From thousands of plastic eggs, to baking in a shower cap, to setting a place for "Kate's future husband" at the dinner table, to denying she knows anything about this week's upcoming custody hearing, to blocking a loyal fan and paying cruise customer from Twitter, Kate's Easter was a sometimes hysterical more often creepy glimpse into her descent into madness.And the paparazzi arrived just in time to capture it all.
FYI, until further notice, Realitytvkids.com now has a policy of blurring the children's faces in photos.
 |
| Infdaily.com |
1132 sediments (sic) from readers:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 1132 Newer› Newest»The only thing that was off was when, since I didn't know when.
There was a custody hearing. There will be a child support hearing.
Everything I've told you is consistent, I just didn't know when they would occur which led to some confusion on my part. It was MY error, not my source's, just to clarify. And that's all I can say about it. Believe it or don't believe it, that's up to you.
if it is something that went through the court system surely some form of media would have picked it up and run with it.
-----
Is this an assumption on your part? If the docs are sealed, then wouldn't it be difficult for some form of media to pick it up and run with it?
Since when do fathers that receive a greater visitation schedule have their child support recalculated?
It's not even like Jon and Kate will be splitting them 50-50. Jon's home can't house the 8 children on a full time basis.
If the support is really being recalculated wouldn't it be because Kate has had a drastic reduction in income? It would seem that the percentage that either parent is responsible for would need to change to ensure the children's needs are met.
Admin, I told you Sunday that someone was going to look stupid come Wednesday and it was not going to be Kate. I was right.
You also said your source told you the kids would spend part of Easter with Jon. Wrong again. Kate had them throughout the weekend.
I am thinking you have been had.
Anyhow...Kate's tups & twins share rooms in the mansion so there should be no housing worries!
They will love spending time at Jon's I'm sure, more like a home than a visit.
I'm Right, huh? How do you figure the kids didn't spend part of the time with Jon? Just because Kate didn't say so?? She hardly ever mentions when they go to Jon. That doesn't fit the single mom image she wants.
I think it's very upsetting to some people/sheeple to know Jon has the kids more. Why don't you ask KATE?
Since when do fathers that receive a greater visitation schedule have their child support recalculated?
&&&&
Since, ever time! Child support is based on the amount of time with your children. To keep it simple, say it costs 100 dollars a month to raise a child. Say you have your child 20% of the time. You would pay $80 a month because you are paying for the 80% of time you are not there. Now say the court awards you 40% custody. Then your support drops down to $60. When you get to 50%, neither of you pay anything because both are sharing equally.
I deal with child support all the time, and yes, it is recalculated nearly every time there is a custody change.
More Easter pics on Kate's website, tups only. More outfits and different buckets...this is all very confusing! Hannah has her hair cut in the Easter morning one??
Is this an assumption on your part? If the docs are sealed, then wouldn't it be difficult for some form of media to pick it up and run with it?
&&&
We have seen the docket, I published it here ages ago. There were tons of hearings on it. Only one or two were ever picked up by the media. The rest we knew nothing about. Jon has said in the past he wins some and loses some, we have no idea what those wins are, it was never picked up.
You can't do a report about a closed case. There is nothing to report. If they have no source telling them anything, they're out of luck.
Well I'm not a sheeple, not even sure what that means anymore. But I think that if the media gets hold of so many miniscule things about the Gosselins and publishes them, they would surely have known about a custody change. That's pretty big news as far as the Gosselins are concerned.
I'll be interested to find out what it is all about tomorrow.
As far as Kate fighting Jon for more support or less custody time that seems to also be something that one of them (Kate Jon) couldn't keep quiet. And something that the tabloids would pay for.
Child support modifications can be made for a number of reasons, not just custody change.
For example, if a parent loses their job and gets a new job that pays less the support could be modified.
Jon and Kate just came off TLC contract...
Heather, true, but in this case Jon is going to court to ask for a modification based on more custodial time. Of all the reasons to modify, more time is one of the easiest to get it done since it's so straight forward.
Have you decided to join us again? Welcome back.
