Thursday, September 06, 2007

Britney's Nanny Expected to Tell All

A former nanny of Britney Spears who worked for the singer eight months ago and witnessed firsthand her controversial parenting skills is set to be a crucial witness in the beleaguered pop star's bitter child custody battle with ex-husband Kevin Federline, a source tells OK!

Christine Hallet, 37, is one of several individuals, including Britney’s former manager Larry Rudolph, who have been subpoenaed by Team Kevin to give testimony that will decide if he will be successful in gaining majority custody of Sean Preston, 23 months, and Jayden, 11 months.

A source tells OK! that Hallet is expected to reveal the following in her deposition:

• That Britney would often come home from partying in the middle of the night and wake up the babies to play with them, keeping them from getting the proper amount of sleep.

• That Sean Preston’s teeth were in poor condition and his gums were bleeding because Britney wasn’t brushing his teeth.

• That Sean Preston also suffered from severe constipation because of his poor diet.

• That both boys were getting rashes on their skin because Brit was washing them in bathwater containing designer lotions harmful to a toddler’s delicate skin.

"What the nanny reveals about Britney and how she treats the kids will be extremely important to the case," as source tells OK!

Hallet is one of many close friends, family and employees named in court documents obtained by TMZ.com.

Source: okmagazine.com

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's a little to late isn't it? Why wait all this time if she was so concerned? 8 months? She won't look good at all for selling her story as well. I understand why wait all this time to say/do something.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't sound like it was Christine talking to OK Magazine. Who says she didn't do anything, I wouldn't be surprised if she was the one who called DCFS.

Anonymous said...

DCFS has already investigated the claims and filed there findings....They said they could find no instances of abuse or neglect...Their word will be taken over someone who "saw" something MONTHS ago....Beyond that, She and Federline should have done something when it was allegedly occurring!

Anonymous said...

^ You can say that again. Besides, she was hired to take care of the children...why wouldn't she brush their teeth? Why didn't she report it when it was occurring?

Also, if the child has poor hygiene or poor diet to the point where it is detrimental...the pediatrician would have had to say something at the time...possibly to DCFS. Yet, the only claims to DCFS occurred recently. The children have to go to the pediatrician regularly for their checkups and shots so it isn't like Spears can just ignore the doctor.

Besides...Kevin saw the children 3 times a week back in Jan/Feb and he could have said something/done something back then...YET HE DIDN'T...Why not? It wouldn't be hard to tell that your child is not eating properly, getting enough sleep, is constipated, or especially that the teeth/mouth were so bad to the point of bleeding/rotting...so why did he sign off on custody after the fact?

It DOES NOT take DCFS 8 months to come around and investigate claims of neglect so she couldn't have called before! If claims were made back then they would have already been investigated, filed...and if such "instances" were found to have occurred the children would have been removed from her custody and placed with Federline per a temporary full custody order.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that DCFS investigated a couple of months ago and then didn't close it or take further action. They did find that the cabinets were babyproofed, which was one of the complaints. The rest would be pretty difficult to prove, and really, how hard would it be to slap on some locks to the cabinets before they inspected, I'm sure Britney's lawyer told her to do that.

Britney has a good lawyer who managed to get her 50% custody despite everything. Apparently the testimony of those around Britney was needed to convince the judge Kevin should have primary custody, and so that's exactly what they are doing. There are many more stories besides this one that are being told, they may not all be true but if even some of them are - yikes.

I don't know how you can say Kevin hasn't done everything he could. Ultimately the judge decides, it is his and his lawyers job to provide the proof - and he's pretty much doing everything he can to provide it.

Of course he can make sure the kids are well taken care of when he has them. Would a pediatrician report constipation and rashes to DCFS? It's possible, 3 people did complain apparently, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it. Doesn't mean Kevin isn't taking better care of the kids than Britney is if he didn't.

Anonymous said...

^ One, Kevin doesn't have primary custody...that is what he is asking for. He is asking for primary physical custody. He is supplying depositions to support his claim...or I should say more accurately he is subpoenaing depositions because he doesn't have proof of the claims! If he had the slightest proof a family services judge would not hesitate to grant his request and Kaplan/Federline wouldn't have to go thru the exploratory process!

