – especially when two of the children are rich and can have whatever they want. But it is fair to say that he and his wife raise BS’s two children full time. So I am not sure why someone with her money would take this much issue paying at least a bit more.

      • Beverly says:

        Britney pays beyond the child support payments – she pays for the private school they go to, the health insurance they have, any necessities they need, all the sports leagues they have joined etc. So in actuality, she is paying way over the $20,000 a month. So you have to ask why does he need more money-the boys really do not eat that much food!

    • Lisa Giametti says:

      However, in the end, it is up to the court what he gets, not Spears or Federline. Additionally, she is not the mother of his other children, therefore her money should not be used as child support for them.

      • Lara K says:

        Yes but….
        Realistically if you have 6 kids in one home, are you REALLY going to treat them differently? Like, sorry little K, the steak is only for Brit’s two boys. Here’s your gruel.
        It’s just not practical or realistic.

      • rabbitgirl says:


        Right? I was just thinking, you get horseback riding lessons for the special two kids while the others watch. I mean the other option is to raise them all at the same level as the child with the least money. But then BS shows up and showers the two with gifts and likely asks for them to have a certain life-style. So I can see how this could become a problem for the other children in the house. Of course she is not required to pay for the other children. Yet they are the siblings of her two boys and they are all being raised together. Maybe for the sake of her boys having a happy and healthy relationship with their siblings she could make a sacrifice – which considering everything – is not really that much given her wealth.

      • Veronica S. says:

        That would tear a family apart, though. Psychologically, the toll on the “not rich” siblings would be immense, and it would create serious issues with family power dynamics. If you divorce, you have to accept the reality that your partner will continue their life elsewhere. Splitting hairs over payments helping out the other kids is just petty and unkind.

      • Evie says:

        @Lara K

        I believe he has 4 kids in his household. His two eldest children by Shar Jackson live with her and he allegedly pays child support. I don’t think there’s any danger of his two kids by Victoria Prince, being forced to eat gruel: $20,000 a month buys a LOT of steaks. For that money you could feed an orphanage!

        The fact is, Britney’s kids have been spending more time with her in recent years including going on vacation for a couple of weeks at a time. During those periods, KFed is still collecting the child support.

        Ultimately the court will make the decision. I’m guessing they may give him an increase but possibly not as much as he’s looking for. A few years back, KFed went to court and asked the judge to get Britney to pay for his other kids to attend the same expensive school as Britney’s two boys and the judge denied that.
        If KFed gets an increase I hope the judge also questions why he doesn’t get a job. His kids with Britney are now almost 12 and 13 and do not need constant supervision.

  4. Other Renee says:

    Has Kevin made any indication that he would punish Britney AND by extension his children by curtailing visitation? This guy may be a user but he stepped up to the plate when Britney fell apart and by all accounts has been an excellent father. No need to sling mud until there’s a legitimate reason to do so.

  5. PoodleMama says:

    I’m assuming Jaimie has some sort of fiduciary obligation to account for how Brit’s money is spent and that is part of why he hasnt just agreed to increase the support. I don’t really see the harm in Britney getting some sort of credit for the money she spends on the boys (excluding insurance and private school) in addition to the monthly support. It seems odd to me that if KFed was only spending the money on the boys 20k a month would be more than enough for him to buy their clothes.

    I think an increase might be justified but $60k seems like a lot. Diddy, Russell Simmons, and Ronald Pearlman all paid way less than that to their baby mommas and all have a much higher net worth than Britney does. So I am curious where the $60k figure comes from.

    • MadamNoir says:

      Me too ! He gets right now $20,000 a month for the two boys plus she pays for everything else. So he’s saying he can’t support two boys on $20,000 a month or is that he can’t support 6 kids plus himself and his wife on $20,000 a month? He gets $240,000 a year in child support, that’s a lot of money.

      • rabbitgirl says:

        I’m really torn here. I know people who have six kids and don’t have that kind of money, still managing to do okay. But, BS’s boys are used to a certain lifestyle while living in a home where the other children do not have that kind of lifestyle. So either all the kids are raised at the same income level as the child with the least income in the house or they all have to be raised at the same level as BS’s boys.