Could be that Kate is so hard up for cash that she sold the pics to INF herself. The "friend" took pics for her and gave them to her, and she sold them. That's why she's not outraged. If it was paps, those pics wouldn't exist. She has several lines of trees planted in the front yard, plus more on the side of the house. That blocks off the front and back, and why would she put eggs in the one side yard if she had the front and back all nice and blocked off? No, it was her. Staying out of the pics was her way of leaving herself plausible deniability. How could she know there were paps if she wasn't outside? The $100K she took out of the house a few months ago is running out, so she's looking for a way to get her hands on some more cash. The cruise is tanking, no new show coming up, so--once again--she uses the kids to line her pocketbook.
I'm Right, it's absolutely untrue that Kate "always" tweets with the kids are with Jon and I could give you a dozen examples off the top of my head. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. But just go keep believing what Kate tells you because lord knows she never lies.
I'm confused. If Jon is getting the kids one more night a week for example how much does that affect the amount of child support?
OK, I have a question. If, following the court date, Jon gets 50% custody of the kids, which means that neither one of them pays the other child support. How is Kate going to justify living in the KONpound all by herself half time? Not that she cares about the kids at all, but they were just an excuse for her to have that massive house, pool, and property. "I have 8 kids and they deserve life on a golden platter." It makes no sense to me. And all this time she has had no income commensurate with her lifestyle, she is going to have to sell that place. It's all just insane!
Kate Doesn't Rate, it would be reduced slightly.
Think of child support like a balance scale. Even if you get the kids a little more, the amount you pay goes down a little too.
I guess I get that. Even if it goes down just slightly it would have to go through the courts. Especially when dealing with people like Kate!
How I wish it were 50-50 split. I think it would be so great for the kids to have some down time where they weren't expected to be the source of entertainment for Kate's tweeties.
Carmen, not true. I've verified them. Thanks for the concern though!
Kate Doesn't Rate said... 11
I'm confused. If Jon is getting the kids one more night a week for example how much does that affect the amount of child support?
================
Using Admin's previous example of $100 a month to support a child, if Jon previously had them 4 days a month, assume 30 days a month that's about 13% of the time so he would have to pay $87 for the time he didn't have them. If he gets awarded one week night every week that's another 4 days or 8 days out of 30 which is about 27% of the time so he now has to pay $73 for the time he didn't have them. Using real expenses and multiply by 8, that could be a significant change in child support. My ex and I have 50/50 custody so we do not pay child support but we have a list of approved expenses such as orthodontics, after school activities, etc that are split based on our income.
Admin I live in Ohio and my child support was never calculated the way you say it is in CA.
I have a son with a guy I wasn't married to, and he paid child support based on both of our incomes. We did not have specified visitation, only the "default", I guess you would call it. He was entitled to have my son every other weekend and one day each week. He chose to only have him every other weekend and sporadically on a weekday if there was some kind of family thing going on like a birthday party or whatever.
I got married when my son was three, had another baby and started working part time. I knew my son's father's income had increased drastically so I applied for a hearing to see about getting support increased. ( I was getting $36 a week) At the hearing, all we had to do is bring in our latest pay stubs, and they gave us a chance to say why or why not the amount should increase. That was it. About a week later I got a letter telling me I would begin getting $93 a week. Didn't matter that I was married. It is based on the biological parents income only.I was never asked one question about my husband or his income. Or about how often my son was with his dad.
Then I got divorced 12 years later, and my ex-husband was ordered to pay child support based on income only. We had specified visitation spelled out in our divorce agreement but never really stuck with it after our daughter got older. We only live about a mile apart and our daughter just goes to see her dad whenever she wants to pretty much.
And in Ohio you can only ask for a review of your support order every 36 months.
Lauren, I can't speak for how it's done in your state but in PA it is indeed based in large part on the percentage of time with your kids. Here's from the PA Code Rule 1910.16-4. Support Guidelines:
13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (divide number of overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)
%
b. Subtract 30% ( )
c. Obligor’s Adjusted Percentage Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation (subtract line 13b from line 11)
d. Obligor’s Adjusted Share of the Basic Monthly Support Obligation (multiply line 13c and line 10)
e. Further adjustment, if necessary under subdivision (c)(2) of this rule
All the dizzying factors and the entire formula is laid out here:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter1910/s1910.16-4.html
On another note re: Kate's personal Easter pics, I don't know if that was her taking them or her friend but they are not very good. She needs a new photographer friend.
