Britney Spears: Female casualty of the child support and custody system
by Rachel Alexander | View comments |
Print This Post
The downward spiral of Britney Spears is not due to mental illness or some Hollywood Marilyn Monroe kind of drug addiction. Spears is the first female poster child of our nation's outdated and brutally unfair child support and custody system.
The political pundits are wrong about Britney Spears' bout of bizarre behavior. She is not mentally ill. She is like many other parents, sadly, who have been pushed to their emotional limits by a viciously unfair child support and custody legal system that allows one parent to abuse the other. Consider the timing: her strange behavior did not begin until after she and Kevin Federline separated. It began with her cutting her hair and bashing a paparazzo's car, and most recently escalated into refusing to give Federline their children back after her visitation period with them.
What is wrong with this picture? Britney Spears is a beautiful, talented, entertaining megastar. She makes more money than 99% of the population. She has accomplished a lot by age 26 and is one of the most successful people in the world. In contrast, Federline is an average guy with a bland personality and little talent to show for, who until he met Britney, made a modest living as a backup dancer. And even though Spears has opened every door for him, he hasn't had much luck; his singing career is a flop. They were together for approximately 2 years and had two children.
Upon separation, Federline demanded alimony and primary custody of their children. Instead of just moving on with his life, and being grateful for the doors in life that his talented and wealthy ex-wife had opened for him, he fought her for her money. He ended up winning $20,000/mth in spousal support for four months and $15,000/mth in child support, sharing custody 50/50. What child requires $7,500/mth? I'm a lawyer and I don't make that much money.
Since Spears is one of the most sought after celebrities in the world, the paparazzi have followed her 24/7. Every little mistake in life she's made in the public realm, such as driving with her child on her lap or running into another car while backing up, has been displayed for everyone to criticize. But how many of us could live up to a standard of complete perfection every waking minute of our lives outside of the privacy of our homes? Federline gloated in an interview after the divorce that it's been nice not having the paparazzi following him anymore. Right, it's nice because the paparazzi can't document him doing anything illegal or immoral that might cause him to lose custody of his children. The paparazzi don't follow Federline because other than his relationship to Spears, he's a nobody. Spears is no angel, but Federline likely has just as many if not more indiscretions. Spears accused him of smoking marijuana around their children, and a friend of Federline's denied that he smoked pot around the children, but noticeably didn't deny that he smoked it. It doesn't take a whole lot of internet research to find articles revealing that Federline was cheating on Spears with a porn star while they were married, which is reportedly the reason why Britney filed for divorce. So now Britney is the one who has to pay for this?
Seeing the trauma Spears is going through, where is Federline's sympathy? He supposedly loved this woman at one point, right? Or did he marry her for her money? Seeing how it is tearing her apart, why doesn't he leave her alone and quit fighting with her over the kids and the $15,000/mth? The child custody and support system was established years ago in a different era when most women did not work, and so a divorce left them financially destitute. Times have changed, and the vast majority of women now work. Yet the feminists have kept these outdated laws in place, because they want to be able to continue teaching women that it's ok to get a major in Women's Studies and end up in a job that doesn't pay very well. And the feminists want to keep preaching that women are superior to men when it comes to nurturing children, predisposing the judicial system into awarding children to their mothers.
Men are the targets of this outdated system; but through an unfortunate set of circumstances Spears ended up a female victim. The antiquated system generally awards custody of the children to the mother, requiring the higher earning father to pay the mother money. But because Spears was the higher earner, and under micro-scrutiny by the paparazzi, Federline was able to exploit the system and torment her. Don't expect to see any feminists coming to the defense of Spears. Not only does she go against the system they love because it gives women one-up over men, but Spears is beautiful and likes George Bush; the type of woman the feminists can't stand.
Britney has more money than most of us can only dream of. No doubt she can provide for her children. Living with her, they'll have the best schools, the best nannies, the best cultural experiences, vacations, etc. It is unfair that she has worked so hard her whole life to have some guy come in for two years and hold this power over her. If Federline really cares about their children, and has any sense of compassion for his ex-wife and the stress this is putting her through, he will be a man; let the money go, and agree to share the children 50/50. Somehow I think he's too much of a loser to do that. It's all about the money for him.
