Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Kevin Tries To Keep Kids Healthy

They eat Doritos, chug soda, chew gum and stay up late - just like Mommy.
These are just a few bad habits Britney Spears lets her baby boys - Sean Preston, 22 months, and Jayden James, 11 months - indulge in when they are away from dad Kevin Federline, Us magazine is reporting.

Spears feeds her kids "total crap" and passes them off like hot potatoes to unqualified nannies when they start fussing, sources tell the mag, due on stands in America on Friday.
The story is revealed by The new York Post.
"She fed Sean ice cream before bed because the cold would make him sleepy," said a source.
"She would make both babies - especially Sean - stay up later so they would sleep longer. The kids were constantly fussy because they weren't getting enough sleep, which only made Britney more frustrated because she hates it when they cry."
She often lets them crawl on dirty floors and suck soda out of their baby bottles, sources said.

For his part, Federline has become a doting dad, according to the mag.
"He's getting them into sports and dancing," said a Federline pal.
"The nanny has been working with Dad on serving healthy food."
Meanwhile, photographer Andrew Deetz, who claims Spears' bodyguard beat him on Thursday outside a Las Vegas spa, released a statement yesterday claiming the pop tart threw a baby bottle at him and yelled, "I'm going to kill you!" during the incident.

Source: daily telegraph


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but I don't believe this story and I find this week's US to be disgusting. They plastered the kids on the cover in hopes of making money of the children. It creeps me out when I see celebrity babies with tabloid covers basically devoted to them(does anyone remember the Shiloh cover last spring?) in hopes of making profits.

If this story was true than I hope Kevin would have filed for primary or emergency custody but since he didn't I doubt this is true. If it is true than it tells me he really doesn't care enough about the children to get them out of that situation.

Anonymous said...

This is a crock of shit.

Yes, if Kevin was that much of a father, he'd demand full custody. As a Britney fan, I think the world of her talent, but far less of her state of mind. I think Kevin is a PR-driven father, but that is much better than psycho mom. The fact of the matter is, Kevin won't sue for full custody. He wants his boogie nights, and he wants his child support payment stream to remain unchallenged.

Anonymous said...

Kevin is the best!!!!!

Anonymous said...

You can tell someone from Kevin's camp is feeding these stories. Look at how Britney is trashed and Kevin is praised in the same article. Sounds fishy.

Anonymous said...

"The nanny has been working with Dad on serving healthy food."

Is to difficult to raise them by himself ?

Anonymous said...


i think kevin is afraid to take her kids, he knows he can, but if does do that britney will go crazy, i mean totally crazy, she may even kill herself.

you know how kevin would be trashed in this world by everyone. they would all blame him.

and that is very tragic.

Anonymous said...

Ok I was wrong Kevin is GOOD DAD !!!!!!

Anonymous said...

FeEX doesn't get photographed because they aren't interested in you, Kevin.

In the end, they're interested in Britney & of course she's going to get photographed with her children alot, she can't even take a dump without it being in the papers. What do people expect, her to build a compound & stay in it at all times, so her children can have 'normal lives'. She's filthy rich, doesn't really have to work, so she does everyday normal things, goes to the store, gets her nails done, gets some coffee, goes shopping---EVERY mother I know who is a stay at home mom fills their time up with stuff like this---just because certain people don't agree with that type of lifestyle DOESN'T mean she's a bad parent. Though, I don't agree with the activities we see in the papers---she's kind of like 'the boring mom'; she needs to do more fun stuff, instead of taking her kids on errands. PATHETIC LOSER

Anonymous said...

Kfed is a baster & a loser

Anonymous said...

the only reason the media is interested in brit is cuz she is such a fuck up, they are just waiting for her next fuck up cuz that is where they get their cash for her pics. showing her fuck up, proving it.


seriously now. what is she in the media for ? there are bigger stars than her that do not bother with the media.

god, you brit fans are stupid.

Anonymous said...

Po Po Popozao! Damn that KFed is talented and interesting.

Anonymous said...

This "story" is recycled from a few months ago! Not only that, but from what has been shown of the children's teeth, their bottles, and stories from chefs who've cooked for the family on outings...they eat pretty damn healthy, their teeth look like every other baby's teeth, and they appear to have milk or apple juice in bottles.

Not only that, but do you seriously think that if it could be proven that Spears was feeding her children all sorts of shit...that Kaplan or better yet, Kevin SHOULD step in...yet they haven't. Now why is that?

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...

yup it was mentioned a few months ago, and then dropped. the ppl who cook for her are going to say something bad about her ? lol if you believe them you truly are very gullible. least you recognize that they " appear " to have milk/juice.. you cant' even type with confidence in what you are saying.

why do you think brit has not sued anyone, any of these magazines ? and when she has, she has LOST, cuz she CANNOT PROVE that the stories are false.