Disappointing they are plastered all over her blog.
Admin, the source is a source close to Jon but the stories she tells are not true.
Carmen that's not my source. I know about that.
I am not trying to shut you down, I simply don't report things unless it comes from the horse's mouth.
However if there is going to constant I don't trust your source bellyaching I won't post anymore about it. It's not worth it.
Carmen I'm not going to say anything more about it. Too much drama. Sorry I said something in the first place. I get sick of Kate's lies after awhile, but I'll have to keep it to myself when I know different.
Confused said... 199
Since when do fathers that receive a greater visitation schedule have their child support recalculated?
It's not even like Jon and Kate will be splitting them 50-50. Jon's home can't house the 8 children on a full time basis.
If the support is really being recalculated wouldn't it be because Kate has had a drastic reduction in income? It would seem that the percentage that either parent is responsible for would need to change to ensure the children's needs are met. --------------------
Visitation and child support are two separate issues. If either Jon or Kate's incomes were significantly reduced over a period of time, either one could file for a reduction in child support, based on their current income. Doesn't mean either one of them are going to get it. Child support is generally determine by a requiring a percentage of each parent's current income.
Visitation is an entirely different matter, as any parent can file for increased visitation at any time. The parent filing would need to demonstrate why increased visitation is in the best interest of the kids. And there may very well be some merit here with the boys, or any other child who would like to spend more time with Jon for good reason. The parent would need to prove why a change in the original custody arrangements, they both agreed to, would now need to be changed, and if this would be in the best interest of the kids.
As for "Jon's house," how do you know Jon's house can't fit 8 kids?
Admin- I beg to differ with you support calculations. That may be the way they are done in California, but not how they are calculated in Penn.
When the are recalculated in Penn, they take the two parents incomes to figure out the percentage that the parents are responsible for. It has nothing to do with visitation. Visitation is a completely separate
When the are recalculated in Penn, they take the two parents incomes to figure out the percentage that the parents are responsible for. It has nothing to do with visitation. Visitation is a completely separate
&&&
Go read your own PA Code. Percent of time with your children absolutely is a factor. It's number 13.
13. a. Percentage of Time Spent with Children (divide number of overnights with obligor by 365 and multiply by 100)
%
b. Subtract 30% ( )
Either believe admin or not but move on. I doubt she's going to reveal her source and I'm sure that she knows a lot more than she says. I for one trust her judgement on what information she deems reliable and is willing/able to share. If you don't feel the same why follow this blog.
IIRC, someone stated that Jon is living in a small 3 bd house. If Jon stays in one room the 8 children are supposed to share 2 bedrooms? Really.
Maybe Jon would have to sleep on the couch when the kids are there. But I'm not sure how a house of that size could hold that many beds.
It's sad we've become such a spoiled society. Do kids now all need their own rooms to be happy and productive members of societies?
The Dilleys raised their kids into adulthood in a very modest home, they all shared rooms, it was cramped, and they all turned out darn well.
I don't care who we are talking about, I would never criticize a family for the size of their home. You do the best that you can and yes, kids do tend to survive even, horrors, sharing rooms.
Believe Admin or don't. I choose to, because of her reputation and the way she runs her blog. If you don't believe, that is your option, but why waster her and your time on this blog. Start your own blog and post your opinions there.
I don't believe Admin ended up looking foolish at all. The difference between a Gala and a Fiji apple is what it amounted too, almost too close to call. Kate looked like a full on idiot, claiming not to know what's going on, feigning innocence, until a little too much was starting to be asked and she realized what a slippery slope she was on.
It's very difficult to keep things on an even keel, with many differing opinions & personalities, especially with such a polarizing figure as Kate, but Admin does a bang up job.
Smoochie, thanks. I agree about moving on. Believe it, or don't believe it. Entirely up to you! But move on from I don't believe it, I'm not sure I believe it, I believe it, etc etc etc. I have always let my sources come to me, I rarely go to them. I do not have the time nor the interest in hounding good people who have chosen to trust this blog. If there is a time period when they are choosing not to speak with me that causes confusion later on, that's the nature of having sources. Oh well, move on.
Maybe Jon and boys sleep in one bedroom and girls split the other when he has all the kids. That's not a bad thing.