The number of fathers who are committing suicide because of bruising child custody fights that last until their children are 18 and bankrupting child support obligations is escalating. What will it take to get society to wake up and change these outdated laws that are driving parents to the brink? Taking a parent’s children away from them and then forcing them to pay money to their ex who is perfectly capable of providing for themselves is putting a heavy emotional toll on millions of parents around the world. It will be very sad if it takes the celebrity suicide of Britney Spears to finally reform the system.
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Read more articles by Rachel Alexander
[…] Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy » Britney Spears: Female casualty of the child support and custody system […]
Pingback by Are you out of your mind? Okay, bad phrasing | The NCP Revue | January 6, 2008
Good points. I never thought of it that way, but you have opened my eyes to the MSM propaganda. It's usualy men that are screwed by the feminazis at the family courts, but they are willing to thow in a female now and then to keep the fire burning and prove that we need the government involved in the "Best interest of the children". You don't mention all the lawyers and court hangers on that benifit from this fight. I'd like to know how much she has had to pay them.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 7, 2008
Sorry, I don't buy it. I agree with you in general about the family courts, but Britney has done everything she can to sabotage the help that's been offered her. She has consistently put herself and her kids in dangerous situations and shown very poor judgment, most recently refusing to return the children after a visit and losing her visitation rights. What would we say about a man who did this? We'd say that his behavior was so over-the-top that he must not want these kids.
Conservatives are always quick to tell people like Eric Federline to "be a man". This is an example of the very antiquated thinking you're criticizing. Federline is getting considerably less than custodial mothers ask for, and routinely get, in these situations. I don't care how well he can sing or dance — is he, or can he be, a decent parent? By the way it looks, he's tracking much better than Britney so far on that point.
Last year, P. Diddy's child's mother was awarded over $10K per month, the largest single support order ever awarded in New York State. Why did no one bat an eyelid? Well, he's the man, of course, he can afford it…
Comment by Sticky_Dad | January 7, 2008
I have to agree with Sticky_Dad. The system does suck, but Britney Spears is hardly a good poster child for the victimized parent. She lost her kids because she's irresponsible and because her behavior reflects her utter immaturity, lack of judgment, and lack of regard for her children. It's not exactly the most egregious injustice I've ever heard of.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 7, 2008
Surely the author realizes that the current child custody arrangement is temporary and that the parties are in the middle of litigation to determine who will have custody of the children.
If Federline took the author's advice and "quit fighting", that would mean surrendering to Spears' demand for sole custody. If Federline cares about his children, he will ignore that advice.
Comment by stutzenbach | January 7, 2008
Stutzenbach -
In a perfect world with completely rational people that might happen. But in reality, once one parent gets primary custody of the children, that parent is less likely to agree to give up any inch of ground, and the courts favor retaining the status quo. The burden is now on Spears now to show why Federline is an unfit parent. It's not enough just to show that she's a good parent; now that he's got primary custody her burden is much higher.
If Federline quit fighting Spears and agreed to 50/50 custody without child support, I am sure Spears would be only too happy to agree to it. It's not all or nothing. There is no reason why Federline can't act like a rational human being and agree to share custody.
Comment by Rachel Alexander | January 7, 2008
Rachel —
The news articles I have read say that Spears filed for sole custody. Do you have any support for your contention that Spears would agree to 50/50 custody, and the only thing standing in the way is Federline's irrational behavior. Can you link to this newspaper article.
Thanks!
Comment by stutzenbach | January 7, 2008
Stutzenbach -
There are plenty of articles out there regarding Britney's efforts to resume 50/50 shared custody, and Federline's refusal to grant her that. Here is an excerpt from one -
"Spears had wanted to resume the original 50/50 custody split and have the two children come back to live with her. Federline was reportedly fighting for a 70/30 custody split with the children in his primary care."
http://blog.totaldivorce.com/index.php/category/celebrity-divorce/
Comment by Rachel Alexander | January 7, 2008
No reasonable man or father would allow Spears to raise his kids if avoidable. The 50/50 decision was going to be made before Britney went off the deep end. Seriously, I agree with the need to re-access our divorce/child custody laws; but the last thing Spears should be doing is raising kids. Another point if Federline only wanted money (an unfair statement I believe) why wouldn't he take the $100 million Britney offered and walk? Federline has had every opportunity to cash flow Britney's breakdown with a book deal, TV deals, etc., and as of yet has not done so. It is not the media that has left Federline alone but rather Federline that has not given them the ammunition to go after him as Britney has. I simply can't find sympathy for Britney in this situation.
