This is the most deplorable clause, though:

"'Britney shall have no financial obligation to contribute to the support of [Federline's] two children.'
She's got all that money, she stole the dad from those two innocent kids and their mother, and she won't even cough up a little child support?

American Skankwoman, is right."

Man, you are on the money here! There's just some things you do. There's just some things that are right.

Britney's actions reveal her objective: Instant gratification from a short fun marriage with a guy she thinks is hot; and her lack of values: Zero consideration for anyone else-- not even a now abandoned mother-- not even two children! Britney is a lost soul behaving like a pure c***. She is a sickening car wreck one cannot turn away from.

Normally, annika, I agree with your anti-Britney screeds, but I have to disagree with you on a few points here.

First, she didn't "steal" anyone. Saying that he was "stolen" places the blame on Britney and absolves Kevin. Kevin left the mother of his children of his own volition. No one forced him at gun-point to do so. The responsibility for his choice and his children is primarily his. If Britney started seeing him while he was married (I don't know the actual details so I can't honestly say) then she is guilty of participating in adultery, but the primary responsibility is still his and his alone.

Second, I think that you are completely wrong about the clause that you declare to be "deplorable." This is a pre-nup. As I understand the nature of pre-nuptual agreements, it applies only at such time as the marriage dissolves. This is not saying that she won't help him with the children while they are together. It isn't even saying that she won't help him with his children should they get a divorce. It simply states that she is not legally responsible for them in the event of a divorce. There is a world of difference between the two. My belief, having parents who divorced when I was young and who both later remarried, is that the step-parent does have responsibilites to the step-children during the marriage, and it would be deplorable for Britney to not live up to those responsibilities. An attempt to make her legally responsible for those children for the rest of her life if it turns out that he is only marrying her for her money would be equally deplorable.

Jerry,

This is a question of class and taste and principles and values. Britney Spears has millions of men willing to make fools of themselves in her service. She does not need to grandly swoop in on someone else's fledgling relationship- especially when kids are involved.

And I don't want to hear "the fledgling relationship was struggling." EVERY SINGLE TIME someone wants to stray in a relationship, they justify it by saying the "relationship is struggling." "The relationship is struggling" is not an excuse for extracurricular play-around.

Secondly, when you're worth tens of millions of dollars, and you've just swooped in on some idiot, and encouraged him to ditch the mother of his children, you set up a little trust fund to take care of the children. Its just the right thing to do.

Britney gives away more than that in tip money. She spends more than that on salt rubs. Heck, she could cut down on charity donations for one year and set up a trust fund- I don't care- but she could stand to show the teensiest bit of class.

You're not thinking about the millions of guys Britney could choose from, or the tens of millions of dollars she controls. Heck with legalities. She could legally protect herself and still show a bit of class. Some things are just the right things to do.

GC: I will not say that "the fledgling relationship was struggling" because, as my comments clearly indicate, I do not know the details of the relationship between Federline and his ex. You are wrong, however, in your assertion that "is a question of class and taste and principles and values." It is none of those things. It is a question of a pre-nuptual agreement. The main purpose of a pre-nup is to protect the material assets of each member of a marriage in the event of a divorce. As I pointed out very clearly in my comments, I agree that Britney has responsibilities to the children of her husband. Fulfilling those responsibilities will be the classy, tasteful, principled, values-based thing to do. None of this has any bearing on her legal responsibilities. Nothing in the pre-nup (based, of course, on the limited portionsof it quoted in the article) prevent her from doing any of the things that you suggested. Nothing in the article states or even implies that she won't. You are making brazen assumptions by implying that she will do nothing for those children.

As to the question of Britney "swooping" in on Federline, I also clearly stated in my comments that she is likely guilty of participating in adultry and that this is immoral. The key issue, which you fail to even mention in your rebuttal, is that federline could have simply said "no." He has free will and the right to exercise it. The primary responsibility for the situation that his children are now in his his. He doesn't get absolved of all wrongdoing just because Britney has "has millions of men" and "tens of millions of dollars" at her disposal.

Of COURSE the idiot dancer is responsible and culpable(I've got NOTHING against dancers. But I have seen photos of THIS dancer, and he is an idiot.) I don't care about the idiot. I can't believe I'm even writing another comment about the skank!

Pretend you are Britney Spears. Would you use your fame and your millions to swoop in on this idiot, his children, and their mother? No. No. A thousand times no. You, Jerry/Britney, seem like a decent and sensible person. You would couple with another of your many admirers, and hope that the idiot could somehow find it within himself to forthrightly straighten out or get out of his relationship. Long odds, that.

You would heed a more civilized code than Skankwoman, because you have more class, more sense, and more decency.