I trust Admin's judgement as well.
Thankful to be single and childless.......
Admin - I am sure your calcualations are correct. Although I could do without Ava 26's snotty comments.
My main concern is that the kids get to spend more time with their father if the Court deems this appropriate, regardless of the size of his house.
I would imagine the children would prefer sharing rooms. No one has ever mentioned them all having separate bedrooms. That is completely unrealistic. But also is the idea that the 5 girls (2 sets of ages) would be comfortable all in one room on a regular basis.
It's not being critical but realistic. I can't imagine a judge wanting that as a permanent situation for any child when there is a better alternative.
Admin- the PA code you are referencing above is for when child support is first calculated, not for any subsequent modifications. Jon- has not changed his custody, only visitation.
My friend's husband is from a family of 16. Some were moved out as they had more but there were always a lot of kids home at a time. Their house has 3-4 bedrooms. They managed as do other large families who don't live in 'mansions'. The closeness could be a good thing too.
Custodial time and visitation are one and the same. Jon even calls it custody himself, he never says visits.
You can call it Jon has visits every other week. Or you can say Jon has custody every other week. It's all the same when discussing PHYSICAL custody.
If you're speaking of who has legal custody or who has primary custody, that's different. Primary is Kate, legal is joint.
Jon is regressing and taking every passive-agressive step he can.
I've lost what little hope I had in him.
It's a not so secret the games he's playing.
I DO understand his frustration. Yet I can't forgive him for placing his spite and anger above his chilren's well being.
What a jerk he is proving himself to be.
On a better note, it appears some of the vile haters are quiet on twitter. PTL!!!!
I have close family friends who have twins and even though they are quite well off and have a five bedroom home, the twins have always preferred to be in the same room. When they were babies they would be found asleep wrapped in each others arms, very cute.
The girls are teens now and STILL share a room. The parents have tired to encourage them to get their own room and their own things and interests, they don't want to be apart. It's pretty common for multiples to want to sleep in the same room and can be traumatic to try to do otherwise.
Tweedle dee- I, too, hope the kids spend more time with Jon. He is their father and they need him!
What a great idea for the boys to sleep with Jon and the girls to split up the other rooms!! I bet they'd love to have "sleep overs" Then they would all have adequate space!
Actually if you look at the PA calculation, they even break it down to 365 days. They want to know many days do your have your kids--visit, see them, have custody of them, it's all the same they just want to know how much they are with you to determine your amount of support. PA is doing it the way most progressive states are moving, in a way that is "mathematical" and in my opinion, fair.
It's not being critical but realistic. I can't imagine a judge wanting that as a permanent situation for any child when there is a better alternative.
&&&
Happens all the time. I can't tell you how infrequently a person's house is even brought up. I don't have the first clue about most of my client's houses. It's just not supposed to be that big of a factor. I understand realistically it IS sometimes, but it's really not supposed to be. The law is moving in the direction of we're not going to judge a living situation unless it actually puts the child at RISK. Putting three kids in a room instead of one may be cozy, but there is nothing risky about it.
Where I live, as long as every child has a bed to sleep in, there is enough space. A bed can be a Serta Super Slumber, a cot, a trundle bed, bunk beds, a fold out sofa, a futon, or any age appropriate sleeping space. It can be in a living room, a bedroom, a rec room, wherever. I'm sure there are enough sleeping spaces for all the Gosselins when they are with Jon.
Reply to Confused only sometimes said... 34
I would imagine the children would prefer sharing rooms. No one has ever mentioned them all having separate bedrooms. That is completely unrealistic. But also is the idea that the 5 girls (2 sets of ages) would be comfortable all in one room on a regular basis.
It's not being critical but realistic. I can't imagine a judge wanting that as a permanent situation for any child when there is a better alternative.
----------------------------------------
So you are saying that "a better alternative" is to have them with Kate and not Jon just because Kate has a bigger house? Wow, how shallow are you!
So Jon, a loving Father, who wants to have an active and involved role in his children's lives should be denied additional custody days because he has a "mediocre" job and is living on a fixed "mediocre" income.
I am sure Jon's house is safe and a loving home for him and his children no matter if they need to share a room or not.
Move on Kate...Money isn't everthing!
Heather, you're back to shit stirirng. If you want to stay here you need to stop.