Comment by Honker | January 7, 2008
Rachel — let me see if I can understand your position.
Britney Spears was transported to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center because as a result of mental disorder, she was a danger to others or to herself.
Therefore, the proper thing for Federline to do is to stop litigating and return his children to live with Spears.
Right?
Comment by stutzenbach | January 7, 2008
"The downward spiral of Britney Spears is not due to mental illness or some Hollywood Marilyn Monroe kind of drug addiction…"
I think that is a terrible thing to say. Not because, Ms Alexander, it is your point of view, (we all hold poorly informed opinions about lots of things, and especially about other people). But because you show no modesty in making public statements about a person I doubt you know well, if at all. (I doubt even the Spears family understands what is taking place.) Using the exhibitionist buffonery of Britney's behavior as an opportunity to express your previously held opinion of the failure of feminists to appreciate George Bush, shows you that you are at the same level as everyone else around Britney who is using her public personna for their own agenda. The Co-Editor of a website with the self aggrandizing title 'Intellectual Conservative' writes 9 paragraphs on Britney Spears? I thought only Ellen DeGeneres used the captive audience of her talk show to do such things.
Comment by felix | January 7, 2008
Stutzenbach,
There has been no official diagnosis that Spears has a "mental disorder," although the mass media has been trumpeting it. We don't know the full circumstances surrounding Spears' refusal to turn the children over after her visitation. It's not difficult to antagonize someone over your mutual children, call 911 and play victim, and throw in the fact your ex is a gunowner to use that against them. This type of situation usually just occurs with reverse gender roles.
I never said that Spears should have full custody, I suggested 50/50, which is what the original divorce decree was for. We all know that if Federline hadn't persisted in trying to get primary custody, we wouldn't have this situation today. Explain to me how he is he such a saint that he should be defended for abusing the legal system, without blame?
Felix, by resorting to personal attacks, you're admitting you have no substantive rebuttal.
Comment by Rachel Alexander | January 7, 2008
I don't agree at all with this. There are many people out there in this same system that don't self destruct. She is now learning the hard way how to be an adult. It is so sad that her life is on the cover of many magazines and in the news. Maybe some young people out there will see this show and decide to stay away from this kind of life.
Comment by fbaginski | January 7, 2008
Rachel
Don't let these guys get to you. It seems that most people want to beleive every word and video clip they see on TV. Orwell told us how it would be done in 1948. The truth is that we don't know what's going on and your article was thought provoking.
It does make a person wonder where the feminists are in this thing.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 7, 2008
"Federline is getting considerably less than custodial mothers ask for, and routinely get, in these situations. I don’t care how well he can sing or dance — is he, or can he be, a decent parent? By the way it looks, he’s tracking much better than Britney so far on that point."
Sticky Dad, I must disagree. There are no custodial mothers who are getting 15 grand a month in child support with 20 grand in allimony. All of this while retaining 50/50 custody. Saying that he is getting less than the average woman is ridiculous.
Moreover, Rachael makes a good point. He gets no coverage because he's a nobody. While he was in the news, his behavior was disgraceful. He was constantly at parties, hanging on other women. Reports came out that he was doing drugs. One of the reasons she gave in divorcing him was that he was cheating on her. While Britney was home with the kids, he was out clubbing and partying. We don't know what he is doing now, but when the spotlight WAS on him, he looked very poor indeed.
And all of her bad behavior started AFTER the divorce.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 7, 2008
And all of her bad behavior started AFTER the divorce.
Clearly you don't watch enough Entertainment Tonight.
Comment by freelunch | January 7, 2008
Wolvenbear,
Federline is definitely no prize, I'm aware of that. It doesn't matter if he is a nobody to the public. If he is somebody to his kids, that's all that should matter. Cheating on his wife and flirting at parties does not necessarily make him a bad parent, and we certainly wouldn't say that about any mother who does the same thing.
As far as child support, it is based on a percentage of gross income, not dollar amounts. I already gave an example in my first post of another custodial parent getting over $10K. I don't know what the formula is in Britney's home state is. In New York it is 17% of gross income.