If, back in Jan/Feb, Britney was neglecting and mistreating his children...he should have at the very least seen signs of it and done something about it then. Before he signed off on custody he could have asked that an independent guardian ad litem be brought in to see if Spears was capable, if the children were in any risk, and so forth...Yet he didn't! It wouldn't have been hard for Kevin to realize something was going on with the children and take action...but he didn't! Instead, he signed off on 50/50 custody and still to this day has not requested supervised visits when the boys are with Spears. If he truly felt the children were in any harm there is a boat load of things he could/should do...yet he hasn't! It IS his responsibility to see to the well being of his children...when they are with him and when they are without! If hw thought all of this was remotely going on then, yes, IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY to take action- Call dcfs, file a motion for ROC, file a motion for supervised visits, ask for an independent evaluation.

Two, DCFS, after it investigates the claim, they file a report...If the report is filed as no neglect/abuse found, that "case" is closed. She may have an active file, but in no way (unless she was found to be neglectful or abusing...in which case DCFS would have filed a recommendation and a temporary ROC to Kevin's custody) was the claims from a few months ago still active today...The file, yes. The claims...no.

Neglect isn't difficult to prove, especially if the child suffers from malnutrition or behavior/physical issues related to the neglect. The pediatrician, Federline, and anyone in contact with the boys should and could have stepped in if the boys were as bas as all the reports are saying. Federline is just as much at fault because he essentially did nothing until a month ago. If these incidents happened in Jan/Feb, he should have taken action then. By not doing so he is guilty of negligence.

A pediatrician can and do report such occurrences if it is repeatedly occurring (as that signifies neglect). The ped would definitely report the bleeding mouth and the constant rashes...as again that qualifies a negligence and physical abuse.


If she truly put the children at risk like the reports claim...it wouldn't matter how good your lawyer was! DCFS would overrule the decree...besides, Federline didn't have to sign off on it in the fist place!

Anonymous said...

I said Kevin had 50/50 custody and that he was asking for primary.

Kevin and his lawyer are doing everything in their power to make primary custody happen. I'm sure Kevin's lawyer knows what he is doing and is advising his client on how to handle the case. The key is to provide proof. Who says what they did or didn't do to provide evidence during the initial divorce. The judge decided 50/50 and apparently the smart thing to do was to sign off on that and then provide more evidence for primary custody. You're not going to convince me you understand the case better than Kevin's lawyer does.

You do not know what the pediatrician would or would not do, or did or did not do. Sometimes babies get rashes and it has nothing to do with neglect, it could be allergies, etc., same with constipation. You do not know how often the kids saw a pediatrician.

What is needed in Kevin's case is witnesses who can talk about what they saw Britney doing or not doing, and that's exactly what they have.

Anonymous said...

^ Sweetheart I work for DCFS in Kern County! I know for a fact that upon custodial negotiations per a divorce you DO NOT sign off on custody UNLESS you are willing to commit to it for at least a year (unless circumstances such as abuse occurs). Once you sign off on custody a significant change from the time of signing to the time you file a motion MUST HAVE OCCURRED...in Kevin's case that was all of 2 weeks!

A judge doesn't have anything to do with custody unless the parties cannot agree in mediation. Spears and Federline sorted their's out before it went to a judge. After they both agreed to the terms it was sent to the judge to approve and decree!

Any pediatrician I know would call DCFS if a child had constant rashes , was constipated, physicals came back "funny" (meaning they are over/under weight, show signs of poor nutrition, behavioral issues) because that is a marker for abuse and neglect! At the very least the children should have seen a ped every 4-6 months...and with reports of ear infections I'm sure they saw the ped a lot more than that.

What's needed is witnesses, but Kevin doesn't have any that aren't considered third party (Kaplan has already admitted this!)...hence the depositions...They are going thru an exploratory pre-trail process trying to come up with admissible witnesses! Which if they had admissible proof that she was unfit they wouldn't be doing! Beyond that, DCFS's report is going to hold more weight than anyone else unless they can provide physical proof that she endangered her children.

Anonymous said...

Depositions = witnesses, that's pretty much what I said. There have been people who have informally expressed concerns to Kevin, now they can do it formally. They have no choice in fact, whether they are afraid of the wrath of Britney or not.