As for Kate's house no one judges the house itself. What is judged is that the children's money is being used to PAY for such a house when they really don't need that much house, and what is also judged is that they are on the quick path to being underwater and out of that house. Losing your house can't be good for kids.
IF kate were making big bucks and could afford such a house without dipping into the children's money BY ALL MEANS.
Where I live, as long as every child has a bed to sleep in, there is enough space. A bed can be a Serta Super Slumber, a cot, a trundle bed, bunk beds, a fold out sofa, a futon, or any age appropriate sleeping space. It can be in a living room, a bedroom, a rec room, wherever. I'm sure there are enough sleeping spaces for all the Gosselins when they are with Jon.
&&&
Fido, yes, same here. A bed can even be in a shelter where you are in a big room with 100 other people. A bed could be at grandma's house and you sleep there and spend the days with your parent. A bed could be a crappy one donated from church. A bed can be in a camper as long as there is a clean place to shower. Yes, even a camper.
All scenerios I've seen firsthand.
And count me in as finding it astounding that the cozy little home we saw a picture of is apparently not good enough for these kids. How shamefully shallow. There must be thousands of families out there who raised big families in a home that size or less, the Dilleys among them. I think their home was way smaller just judging by the photos.
Confused said... 27
IIRC, someone stated that Jon is living in a small 3 bd house. If Jon stays in one room the 8 children are supposed to share 2 bedrooms? Really.
---------------
"Small" is a relative term. Compared to what? Kate's house? Well yeah, it's smaller than that. I don't think the size of the house has any bearing on a parent's ability to provide a fun and safe environment for the children. Bunk beds easily provide plenty of sleeping space for kids.
His mother is living with him. So if it is a 3 bedroom, then 1 bedroom would be for the kids.
Administrator - Just a short thank you for keeping us up-to-date - you are doing a tremendous job and not always with the appreciation you deserve. I am so happy to hear that the children will be spending more time with their father. I can't get bothered about sleeping accommodation, many large loving families manage very nicely in modest homes, the main thing being they are under a caring roof.
bm
A good example is Hilary Swank and her mom lived out of their car when Hilary was 15 and other times a trailer park. Hilary adores her mom and says she is her inspiration. She turned out just fine. The trailer park didn't seem to give her some kind of terrible childhood. Obviously it's nice to have a bit more than that, but not a predisposition to a great childhood. This is exactly what i can't stand about Kate, she thinks kids need to have "the best" to have good childhoods. No, they need to have loving and supportive parents to have good childhoods. It's good for these kids to have a bit more of a connection with how the mediocre live. They're never going to be able to sustain this fantasy lifestyle forever. This is so fleeting.
According to NE, Jon lives in his mother's townhouse. I don't think she's living with him but I'm sure kate's zealots think it would be awful.
Some kids unfortunately don't even have the luxury of knowing if they will have a place to sleep at night, food to eat the next day.
There are those people who are just thankful to have a roof over their head, even if it's not their own roof.
Who cares in the kids have to share bedrooms? That's not the biggest travesty these kids are going to have to deal with. There are kids out there with a lot less than the Gosselin's and you know what? Some kids are even happy.
Materials are just material. What's important is that these kids know that each night they have a pillow to put their heads on every day, in the same place, they know they have food in the fridge and will have clothing to wear.
I am not sure when we as a society became so ungrateful for any decent living condition but, be it things have changed for economic reason or others there will always be some less fortunate than you.
Kate gets criticism because what she has, a nice home, nice vehicles, etc is because she complains about the lack of space, lack of whatever. It never seems to be enough for her. I wish she had learned more about her give back episode. Kids in homeless shelters are happy to get a meal a volunteer dished up for them, kids are even happy to eat their vegetables because that's the only food they've gotten.
The Gosselin kids could be a lot worse off in life but they aren't and I think it's sad people are worried about them sharing rooms. At least the kids have bedrooms, even if they are shared.
Until you have to live without even your basic necessities, running water, food, heat, shelter...what do you really have to complain about? Nothing really I don't think. Sharing bedrooms is not going to scar these kids.
Maggie, Jon said that tabloid wasn't true about his mother living with him. He tweeted this.