So if Eric is collecting $20K per month in child support, as Rachel's article states, he is collecting approximately $240K per year, yes? That's 17% of approximately 1.5 million dollars per year. Well, I don't really know what Britney makes, but either she's not the successful megastar that she seems to be, or else — yes, she is paying way less than the average man.
It is only when a woman screws up and acts irresponsibly that everyone starts talking about how rotten the system is. If the roles and genders were reversed — if Britney was the nobody, and Eric was the megastar — I really don't think we'd be having this conversation.
Comment by Sticky_Dad | January 7, 2008
I'm quite proud to say I don't watch ET at all. And, who the heck is Eric?
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 7, 2008
Sorry, meant Kevin Federline. The father is who I'm talking about, the guy who is being demonized in the media, and I should use last names anyway.
Also, to qualify: I am no expert on celebrity incomes. 1.5 million per year sounds pretty paltry to me, but if someone can convincingly state that this is about average for someone of Spears' stature, I will take back my statement that she's not paying enough in CS.
Comment by Sticky_Dad | January 7, 2008
Sticky Dad,
Have you read any of my prior writings on this topic? Defending a mother in one these situations is new to me; because the majority of the time the situation is the reverse.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/child-custody-where-men-hit-a-glass-ceiling/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/how-fathers-can-win-child-custody-a-book-in-progress/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2003/the-problem-with-todays-feminism/
Comment by Rachel Alexander | January 7, 2008
Sticky Dad, your figures are based on the idea that the custody is not joint.
http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199906.html
Plus it's unthinkable that a man who cheated on his wife would be able to get spousal support. Until the recent trend of no fault divorces, he would've been laughed out of court.
The point in pointing out that he's nobody is that every step he takes isn't covered by the media, whereas Britney's are. Having the kid ride on her lap was insanely stupid, but lots of good parents make mistakes.
In the time he WAS in the spotlight, however, he was a parade of bad behavior.
The fact that he was a crappy husband, and never there for his kids before the divorce speaks to his lackluster parenting. And, yes, the fact that he cheated on his wife ALSO speaks to his fitness to parent. This used to be common thought process, and that we have "progressed" past that, to someone defending an adulterer against charges of unfitness shows that our culture has degraded. Of course we would say that about a woman who did what he did. Hell, we have people claiming that things Britney did that were far less substancial (not wearing panties) affected her motherhood.
On one hand we have a woman who is falling apart over her marriage ending and the prospect of losing her kids, yet who's devotion to her children is clearly superior to her ex. On the other we have an adulterer who seemed unconcerned with his children until the divorce. Now, they're a meal ticket. He wants full custody, (that 50/50 thing wasn't good enough), and has made clear that he sees Britney as a source of income….full custody would make him eligible for the full 17% (or whatever it is down there).
And freelunch, I used to watch ET. It was on between King of the Hill and Bernie Mac, so I was subjected to it. While they'd have boneheaded things that she did on there, none of the bad behavior (the constant drunkenness, the partying, etc) occured before the marriage deteriorated. Her bad behavior coincided with the death of her close aunt and her marriage failing. Now, after losing the kids, it's gotten worse.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 7, 2008
I mean, look at how "there" he is for his other two kids. If the other momma was a millionaire, he might care, but she's not, so its as if those kids dont exist.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 7, 2008
Thank goodness someone is standing up for Britney. All those mean government types have been ganging up on her — it's downright mean!
Los Angeles Superior Court judge Scott M Gordon in September described her as "a habitual frequent and continuous use of controlled substances and alcohol".
Court-appointed monitor Lisa Hacker said in October:
"During all three of my visits, [Spears] rarely engaged with the children in conversation or play." Hacker also noted, however, that Spears's parenting lapses are nothing she "would characterize as abusive in a traditional sense."
"The environment in the house ranges from chaotic to almost somber with little communication at all."
The court order said that Hacker on three different days (Sept 28, Oct. 4 and Oct. 18) "made attempts to meet with [Spears] in order to comply with the Court's orders. [Spears] failed to meet with Ms. Hacker on those occasions."
And the latest incident:
"For her own welfare, she was transferred to a local hospital for medical treatment," Officer April Harding said, declining to elaborate. No injuries were reported.
It's a conspiracy!