        Would BS agree to have her boys in a public school, no security, no expensive activities, trips or toys? If she would, then Kfed and his wife could likely support all six kids. But if BS demands that her children have an affluent lifestyle, then as a parent, I don’t know how one would be able to allow that for two of the children while the other four would be left out.

        The other option is that her family could fight for custody of the children and give Kfed visitation and holidays. But none of them want to take that on or at least don’t seem to want to. So we are back to square one. How do you raise 2 rich children in the same house with 4 kids who don’t have much given their dad’s limited work?

        So I think she either has to account for all of the kids in the same house as they are siblings or she needs to have her family get custody of her two boys.

      • NameChange says:

        Really! The fact that the other two have a different mother is not their problem. KFed can work. His wife can work. They are able bodied. Why are you sitting back relying on your ex-wife and then complaining that you can’t provide the same kind of lifestyle for your other kids when you and their mother are grifters?

  6. K says:

    A child support increase is warranted when the non custodial parent has an increase in income. It is some bs, however, that this increase is on top of her paying all his expenses and he is taking care of 4 other kids and a wife! He admitted he makes $3,000 a month. Her money is his primary income! She is supporting his whole family. Child support is supposed to be support for the children, not the parents. I’ve known parents who receive child support and immediately just put it into a savings account for the kid. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for an accounting of how that money is spent, though it may not be the practice for family court. If any of that support goes to pay for school or activities of his other children, that’s wrong. His other children are not entitled to an elevated lifestyle because their half siblings’ mother is rich and famous. The other kids are already benefiting from Britney because they live in the house she pays for. It’s not cool.

    • Sherry says:

      This. If Britney had custody of the boys and no longer paid child support, those other kids’ lifestyles would be drastically reduced. That family would be living on Kfed’s alleged $3,000/month (and I’m suspicious he even makes that amount). Their income is going to be drastically reduced in 6 years anyway and Kfed and his wife have done nothing to prepare for that other than sitting on their butts spending Britney’s money.

  7. Astrid says:

    I just don’t get this situation. Brittany is well enough to work but yet is under a conservatorship and doesn’t have any custody rights to her children? Seems kind of whack to me, people/family are using her.

    • Snazzy says:

      Totally. I think her dad has been playing fast and loose with her money for years and doesn’t want to let go.

    • Olive says:

      exactly. they’ve got her hiding behind conservatorship when it’s convenient (not testifying in those court cases) and then acting in the press like she’s an independent adult (pretending like she can even have any custody) when it’s convenient.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      There are different kinds of conservatorships depending on the affected person’s capabilities and the prospect of future improvement. For example, parents are routinely granted conservatorships over their adult children with developmental disorders such as Down syndrome. These adults may be capable of living fairly independently and working but may not have the ability to manage finances or make appropriate decisions about their healthcare.

      It seems obvious that this conservatorship has kept Britney medicated and functioning. But we honestly have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Does she take her meds willingly? What happens when she does not take them or needs a dosage adjusted? Is she truly capable of making good decisions about her life and for her sons? Does she need a lot of supervision to ensure she is not a danger to herself or others? Just because Britney appears to be a reasonably competent loving mother and talented performer in public does not mean she is always like that in private. She might never dream of doing anything to hurt her children while still exhibiting significant self-harming behaviours.

      My point is: outward appearances are deceiving. Conservatorships are usually in place for the long-term for good reasons.

    • Louise177 says:

      I don’t understand the conservatorship either. Britney is well enough to tour and make albums but too unstable to go to court? I feel like although not contractual she and Kevin have joint custody. The kids seem to be with Britney a lot. I would think she could go to court to make it legal but her father and legal team seem to think that it’s in her best interest to remain in conservatorship.

  8. HelloSunshine says:

    Well, my comment saying that conservatorship is very complicated and every penny has to be accounted for before they can change things like payments got eaten by the mods. But my point still stands, it’s not as easy as just giving KFed more money.

    And i don’t think it’s wrong to ask where the money is going when everything else is paid for. Adding on the mortgage, car, schooling, etc. probably puts the actual child support monthly at a much higher number than 20k.