With all due respect Admin, comment #44 why do you think ALL the money belongs to the kids? Kate has earned a tidy sum herself with DWTS, her books and some speaking engagements, not to mention her 1/9 or1/10 when the show was being filmed. I would think that covers a good portion of the mortgage. Seems her hair, Clothing (at least some of it) etc was/is comped.
Carmen, I don't think all the money belongs to the kids. I think however there is no way to support this lifestyle on a six episodes of DWTS two years ago, a few books, and a little blogging on the side.
I've spent some time in a third world country. One of the wealthiest men there lives in a 2 bedroom home with his wife and 4 kids. He could have easily afforded a larger home but he saw no reason for it. They spend most of their time outside and the home was only for sleeping, eating and bathing.
One day I was talking to him about his business and we talked about his home. He laughed and said "I'll never under you Gringos and your desire for so many rooms. Don't you LIKE your families? Why do you need to get away from them?"
That was one of those moments that changed me forever.
The only source for Jon's mom living with him was the NE story the week before last. There were so many other errors in that piece, I'm not sure I believe that part.
And count me in as finding it astounding that the cozy little home we saw a picture of is apparently not good enough for these kids.
-------------------------------
Whoa! I had no idea there were tabloid photos of Jon's house. All I can say is that whoever took those photos was trespassing on private property. Unless it was actually a neighbor who took the photos.
Smoochie said... 29
Believe Admin or don't. I choose to, because of her reputation and the way she runs her blog. If you don't believe, that is your option, but why waster her and your time on this blog. Start your own blog and post your opinions there.
I don't believe Admin ended up looking foolish at all. The difference between a Gala and a Fiji apple is what it amounted too, almost too close to call. Kate looked like a full on idiot, claiming not to know what's going on, feigning innocence, until a little too much was starting to be asked and she realized what a slippery slope she was on.
It's very difficult to keep things on an even keel, with many differing opinions & personalities, especially with such a polarizing figure as Kate, but Admin does a bang up job.
April 10, 2012 6:40 PM
I don't feel it''s a waste of time to read and decipher and form an opinion that differs from another's. I find it makes sense for me to question and then decide things for myself. Why should I be told to go away?
What I have come to believe about this is that Kate didn't look like an idiot. As a matter of fact I have no idea why Kate has anything to do with this particular situation. I believe this hearing was news to her and whatever it is about is not going to change anything if much for her.
I don't know that what Administrator's source has said is true or not. Noting has been said outside of this blog to confirm or deny that. So I will wait and I'm sure if, in the future, there is a change in custody time or child support we will definitely hear about it.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 30
Smoochie, thanks. I agree about moving on. Believe it, or don't believe it. Entirely up to you! But move on from I don't believe it, I'm not sure I believe it, I believe it, etc etc etc. I have always let my sources come to me, I rarely go to them. I do not have the time nor the interest in hounding good people who have chosen to trust this blog. If there is a time period when they are choosing not to speak with me that causes confusion later on, that's the nature of having sources. Oh well, move on.
April 10, 2012 6:42 PM
I'm just coming back from dinner and reading this so I hope you will allow me to comment on a few things that have posted in my absence?
Gosselin8comefirst33...I wasn't talking about the support calculations. I was referring to the questioning of admin's sources. Sorry if you thought it was snotty or directed at you.
Sacre Bleu! said46...Of course everyone is going to form their own opinions. It just seemed like admin had already made her point about her source. And it strikes me as odd that people would read a blog run by someone who they didn't trust.
That's all it was. Don't want to start any back and forth.
Its funny we bought what we thought was our "dream" house prior to having kids. We were looking at two different houses and chose the one that was bigger thinking we'd enjoy the space once we had kids to fill it up. Lots of rooms, lots of bathrooms, lots of space.
Well now we have a child and I find myself saying all the time, I wish the house was SMALLER. All big houses do is get filled with clutter and junk you don't need. I wish our son;s room was closer to us. When we have more kids I know we could make do with much smaller. Trust me bigger is not always better.
Actually, that story in NE was a rehash of a story from last year. Him losing his car, moving in with his mother, blah, blah, blah. For as much as the sheeple claim Jon sells pictures and stories, there are actually few stories that would even qualify. However, it always seems a story about down and out, bad Jon appears when Kate needs to deflect attention from her own stupidity. Never do the articles present him the way he lives his life now, but how he acted out those few months YEARS ago! I'm surprised the media/rags actually fall for it anymore and don't bother to check out facts.