Its true that skankwoman may quietly take care of the kids. However, nothing about her gives me confidence in that happening. I saw her using the one girl as a prop in a People Magazine cover. It turned my stomach.

GC: Then my original comment stands:

1) Federline is responsible for his own actions, not Britney, although she does have to take responsibility for her own bad behavior.
2) The "deplorable" clause in the pre-nup merely offers Britney a reasonable level of legal protection in the event that Federline is simply using her for her money and it does not, in any way, prevent her from meeting the responsibilities that she has to the family of her husband and nothing in the article either states or implies that she won't meet those responsibilities.

annika's journal:

we editorialize, you decide.

[rant] OK, a quick rundown.

1) Federline is the "baby daddy" to these two kids. He never married their mother.

2) Federline started f***ing Skankwoman while Shar Jackson was pregnant with his child.

3) Skankwoman started f***ing Federline while another woman was pregnant with his child.

4) Shar Jackson let herself get knocked up twice by a man to whom she wasn't married.

5) Shar Jackson apparently also has two children by at least one father other than Federline.

6) I can find no evidence that Jackson has ever been married.

So, what does all this tell us:

(a) Federline is a degenerate scumbag who knocks up women not his wife, doesn't marry them, and will stick his d*** in any available slut at any time -- including when another woman, already the mother of one of his children, is bearing his child.

(b) Shar Jackson is at best guilty of very bad judgment, and at worst a stupid whore.

(c) Skankwoman is a cheap, amoral slut, and stupid enough to marry a known philanderer.

These people deserve each other. Federline deserves to have his $300K/year shoved up his a** a penny at a time. Hopefully, en route to that happy denouement he will (1) knock up Skankwoman; (2) f*** some nasty whore behind Skankwoman's back; (3) bring home an incurable (non-fatal), sexually transmitted disease -- herpes would be good -- and transmit it to Skankwoman; and (4) have his d*** shrivel up and fall off immediately after he infects Skankwoman. Skankwoman deserves to be impregnated, cheated on, infected, and divorced, and to have her career go down the sh**ter as well. Shar Jackson deserves to be cheated on by virtue of repeatedly displaying piss-poor judgment.

The only innocent parties here are Jackson's kids. But I see no reason Spears should pay for them. Their idiot/whore mother and degenerate father chose to bring those kids into this world, and they should have to support them. In fact, I'd be much happier if both natural parents had to work themselves into early graves doing backbreaking work on a daily basis in order to support the results of their stupidity/irresponsibility. They shouldn't be able to pass the responsibility off on Daddy's wife, even if she is a dirty slut.

[/rant]

Annie:

Doncha think we've all wasted enough time on this person?

Let's follow the Michael Jackson saga...at least justice should be coming to him a little more swiftly.

I'm so weak. I swore I would lay off this comment thread, yet I'm coming back to it like an addict. I hate myself. But gimme the crackpipe.

Imagine Federline is en flagrante delecto with Jackson. Skankwoman saunters in au natural, and purrs for Federline to come across the room and delecto a bit with a blond temptress. Federline, in the process of disengagement and redeployment, knocks two beautiful vases to the ground- shattering both into many pieces.

Now, Federline knocked over and shattered those vases. Its HIS responsibility. It IS NOT Skankwoman's fault. It IS NOT her responsibility. But, the classy thing, the decent thing, is for Skankwoman to grab an extra broom and help sweep up the mess.

I'm not advocating that Skankwoman show moral responsibility. I'm advocating that Skankwoman show some common decency.

Since prenups have been instituted into this situation, its disingenious to say "This should be covered by prenup, but this other should not be covered by prenup." If you're going to bring prenup into the picture, go all the way.

Skankwoman has a legal case that she's not responsible for the kids. If she was a waitress at Chile's, I would absolutely say she has a moral case that she's not responsible for the kids. But she's not a waitress at Chile's. When fortune smiles, the classy thing is to share a bit of your good fortune with others. To not do so is bad juju, bad karma, and just an all around lack of class.

As soon as I sober up, I will never touch this intoxicating subject again. I swear.

To all that's been said, I'd also add that anything in a prenuptial agreement relating to child support is likely to be held by a court to be unenforceable. Just as with custody, courts typically use the "best interests of the child" standard, and I'd expect there are plenty of statutes to govern this that would trump the prenup regardless.

britney doesn't have to pay child support for the asshole's kids. it's the asshole's responsibility to pay child support. they are the jerk's kids, not hers. and britney didn't steal anyone, it was that fuckin' bastard who started dating her. kevin is so cheeky. he says the cash he will receive in case he and brit split is too little. he doesn't deserve even a penny.