  9. Eggsbenedict says:

    Here is the confirmation people have been looking for that Britney covers all expenses and he gets $20,000 in addition to that. If Kevin wants an increase, fine, he’s potentially entitled to it, but let him cover the expenses when they’re with him. He doesn’t need to clear $40,000 to $60,000 extra, tax free, with no expenses.

  10. Lisa Giametti says:

    @,Lara K, That is a ridiculous example and no one is suggesting that he done. Spears already pays for the children’s needs beyond the $20k. It is ridiculous to assume he cannot make it on $20k when their expenses are being taken care of by the mother. As everyone else has mentioned, male celebrities who are wealthier are paying less child support.

    Spears is not responsible for supporting four children who are not hers.

    Maybe Federline should work and support his four other children.

  11. ZigZags says:

    This is a lot of money to most of us, but to the Spears estate, it’s pin money. Raising Britney’s children isn’t like raising our children. There are a lot of issues involved that typical parents don’t have to think about. Security, private schools, therapy, etc to name a few. He also makes it possible for Britney to have routine access to the children all of the time. If Kevin wasn’t the full time parent to those boys with their additional “needs”, he could get a full time job and earn more money to support his other children. But he can’t. That’s the reality of this situation.

    It’s not our money and it’s not up to us to decide whether or not he’s worthy of the money or how he spends it. Even if we think he is a greedy couch potato, we shouldn’t throw away the current child support system to hold him more accountable than other custodial parents. The system was designed in a way that penalized custodial parents (mothers) for decades because it was based off of patriarchal and sexist ideas about women, men’s earnings, and parenting. It’s a bit more fair now. Dealing with the Kevin Federline’s of the world are the price Britney has to pay for this more equitable child support system. We don’t dismantle the system because we think one guy took advantage of a poor, defenseless millionaire pop singer.

    Additionally, Kevin’s other kids are part of what makes Britney’s boys lives “normal”. They have enough challenges to deal with. Is it just to penalize their father financially because he supports other children that play a large role in Sean and Jayden’s lives?

    Britney is going to be fine financially. She can afford the increase and it makes a happier, more peaceful home life for her sons. That’s money well spent in my mind.

    • Canadian Becks says:

      So the “reality of the situation” is that a full- time parent, which many of us are, is precluded from holding a full-time job?!?


      • Veronica S. says:

        Exempting the fact that he has two previous children to support, I can deal with him being at home given all the scheduling issues with Spears’s lifestyle. It’s the fact that his wife *also* doesn’t work that looks bad PR-wise, IMO.

    • Evie says:

      @Zig Zags: There’s another issue to consider — what kind of example is Kevin Federline setting for ALL of his kids — that it’s perfectly normal and acceptable to not work? If so, they are ALL going to be in for a rude awakening when Britney stops paying child support in 5 to 6 years. The other four kids won’t be able to tap KFed to help pay for education or college or buy them other essentials, let alone luxuries, since he doesn’t seem to work or save anything. Sean turns 18 in 2023, so KFed’s payments will get cut by 50% and he loses them altogether by 2024.

    • Muffy says:

      If Kevin is so busy then his wife should get a job.

    • Lady D says:

      He can have 2-3 more children if he gets his increase.

  12. Anna says:

    The 20k is just spending money. In addition to covering all expenses for the kids, I believe she also pays for Kevin’s house. (Which his entire family benefits from.)
    I don’t know what the procedure is in family court, but I think it would be perfectly appropriate to ask any parent receiving child support to account for where the support is going. Perhaps not as far as providing weekly grocery receipts, but a general statement showing how money is spent, and why more may be needed.
    This is regardless of gender roles. And if a stay at home mom wanted to stay at home, post-divorce, that should be accounted for in spousal support, if necessary.

    • Plaidsheets says:

      If a SAHM wanted to stay home after the divorce, that should be accounted for in the payment schedule? As lovely as that sounds as a SAHM, that’s not realistic at all. If I get divorced, I have to work. If I want to stay gone, then I need to stay as a family.