The kool-aid drinkers are all materialistic to the core.
Marie said... 51 posted
I am not sure when we as a society became so ungrateful for any decent living condition but, be it things have changed for economic reason or others there will always be some less fortunate than you.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I agree! Money and possessions have become THE priority for too many people. And at the expense of family, friends, and their neighbors near and far. Just because someone has more money than another does NOT make them a better parent or person.
I respect Jon for wanting more time with his children. They need Jon in their lives. They do NOT need THINGS and a BIG house.
I believe a true victory for the kiddos would be to halt Kate from using the kids in her ponzi schemes (cruise), no pics, and not one mention of their names on twitter, their daily activities, what she likes to say their 'dreams' are,.blah blah.
If Kate wants to cruise, let her cruise alone on her own merit. If she wants to twitter and blog, by all means go right ahead. Just not a breath or mention of the kids.
Where's Kate hiding out tonight? Wanting to avoid the twitter storm she would experience regarding today's events? Kids gone to Jon's?
Admin wrote:Carmen, I don't think all the money belongs to the kids. I think however there is no way to support this lifestyle on a six episodes of DWTS two years ago, a few books, and a little blogging on the side.
______________________
And furthermore, all of her books were 100% about her kids. And she greatly used her kids during her stint with DWTS. She talked about them greatly and drew hearts in the air and blew kisses to them every time she was on air. And all her talks or speeches are about the kids. And lastly, the majority of her blogging is about her kids. Even her twitter name and website name mention the kids in their titles.
Check Please, it's possible the photos of Jon's house (if indeed they ARE of his house) came from a real estate site or even Google. Photos of private residences are all too easy to come by these days.
Jennifer what a beautiful story. I love how when we go to places like that to try to "bring good" to them or if you are religious "minister" to them, they end up just ministering to us.
It reminds me of the 60 Minutes story about The Congo. One of the most impoverished areas on earth. And there were all these beautiful, amazing, HAPPY people singing their hearts out in choir and playing wonderful music in the orchestra. It didn't matter to them what their circumstances were or how big their houses were or how much money they had, they were happy people doing something to make their fellow countryman happy that anyone could do for the price of a cheap violin or just a glass of water to wet your vocal chords. I so love that show, they just GET IT.
Maggie said... 65
Admin wrote:Carmen, I don't think all the money belongs to the kids. I think however there is no way to support this lifestyle on a six episodes of DWTS two years ago, a few books, and a little blogging on the side.
______________________
And furthermore, all of her books were 100% about her kids. And she greatly used her kids during her stint with DWTS. She talked about them greatly and drew hearts in the air and blew kisses to them every time she was on air. And all her talks or speeches are about the kids. And lastly, the majority of her blogging is about her kids. Even her twitter name and website name mention the kids in their titles.
April 10, 2012 7:27 PM
Are you saying that all the money Jon and Kate made from the shows, all the money Kate made from DWTS, all the money they made from the books, Kate's blog, etc belongs to the kids?
First that isn't legally possible. The kids could not make the money as minors. Since the kids were shown on the shows they were allocated a percentage to be set aside. They were not actors and didn't receive "pay" per se.
Ava said... 59
Gosselin8comefirst33...I wasn't talking about the support calculations. I was referring to the questioning of admin's sources. Sorry if you thought it was snotty or directed at you.---------------------
In that case, my apologies. I live one state over from Kate, and am aware of how some things are calculated in my state. I don't know Admin's source, and understand her need to keep this confidential. I really did not want to know her sources, as I repect confidentiality.
Bottom line, if Jon wants to spend more time with his kids, for the right reasons,and it is in the best interest of the kids, I wish him the best. There are so many options for 8 kids with beds/sleeping arrangements in a 3 bedroom home, that I am postive that this can be accomplished easily and be a positive, fun experience for all of his kids.
First that isn't legally possible. The kids could not make the money as minors.
&&&
Kids can indeed legally make money as minors if they are contracted by their parents. And that's the whole problem, that it wasn't set up for them to make money because it was just a reality show. That is my whole problem with it!
