Brittney Spears: Unfit Parent?

from JoeUser Forums

Pop singer Brittney Spears is defending herself over photos that show her driving with her baby on her lap instead of strapped to the car seat. She defends herself by saying that she was trying to avoid paparazzi and didn't have time to strap in her child. This incident, however, is a glaring example of the two sets of justice we have in America.

If Brittney were an average citizen, that photo would have been more than enough evidence to remove Brittney's child from her home, due to concerns over the health and safety of the child. Her home would have been searched from top to bottom, and she would be facing a long future in court defending allegations of being an unfit parent. While social services are investigating, they've publicly stated that they do not expect any action to be taken. I assure you, they would not make such a statement if that were you or I.

Looking at the photo, I find Spears' claims of being hurried to avoid paparazzi hard to believe. There is not much blur in the background, which would seem to indicate she was not going at a high rate of speed, and neither her facial expressions nor the baby's convey any sense of urgency. Even if her claim were true, wouldn't the fact that she would be racing to avoid paparazzi be even MORE reason to strap the baby in? After all, one need look no further than Princess Diana to see the consequences of a high speed crash, and a baby on the seat in its mother's lap would be a certain projectile in the event of a crash.

Spears is not the first celebrity to act irresponsibly with her children. And she won't be the last. I am sure we well remember Michael Jackson's dangling his baby over a balcony's edge. But it is beyond the pale when 580,000 children linger in US foster care on far less serious allegations, while celebrities act with impunity.

California's Child Protective Services has more than enough reason to act here. Because they don't, it behooves us to ask the question WHY they don't. Could it be that placing their policies and procedures under a microscope of public scrutiny would expose them for what they really are and bring their house of cards crashing down? To steal a highly appropriate phrase here, Inquiring minds want to know!

24,201 views 110 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good thing she didn't do that here in Wisconsin, or the government here would have to admit that their new law is as meaningless as their integrity. ;~D

Hwy 1 is a great road to drive on, full of twists and turns, with a great view of the ocean at the bottom of the cliffs. It's a good thing that she is such a great driver, and we should applaud the state of California for recognizing her skills. ;~D
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find her reason hard to believe also, but I think the outrage and scrutiny over this is bullshit. Kids are too protected these days. Ban any kind of toy that might be harmful. It's gone much too far the other way.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I find her reason hard to believe also, but I think the outrage and scrutiny over this is bullshit. Kids are too protected these days. Ban any kind of toy that might be harmful. It's gone much too far the other way.

Icono,

I do too. That's my point. Millions of American families have their lives torn apart over FAR LESS. I guarantee you if she was anything BUT a celebrity, she'd be fighting to keep that kid right now.

We can talk about Brittney's rights all we want, but unless we're willing to stand up for the rights of ALL Americans, then we shouldn't be so quick to defend hers.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you look, you will also notice that she is not alone in the car.  Why wasn't the other person working on securing the child if they were fleeing from paparazzi?  Shouldn't the safety of your child be more important than photographers taking your picture?  Lock them out of your car, secure your child, then leave.  If they follow you- oh well.  So they get another picture to add to the thousands that already exist.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid, I agree. What's annoying to me is her social status and wealth don't equate to being emotionally healthy and well balanced, it means celebrity distortion.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I foresee a large generation of low income black kids (screw your disclaimer, it IS mostly blacks that I see doing this) growing up with hearing damage. (as if they already didnt have enough problems to begin with.)


I say screw the disclaimers too because it just depends on where you live. Where I am it's mostly Latinos and Whites and some Blacks who do it. Young people that is. They're the ones who blast the music like there's no tomorrow! Idiots!



As for Britney, she's in my Celebrity News blog as well Link. She's an idiot for putting her child in danger in that manner!

Just let it be me or you and see how fast our lives get turned upside down!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're being too specific. I think "Unfit Human" would be a more apt title. It's a sad reality that success in the entertainment world almost invariably destroys a person. I suppose the adoring worship of thousands of morons would do that to anyone...
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee, what's more of a danger, a camera or a baby being in mom's lap on the highway? Not a difficult question for people with brains. Spears is obviously not one of those people but she already proved that by marrying a guy who left his pregnant girlfriend to be with her. Federline and Spears as parents, poor kid!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"California's Child Protective Services has more than enough reason to act here. Because they don't, it behooves us to ask the question WHY they don't."


Given the fact I don't believe Child Protective Services even has a right to exist, it would be hypocritical of me to really fault them for not doing their "job". If not strapping in your baby is a crime, then the police have enough evidence in this photograph to do a legitimate investigation and then do what is necessary. We don't need half-assed civil servants pretending they are the legitimate authorities.

I am way creeped out by how more and more the government is involved with telling us how to raise our kids. I remember riding on my father's lap when he drove his truck as a child, and I remember he even let me steer a time or two. I guess he should have been tossed in jail. This country seems more and more foreign and weird to me.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon hits a nerve again! Good point!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why don't we just raise a nation of spoiled brats and wimps?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Doh! Sorry Gid, didn't notice you had already blogged about this!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Justice is bought in AMERICA, period.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Duh guys...come on. Don't you know why these idiots are breeding? Having a child in between her rack and the wheel is a lot cheaper than trying to insure her boobs!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
A Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy went to the Malibu home of Britney Spears on Tuesday to collect information for child welfare investigators after photos showing the pop star apparently driving with her infant son on her lap began appearing on websites.Spears, 24, said that she was trying to escape paparazzi and that she held the baby because she feared for his safety. The photos, by a celebrity photographer, show Spears behind the wheel of an SUV with her 4-month-old son Sean Preston on her lap instead of strapped into a rear car seat as required by law.Spears said in a statement that the photographs were taken during a "horrifying, frightful encounter with the paparazzi." She said she "instinctively took measures" to protect the baby.A source close to Spears said that paparazzi confronted the singer near a Malibu Starbucks and that she made the two-minute trip home with her child in a state of panic.Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht said deputies went to Spears' home to collect information for the county Department of Family and Children Services. Hecht referred further comment to the agency responsible for child welfare, which does not comment on investigations.