  13. Juls says:

    This case gets really complicated when you start opening all the wormholes. Is Britney currently paying more than enough considering that she already pays all of the expenses? Should she not pay more just based on her increase in income alone? Is KFED using the $ from Brit to support his entire family? Would he really hold her children from her (hurting them) to get more money considering she seems to be great with them? Is he hoarding the money for later, knowing the boys will be 18 in a few years? As for his other children, should they not have the same lifestyle as their siblings while in his home? Of course. I dont think anyone is arguing that they should wear rags while Brits boys wear designer clothes. What about Shar’s kids? If they are living in the lap of luxury while with dad, but not with her, then does she not also have a case for her own child support to be increased? Is Kevin paying child support to Shar using Brit’s money? So. Many. Questions. This is why this case needs to be in front of a Judge to sort it all out, with the Judge having access to all the financials of BOTH parties. Sort it out privately, decide what’s fair, and make it legally binding and move on.

  14. Digital Unicorn says:

    The issue of money and lifestyle for his family has been bubbling for years – IIRC there was a story a couple of years ago where he asked her to pay for his other kids to go to the same private school as her kids, so yeah this is about him using her money to keep his WHOLE family (6 kids and a wife) in a lifestyle that neither he or his wife can provide for.

    Let the court decide, he might get the increase but it might also means he has to cover expenses from the cash and account for it.

  15. Veronica S. says:

    I mean…he’d be an absolute garbage human being for doing so, since his kids would be losing out as well, but I can understand her fears. God, did her parents do a number on her. I can’t imagine being in my thirties and so powerless in regards to the major decisions affecting my life.

  16. Readhead says:

    Sole legal and physical custody does not give one parent rights to deny visitation. In fact, refusing to allow the other parent to see her children can result in a loss of sole custody. The court or a jointly made agreement may put restrictions on her visitation (supervised visits for example), but unless she is abusing the children in some way, in which case the courts would have to make a ruling, visitation cannot be denied. As long as she is still not legally in charge of her own life, being granted joint custody could be problematic, but otherwise has no bearing on visitation, especially if she is a good mother by all accounts and the children want to see her.

    As for child support, this is a separate issue. In fact, child support and custody arrangements normally have separate hearings and paperwork in a court (unless it is mediation hearing). California courts are very adamant the two issues be kept separate for this very reason. If the agreement of support payments was made when she earned less money, he can ask for an increased based on an increase of her salary. However, she is only obligated to pay for 50% of any educational or medical expenses beyond the child support so she can turn around and refuse to pay 100%. He could then send them to a less expensive school and get less expensive health insurance which is his right with sole custody. He probably has an obligation to consult her, but is the ultimate decision maker. She does have grounds for an itemized list of how the money is spent if an increase is granted and he does have to show an expense report as part of court proceedings anyway. While child support can go to part of the rent, or mortgage expenses and car payments as well as food for the household (anything that may be needed to care for the children properly), he could be in trouble if it is discovered he is paying for other children’s schooling or luxury items for himself or his wife. That could help if she chose to seek joint custody and with joint custody she would be required to pay less of her income in child support as child support is often determined by a set calculation using salary of both parents and time spent with each as factors.

    • Erinn says:

      But I mean – what are we calling a ‘good’ mother. She seems to love them, and provides for them. But she can’t even legally make her own decisions – how much of a parental role could she ever play in their lives? On top of that she endangered them in a vehicle, and cops had to go to her house because she was refusing to allow them to go with Kevin during his scheduled time.

      I can’t imagine she would even be able to seek joint custody at this point.

      And I don’t think it’s out of the realm of believable that he could legally limit her visits in some manner. I think he’s been pretty lax with a lot of things in that area. But I’m sure he could stop her from taking them on vacation (he’d need to sign off for her to take them out of the country) and could probably put in place supervision (or more, not sure what they’re at right now) and things of that nature.

    • Alice says:

      Thank you! I wrote the same before seeing your comment. In this and Jolie/Pitt threads the custody terms are completely messed up. Also, most people seem to not make a difference between joint which is also called joint legal custody and shared. And definitely no proper presentation of the visitation and access to both parents which is the child’s right and not some exchange token. Totally agree on the losing custody for denying access or even just trying to play this game.