For the record, despite what everyone is reporting, DCFS has not closed the report, they were not in court and they refused to comment to the media. It is Britney's attorney's understanding that they will, and she may be right, but it hasn't happened at this point.

You are not going to convince me that all pediatricians would call DCFS over rashes and constipation. And you definitely can not be sure how often the kids saw a pediatrician. They were with Kevin part of the time too, so the symptoms wouldn't be as serious as if they were with Britney all the time. I know enough people who have grown up with abuse to know that lots of times people do not step in when they should. Luckily the kids have Kevin to fight for them in this case.

Anonymous said...

^ DCFS is required to file a report with the court as Kaplan filed a declaration citing the "abuse". DCFS has already investigated and no action has been taken...meaning it is pretty much a done deal. The investigation was completed prior to the last court date...otherwise DCFS would have issued a request for more time to further investigate. Also, if neglect or abuse was even remotely suspected they would have filed an e-ROC...yet they haven't.

He has HAD TO subpoena witnesses meaning no one he has subpoenaed has come to him... which basically means no one around the environment or around Spears has come to him with anything!

Beyond that, Kaplan has stated he needs confirmation from admissible witnesses...which is why he had subpoenas issued. He is on in discovery because he has no irrefutable proof!!! He doesn't have admissible witnesses as of yet! Meaning whatever "concern was expressed" by persons...were not persons actual present during the events/in the environment....which basically means their testimony, unless confirmation is provided by an admissible witness, is basically considered nothing more than hearsay!

Children are supposed to go to the pediatrician regularly...and the children keep the same ped whether they are with their mother or with their father (b/c they have joint custody and all matters pertaining to medical is the decision of both). The pediatrician would notice a pattern and most, if they follow the law...report it.

I'm not going to argue with you about the number of children that are subjected to abuse and the number of cases we currently have because it is pointless! I KNOW there are hundreds of thousands of children that are needlessly abused, who aren't reported. That being said, doctors are required by law to report even suspicions. I'm not saying that all do, but given Spears/Federline's history and file regarding their children...I'm pretty positive the doctors would have said something if the child's mouth was rotted/bleeding or they showed signs of malnutrition!

Anonymous said...

You really want Britney to be innocent don't you? Someone with such bias should not be working for DCFS.

Anonymous said...

^
You pretty much are sounding like you hope Britney abused the kids just so Kevin can have more custody. The person who works at DCFS is pretty much telling you what usually happens in cases like this and you are disregarding all of her insight because you want to believe Britney abused them. Granted the girl is weird as hell but I honestly don't believe she'd hurt her kids.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Britney is physically abusing the kids or has made a conscious decision to harm them. I think she loves them. She's just not thinking like a parent, and she's not putting them first. She's too used to the world bending to her wishes, this is a completely new situation for her. They need her to nurture them, they have every right to be first in her life (unlike the demands of other people around her), and she's not responding well to it. It's either her way or the highway. And because she's not in the right mindset she makes lots of mistakes.

It's not like I think Britney should never see her kids, that wouldn't be in the best interest of the kids, but I do think Kevin is the better parent to be around more of the time. He seems way better at understanding what the kids need and being able to provide it, and it's going to be much better for those boys self-esteem to be around a parent like that.

Anonymous said...

You really want Britney to be innocent don't you? Someone with such bias should not be working for DCFS.

I am NOT biased and it isn't even a case in my county at any rate. I'm simply stating that from what I've seen and heard about the goings on and then what I know of the system...I don't see the neglect claims (which obviously were unfounded). Why should the decree be changed if she has done nothing "wrong"? Because I (and most of the civilized world) don't like the way she dresses? Because I don't like what she eats? Because she shaved her head? Went to rehab (If reports are true that nothing to little was found in her system and she didn't have to complete the 2 day detox...then it works in her favor. If she was addicted...she completed and was discharged...which works in her favor also.) Because when she takes the children out they are subjected to photographers? (every celebrity baby is subjected to that!) Because she goes out when the children are not in her custody? I've got a newsflash for you...it doesn't work like that!!