Two-minute trip? Big deal.
Link
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Two-minute trip? Big deal.

It's a big deal if you get hit by an SUV running a red at 60mph.  Have any idea what would happen to that baby if the air bag went off during any impact?

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's a big deal if you get hit by an SUV running a red at 60mph.


If this. If that. The world might blow up tomorrow. Do you want all kids to wear veils like Michael Jackson's? Do you want to lock them in their rooms for the rest of their lives? Were you ever injured as a child? You survived, didn't you? Why don't you take your kids and live in a cave? Oh, wait, there might be a cave-in. Well, Jeez, I guess no place is 100% safe. I guess we're all screwed. Maybe we should leave it to Big Brother to decide what's best for everybody.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Icono, you don't have kids do you. Anyone who has brought a child into this world and takes that responsibilty seriously knows that there are calculated risks and there are senseless risks. Having a baby right up against an airbag in a moving vehicle is a senseless risk.

There is a big difference between letting your child risk injury while learning to deal with and enjoy the world and risking injury for absolutely no good reason. Sure, your child can get hurt riding a bike, sliding down a snow hill, etc. but those are things that can be enjoyed and the child can learn about themselves and the world around them. What is to be gained by having an infant in your lap in a moving vehicle? I'll answer that, nothing. What is at risk? Everything that baby could ever have.

Why don't you take your kids and live in a cave?


Why don't you avoid reproducing?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
well, if Miss Britney doesn't bother with a seatbelt for herself, she probably doesn't usually bother with them for her kid either.

Of course, she is a star and the Law of Momentum Conseration is beneath stars... but what about their kids? ;~D
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jill, I suppose you think you're going to be a perfect parent and you'll never make any mistakes with your kid. Maybe he or she should be taken from you some day. I hope so. Then we'll see how you like it.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

If this. If that. The world might blow up tomorrow. Do you want all kids to wear veils like Michael Jackson's? Do you want to lock them in their rooms for the rest of their lives? Were you ever injured as a child? You survived, didn't you? Why don't you take your kids and live in a cave? Oh, wait, there might be a cave-in. Well, Jeez, I guess no place is 100% safe. I guess we're all screwed. Maybe we should leave it to Big Brother to decide what's best for everybody.

Yes, the world is filled with "what ifs".  PARENTS have the RESPONSIBILITY to keep their children safe whenever possible.  We didn't have decapitating air bags when I was a child, we do now.  There are even signs in every car that comes with one that due to the possibility of death, small children should be kept away from air bags.  This is an INFANT that we are talking about.  An infant that can't make any decisions for themselves.  It's not like thy could learn from having an airbag kill them because their Mom was too stupid to secure them in a seat away from it.  As a parent, your child is your #1 priority.

I guess your Mom didn't worry when you kept falling on your head repeatedly as a child.....

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top


Jill, I suppose you think you're going to be a perfect parent and you'll never make any mistakes with your kid. Maybe he or she should be taken from you some day. I hope so. Then we'll see how you like it.

You're walking a dangerous line there.  Wishing that somebody has their children taken away is not a wise thing to say.  You may want to rethink that.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
You may want to rethink that.


But she doesn't need to rethink her last statement to me, or you either?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's the breakdown of my opinions on the matter:

Britney is a vapid bimbo. She and Federline are poor excuses for humans and probably shouldn't have procreated but that can be said about a large part of the population. She is a bad parent and dumb in general for her actions but I don't think it is anything child services should be concerned with. I think she should have been given a ticket and warning for breaking seatbelt and child restraint laws.

I personally think that child services should only be there to enforce laws not dictate how people should be raising their children. It is a rare occurence that a kid is actually better off in a foster home than with their own parent. If the parent is breaking a law and endangering their child/ren as a result, that is one thing. If some agency "feels" the parents are doing an inadequate job, that is entirely different and entirely wrong.

Perhaps child services is just another way that we are fooling around too much with natural selection. Perhaps our society needs to be less litigious if we want to get back the rights to deal with our families as we see fit. For instance, if Mrs. Federline wants to drive with her baby on her lap, fine, except if she gets in a car accident and the baby dies, it becomes a manslaughter case. That is the ridiculous society we live in.

Also, to all of you who said "well my parents let me sit on their laps when I was a kid", mine did too but we didn't have air bags and child restraint laws like we do now. Driving with your baby on your lap might be really stupid, but there isn't a law against being stupid and people do stupid things with their kids all the time. But she did get caught breaking the child restraint law so give her a ticket and move on.

If all of these entertainers really truly wanted to do away with paparazzi, doesn't it seem like they could get together and get some sort of legislation passed? The thing is, it is a love hate relationship. They bitch endlessly about not having any privacy but would die if they showed up at an event and didn't have them with their $10k gown on every magazine cover the next day.

I say, she reaps the benefits, she can deal with the price.

And that's all I have to say about that.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

But she doesn't need to rethink her last statement to me, or you either?

If you can't see the difference in what we said to you, and you hoping that somebody has their children taken away, then you might as well leave this site on your own.  You do also realize that by saying that, you are saying that you hope that the owner of this site has his kids taken away, right?  Not too bright of a thing to do.