      @Erinn Highly unlikely to be able to stop any visitation be it regular or vacation. Again, regular access is the child’s right and the courts are determined in ensuring this right is granted. To limit the other parent’s visitation regardless if it’s daily or vacation requires serious proof of neglect, abuse, maltreatment, etc. It’s not easy at all, thankfully.

  17. Grant says:

    I’m not sure that Kevin CAN deny Britney possession and access, legally. I’m a family law attorney here in Texas and child support and P&A are two totally separate entities–meaning that you can’t deny the other parent access based on the other parent’s failure to pay child support. Even if Britney doesn’t have any decision-making rights as to the children, there’s probably a court-ordered schedule in place whereby Britney sees the boys (first, third, fifth weekend; every other weekend; etc.) in order to maintain consistency in the boy’s lives. I don’t think Kevin has any grounds to deny access unless he tried to modify the schedule in the court order.

    • Erinn says:

      I’m going to bet that he’s gone above and beyond that visitation schedule. I can’t imagine he HAS to let them go on vacation outside of the country – but he has plenty of times. He’d have to sign off on allowing that. I think ultimately, he’s been pretty flexible with their schedule.

      • Grant says:

        Right, but bottom line is that he can’t deny her access based on her refusal (or Daddy Spears’ refusal) to pay more in child support. They’re two totally separate entities and if Kevin has given Britney more time in the past, he’s going to have even less of an argument to make for denying her visitation now.

      • Alice says:

        Of course he has to allow them. In fact, in most court orders it is specifically stated that a travel consent won’t be unreasonably denied. He would need to have a jolly good proof that the vacation is against the kids’ interests to prevent it.

  18. Denisse HL says:

    We need to wait and see what a judge has to say about the case. The reality, for all the people defending how the other kids cannot have a different lifestyle, is that in 7 years, when his younger is 11, they will have to start living on the 3 thousand their father makes.
    In my opinion, and I have nothing against K-Fed, he is trying to prepare the family for that time, probably by saving for the future. His older kids do not have the same style as the 4 living with him, so is not a matter of how much he cares, it is a matter of how the family will live once Britney´s kids are over 18.

  19. BearcatLawyer says:

    What I will never understand is why K-Fed seems to think he is above working. None of his children are babies anymore. They do not need constant parental supervision, especially during the school year. Lots of people who don’t marry Britney Spears work every day to support themselves and their families. Why should he be any different?

    He could have invested his divorce settlement/spousal support in an education and a mix of mutual funds and would have been just fine if he had lived a less lavish life and did not have six kids. But he chose poorly and squandered that money. I feel he is about to learn some harsh life lessons as a result of this attempt to seek more child support.

  20. VintageS says:

    I am not team Brittney, in fact don’t really care for her or her music, but I do feel sorry for her. She’s another Judy Garland/child performer victim. What has she ever known but to be a show pony and cash register for her family? If her parents weren’t such stage parents I bet her life would be totally different.

    It’s the same way with the youngest Kardashian. She’s been brainwashed and brought up to be vapid and shallow. Sad. Easy to say they are adults now, but when this is all you’ve known it is difficult to make changes.

  21. Marty says:

    She is worried that he will prevent her from seeing the kids. He has not threatened to do it as far as we know. Yes, Jamie needs permisson from the courts to change the agreements. They settled different lawsuits over the years on her behalf without going to court. Why is Jamie not settling on a figure? I seriously doubt that Brit is really in charge of the children when they are with her. I suspect they are supervised by a nanny or a security guard when they are with her. I seriously doubt that she is ever completely alone. I think someone watches over her all the time. It seems clear that she loves her children. Even though she may love her children, we do not know if she exhibits proper behavior around them at all times. I personally suspect that she is really ill. Just in case, I would love to see an independent investigator to check on her situation to verify that the c-ship is medically necessary and that she is being properly cared for.

  22. Kayzilla says:

    I think Kevin is trying to get himself set for life before his gravy train runs completely off the tracks, i.e. Jayden turns 18.