Comment by stutzenbach | January 7, 2008
Rachel, I am a female, and I AGREE with many of the points in this article, as well as your general
thesis that a woman should expect to support herself after a divorce. I will never understand why
any grown woman would feel entitled to sit around and collect a check from their ex-husband simply
because they "didn't plan to work". That's absurd. Get an education and support yourselves, women.
I also believe that the increase in dysfunction in our families in the past thirty years is directly the
result of an adversarial family court system that demonizes one parent over the other and makes
completely unreasonable financial demands of the non-custodial parent.
However, I think this post over-simplifies the issue to an extent because I see extensive evidence Britney does suffer from a serious mood disorder.
The situation is complex. People are pre-disposed to mental illnesses. This is the type of
illness that may have manifested itself as creativity or impusliveness, and not a severe lack of
judgment and attention, psychosis, and withdrawal and depression IF Britney had not been mentally
abused and bullied for months prior to her breakdown.
In other words, Kevin has a great deal of responsibility in causing mental anguish and stress that
Britney simply could not handle. Her predisposition to bipolar disorder did not allow her to handle
the stress, and the lack of discipline and respect for authority she demonstrates (due to
her early fame) sealed her fate by preventing her from taking advice and asking for help. She also
may be paranoid and unable to trust authority figures.
I wish more people could see Kevin's direct resoponsibility in pushing his vulernable wife into
insanity. I believe he demonstrates an exploitive, manipulative personality and was aware of what
this would do to her. If he truly cared about his children, he would care that they have lost their
relationship with one of their natural parents. A truly loving parent would not want that to happen.
Simply having a mental illness should not necessarily make her an unfit parent. This is
a truth that most people cannot comprehend, but just because a person has a predisposition to
a mood disorder does not mean they cannot be a wonderful parent. The key is how they handle their
illness and remain complaint with treatment.
Comment by sunrise8 | January 7, 2008
Rachel:
No, I had not read your other articles before today. You make some excellent points I've never heard before. It sounds like you're trying to look objectively at the system's problems. We shouldn't ignore women who have been mishandled by the system, I just don't believe that Spears is a good example of that.
WolvenBear: I have joint custody of my daughter. That and .75 will buy me a cup of coffee. It just isn't a factor in most (not all) states when determining a support order. The article you cite sounds like an argument for reform. It has definitely not been used in crafting policy, at least not in New York State.
In any case, do Spears and Federline have joint custody? Because, if they do not, I still find it outrageous that Spears is only paying a measly $20K per month.
Comment by Sticky_Dad | January 7, 2008
StickyDad,
Spears and Federline do not currently have joint custody. That just changed and court hearings are being set to change the financial arrangement.
And the article I supplied is a simple legal article that talks about joint custody. I am unaware of ANY courts that would issue the same financial arrangement for full custody vs partial custody. I'm sure there is one somewhere, but on the whole the system looks at the custody arrangement. See Section 3, defining custody.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 7, 2008
The custody battle is like the last spark to the fire that spun Britney out of control. She was behaving very erratically before that. Britney Spears has a mental illness that just like any other illness has to be treated with medication and therapy. Granted her personal situation is not making anything easier or helping her in any way. Mental illness in no way is romantic and neither is drug addiction. These are very serious problems that occur and usually the person is very unhappy inside and confused because they haven't found the right understanding or treatment. Britney should have the privacy and the right care for her to get better, stabilized and for her to understand her situation. I think it was wrong for her to be let out but any psychiatric hospital workers are underpaid about 11 -12 dollars an hour, don't have a degree in the field and are very disgruntled towards the patients treating them more like criminals thanactual people who need and can be helped. Many people don't see it like an illness with treatment and their is a huge stigma attached to it. Hopefully Britney will not be in the long line of musicians, actors and people who have committed suicide due to not being able to get the help they need and people's inability to sympathize because they see her as just some spoiled rich and famous person .
Comment by Vanessa | February 9, 2008
Vanessa
I cried when my father died. I was sad when JFK was shot. Same with Elvis, but someone dies in this world every minute of the day and I ain't going to lose any sleep over that stupid broad. So don't go hanging any guilt on me for my "inability to sympathize". When she offs herself I'll turn off the boob tube for three days and go to the library.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | February 9, 2008