Believe me, I've questioned the girl's actions plenty of times but the way it works in the system is unless those actions directly affect or endanger the children...they have no merit. Her shaving her head, lack of clothing, partying 2-3 nights a week...it means nothing as it did not directly endanger her children. The photog situation is debatable and then the judge would have to set a precedent..as most, if not all, celebrity babies are subjected to the paparazzi.

The problem I have with this "case" is as follows:

Federline willingly signed off on the custody decree, not once but twice. The final custodial agreement (which was signed off on when the divorce was finalized) was after all of the questionable things Spears did...YET Federline still agreed to 50/50 custody and didn't even ask for supervision! He could have easily gotten supervised visits because of her behaviors.

Two weeks after the custodial decree was filed into county court he comes along and files for primary physical custody...citing that the children would be safer with him. If he, for a second, truly believed they were in even the slightest bit of danger he should never have signed off on the agreement in the first place. If he wasn't happy with the terms he shouldn't have signed. In custody disputes per divorce proceedings...upon the first meeting to discuss custody each parent should state their concerns and provide any and all information and evidence as to why they have concerns. You DO NOT wait until the decree is finalized to voice those concerns!

In the state of California, in most cases, when you file a motion to amend custody...it is in relation to the last time the custody was in question (so in this case...when the divorce and custody was finalized) and the point of which you filed the motion. In this case it is 2 weeks? What substantial change occurred within those two weeks? Why if his case is the children are safer with him didn't he file a temporary ROC, citing that he was seeking a change in the custody order? The boys could have still spent time with their mother...they would have just moved households and legally resided with their father....which is what he wants in the first place!

The fact that currently Kaplan is on a fishing trip trying to get admissible witness testimony is fishy to me. You don't typically file for primary physical citing the other parent poses risks or puts the child at risk...without having creditable, admissible evidence to start. Kaplan has stated on two separate court dates that he wants to talk to people who were in or around the environment. That he wants to talk to someone other than a third party witness (whom is inadmissible)....which basically amounts to "we are hearing this and this, but have evidence or testimony from anyone actually in or around said events"...so we need to get someone that was...hence, the subpoenas. Nothing anyone who wasn't directly present or involved said is admissible unless they find confirmation from someone who was directly there.

In relation to filing...you don't spout off that the children are in some sort of risk with the other parent and then NOT take any action to ensure the children are safe! You ask for a Guardian ad litem to be brought in (They can investigate both parents extensively starting with childhood indicators of behaviors and moving on to today. Their sole purpose is to discover what is best for the children). You ask for supervised visits. You ask for an independent psychological examination, you ask for testing...You do all of these things to properly ensure that the children are/will be cared for while in the custody of the parent who is "risky". YET Federline hasn't done any of that!


Nor did DCFS find any or suspect any neglect/abuse/ endangerment when they investigated at any time!

All of that makes his motive questionable!


I certainly believe both parents can benefit from parenting classes. In fact, I'd go so far as to make it a requirement because they both could use it. They both can benefit from growing up some too!

Anonymous said...

^ You are incredibly biased! If you are the person I think you are you were POSITIVE Britney was going to get full custody and prove you were right all along about Kevin being this horrible person. That didn't happen and now you're coming up with all kinds of reasons to explain why what is happening now is all wrong.

Give it a rest already! I sure wouldn't want you working on anything related to anyone I cared out.

Anonymous said...

^ I've NEVER stated the Britney was going to get or even deserved full custody because I've yet to see where Federline actively endangered/abused/ neglected his children...which is what needs to occur before a parent's right to custody is overruled. Sorry you have me mixed up with someone else!

My explanations as to what is currently going on are not "wrong" as I work in the family services division of California...so I am pretty positive that I have more than an inkling about how the whole thing works! Certainly more than someone who doesn't have my background or work.

Do I think Kevin is a horrible person? No. Do I think he needs parenting classes and to generally act like a man that has 4 children? Yes. But, then again, I believe the same about Britney so...

I was simply pointing out "odd" things about this case.

Anonymous said...

What's odd to you is that it is Britney being questioned, when you assumed it would be Kevin.

You've said what you had to say, I still feel there are two good lawyers in that court room who know what they are doing, and have much more information than you.