  23. Loca says:

    When has Kevin tried to get a job to support his own kids. We are talking about a grown man here. And yes child support should be audited because alot of mothers and fathers do not spend on the actual needs just to turn around and ask for more money. My friend would never buy her kid clothes even though she had a job she would say that’s my exes responsibility after receiving her check. And would buy her new husband gifts with that money. People abuse situations and scamming people out of money is not right. Team Britney!

  24. Sarah says:

    Kids, this is why you need to be VERY careful about who you procreate with…you are entwined for a loooong time.

  25. Jeanette Rushing says:

    I do feel for Brit, her whole life seems like a hamster on a wheel. I get the feeling she just wants to spend time with her boys and Daddy is the one making this an issue. If she is paying all the kids’ expenses down to toys why the need for additional funds? She has paid for KFEDs lifestyle since they married. At what point is he responsible for throwing some money instead of sperm into the deal? In 10 years he has worked what 2 or 3 times? If things are that tight, why have more kids? I mean who’s heart isnt full with 5 kids around.. He needs to be a man and work. The bottom line should be, who is suffering from lack of funds? Brit’s kids? I think not.

    • Evie says:

      Well, Britney has more than enough money to retire and do nothing for the rest of her life. Apparently she does like to perform and there have been stories out there that “it centers her” and keeps her focused. It’s clear from all the photos that Britney loves her boys and they love her. That’s what’s most important.

  26. Matrioshka says:

    She should petition to get custody of her kids.

  27. CairinaCat says:

    Kfed needs to be very careful, the boys will soon if not now, be old enough to make their own decisions.
    They can get their own lawyer and choose to live with their mother or their grandparents.
    Once children are around 13, the courts in California most definitely listen to the children’s wants.
    And a good child advocate lawyer can make that happen

  28. Oik says:

    Even at her most unstable he didn’t prevent her or her family seeing the kids. When she was refusing to see her parents for over a year he made sure the kids had a relationship with their maternal grandparents. This seems like a really nasty (and completely fictitious) thing to put out to the press.

    • Alice says:

      He cannot prevent anyone from anyhing. Sole custody is not dictatorship and is not permanent. When it comes to access and visitation,most certainly the court order is extensive and precise. He knows very well to not cross this line and sticks to the court order.

  29. Deeanna says:

    How can a person who does not have custody of herself possibly gain custody of someone else? I don’t think that can happen. Therefore, Birt Brit would have to get out of the guardianship/conservatorship that she’s under before she could do anything about regaining any custody of her children. She has visiting rights which Federline has generously accommodated.

    Brit’s father “saved her career” by almost throwing her back on stage when she was obviously still quite ill. Remember that awful performance when she was so out of it = at the Grammy’s I think? That was Jamie. And yes, Jamie has since then argued in court that Brit does better when she is “leading a structured life”. Which is performing. What else would she know of having a life at this point? She has been doing it since she was a young teenager.

    After the Grammy performance debacle dad Jamie had her booked for a world tour. In order to get her to perform the tour, Jamie hired Federline to accompany her on the tour along with the two boys.

    Brit had a manager/boyfriend at one point to whom she became engaged. The guy actually became co-conservator (along with Jamie) of Brit for about 6 months. Then the engagement was called off and the ex-fiancé was promptly off the conservator papers.

    Jamie apparently exercises such close control over Brit that she cannot even have a phone that he does not monitor. Probably because she did at one point attempt to hire her own attorney to challenge the conservatorship. That didn’t go anywhere.

    It is a really messed up situation. Brit is pulling in mega mega bucks. Not just from concerts but also from numerous and varied merchandise sales. She is one of the highest earning of entertainers.

    Jamie should just pay Federline and quiet this down. Or else someone might look into just how much he’s gotten out of his daughter over the years. Federline’s time is almost up. Presumably everyone knows that knows that.

    Sounds like Federline is a “get along, go along” kind of guy. Why not spread the love? He has indeed cared for the children and will continue to do so. Why make waves when the increase he’s asking for is a drop in the bucket compared tp her total net worth?

  30. Deeanna says:

    Estimate net worth as of Nov 2017 = $215 million per websites. And Kevin wants a raise from $20 to $40K per month?