Anonymous said...

^ Those chefs are from restaurants not her own personal chef. So they have nothing to lose by giving out what she ordered....EVERY restaurant does that with celebs. Not only that but we have pictures of SP eating veggies and spaghetti...and drinking milk and juice. Last time I checked sweetheart there isn't a soda that has the exact consistency and appearance of milk. As for the juice we also have pictures of Spears with the apple juice container she used to pour the juice....and again, it didn't have carbonation, had the appearance of I'm going for it was juice.

And sweetheart, it is harder in America to sue the tabloids because they use clauses such as "we were told" and " a source close to..." meaning they are just "reporting" what they were "told"....they can and would argue that they aren't stating it as fact, they are just going off of what someone said. Which is the tabloids out clause. In fact, the US is the hardest country to bring and win a lawsuit over defamation and slander. One can be issued, but only very few cases actually make it to court or settlement! So, I'm going for she/her people don't want to pay the court/legal fees it takes to issue a lawsuit only to have it float around for a while and do nothing. The standard legal line for tabloids is "We stand by our story given to us by our source and will vigorously defend it." Yet in almost every case that went to court (most of the celebs file against English tabloids...which funny enough, I haven't seen very much from them....GB has stricter laws for tabloids and such) they cannot provide actual proof of their stories (in fact, in most cases the celebs provide proof that the story didn't occur) they rely on "this source gave us this".

Every other time Spears has sued the tabloids with the exception of the "Did they make a sex tape" one Marty Singer has won, sweetheart. And in fact, they should have won the "sex tape" lawsuit too. The judge in that case did not look at the actual definition and requirements of slander because that story fit the bill. Hell, there were a number of articles from various parts of the law who made arguments after the judgment was rendered that stated she had a case and the judge wasn't looking at the entire thing.

Anonymous said...

to the above poster.

i cannot be bothered to read your novel of bullshit, but i did scan over it. and

britney has NEVER WON in any of her lawsuits. and i stand by that.

go do some research and prove she won ONE of them.

have fun.

Anonymous said...

^ She has won judgments against a number of European tabloids, as well as cease and desist orders for a number of US tabloids... and retractions from British and American publications.

In 2006 she filed a lawsuit, ( I believe the judgment came in in July) and she won an retraction and apology (which is what her firm asked for) from The National Enquirer. She also sued (and won) 7 other US and British tabloids for repeating the story.

She has gotten cease and desist judgments ( which can precede or coincide with an actual lawsuit) against several US and British tabloids...the most recent being OK Magazine(this month) and the SUN (April).

She has also won ( and I use that term lightly to explain judgments in her favor) lawsuits against several tabloid photogs who've tried to sue her- the cases were thrown out. She has also threatened to sue a number of publications/media outlets...thus they issued an apology and partook in actions. The billboards in FL. being one of them...they issued a public apology and took down the ads.

Well there you go a number of judgments in her favor. It isn't all bullshit it is actual fact.

By the way, she could have won the US Weekly suit if the judge looked at the whole claim. It had legal validity of libel and defamation in the "minor" portion of the lawsuit. If Judge Cole hadn't shunned the minor claim (for which Spears had the strongest case against) the lawsuit would have continued into court. It's NOT a judge's proper role to say, "Well, never mind this valid claim that you've included, because I can tell you only really care about the other claim."

Why Spears brought the suit is, frankly, none of the judge's concern; the judge's only concern ought to be its legal validity.

Spears's "acting goofy" claim was far from legally baseless. Indeed, it was the better of her two claims.

Instead Judge Cole stated "It is clear that [Spears] did not bring this lawsuit because she was falsely accused of acting goofy."

The court wrongly slighted Spears' claim by simply referring to it as a claim that she "acted goofy" - without providing any context. A claim that Spears acted goofy at an amusement park would obviously not be defamatory. But US Weekly claimed that she acted goofy when she learned that her private sex video was going to be sold by a stranger as porn for public consumption. In other words, it suggested that she thought being transformed from pop star to porn star was no big deal.

Such a claim can plainly be damaging. Spears's fan base consists of teens and young adults - many of whose parents may have a relatively conservative view of sex. Although as she's gotten older, Spears's sexuality has gotten more explicit, her music videos remain very far from X-rated. The argument the judge accepted wrongly blurs the line between the airing of "Chaotic," to which Spears consented, and the distribution of her sex video as porn, to which she did not.

Anonymous said...

these 2 kids are going to grow up to be freakish looking big headed big gut animal white trash...oh yeah in that part of the south that brit is from being a bigheaded white goon is considered the "Master Race"...

Anonymous said...

Britney should have just slept with a fan. It would have been cheaper (no child support), as she wouldn't be forced to support that pizza delivering dropout for the rest of her life. The kids would have been smarter too.