Since the kids were shown on the shows they were allocated a percentage to be set aside. They were not actors and didn't receive "pay" per se.
&&&&
Many people are pushing for reality show kids to be classified as actors with all the benefits. They had lines "Coming up on Kate Plus 8!" they were told to go here, there, and there just like actors, everything was arranged and heavily produced. Much closer than just a lot of improve on a set than kids just living their lives.
Is this the first time you are posting here or are you just changing your name? I ask people to stick to the same name and not do drivebys.
Are you saying that all the money Jon and Kate made from the shows, all the money Kate made from DWTS, all the money they made from the books, Kate's blog, etc belongs to the kids?
First that isn't legally possible. The kids could not make the money as minors. Since the kids were shown on the shows they were allocated a percentage to be set aside. They were not actors and didn't receive "pay" per se.
-----------
There would be NO Jon and Kate without the kids.
There would be no show, no books, no DWTS, no blog, no cruise, no nothing.
Yes, minors get paid for work. The Gosselin kids finally had some money put away for them after a sh##storm commenced. Whether that money is still there or not is questionable. I doubt it. The kids probably paid for the Easter hunt, the lunch and their new too-big clothing.
It is not true that all the money is the kids, but it is not Kates any more than it is Jons. Sorry I cannot type in the dark.
Gosselin8ComeFirst69...I agree with you about Jon's living arrangements.
Is it me, or is there a sudden interest in discounting this blog and Admin as soon as Kate goes quiet on Twitter?
These people are as predictable as Kate, please move on.
Ah, I see tamtam967 has resurfaced. If this doesn't bring Kate out of her hole, nothing will:
tamtam967
@Kateplusmy8 I have tweeted several times and see you only respond to certain 1s so I am rethinking your cruise! May wait for another Paula
tamtam967
@Kateplusmy8 Dean or Donny & Marie or Snooki. Have a nice day!
Odd that Cindy didn't reply to her. She doesn't get THAT many tweets from interested cruisers.
Bottom line, if Jon wants to spend more time with his kids, for the right reasons,and it is in the best interest of the kids, I wish him the best. There are so many options for 8 kids with beds/sleeping arrangements in a 3 bedroom home, that I am postive that this can be accomplished easily and be a positive, fun experience for all of his kids.
^^^^^^^^^^^
I just read an article on the Duggars, their grocery bill, etc. There are nine kids in one bedroom and nine kids in another bedroom. I don't know where the baby sleeps. I think the Gosselin kids could manage with two bedrooms.
Pamela said... 73
It is not true that all the money is the kids, but it is not Kates any more than it is Jons. Sorry I cannot type in the dark.
April 10, 2012 7:48 PM
I understood that the money Jon and Kate made on everything before the divorce was divided at that time. Because Jon spent so much of his money and had no income the courts had put the amount of his child support in escrow so it would be paid.
Anything Kate made, besides the percentage put back for the kids is hers.
No one knows how much money Kate has or if she has used any of the money put back for the kids. Anything said about that has to be pure speculation.
aggiemom09121416 said... 71
There would be NO Jon and Kate without the kids.
There would be no show, no books, no DWTS, no blog, no cruise, no nothing.
Yes, minors get paid for work. The Gosselin kids finally had some money put away for them after a sh##storm commenced. Whether that money is still there or not is questionable. I doubt it. The kids probably paid for the Easter hunt, the lunch and their new too-big clothing.
April 10, 2012 7:40 PM
I don't understand this type of reasoning at all. Because the birth of 2 sets of multiples brought Jon and Kate to the attention of viewers through TLC doesn't mean that the money made from the show or anything that has anything to do with the kids, the kids'.
Maggie #65 what mother doesn't talk/brag about their kids? If I had been on TV and didn't mention or wave to my kids their feelings would have been hurt.
Because the birth of 2 sets of multiples brought Jon and Kate to the attention of viewers through TLC doesn't mean that the money made from the show or anything that has anything to do with the kids, the kids'.
&&&
You're joking right? Who are you and what name did you use before. I don't cotton to drive bys who post outrageous things like this. Own it.
Maggie #65 what mother doesn't talk/brag about their kids? If I had been on TV and didn't mention or wave to my kids their feelings would have been hurt.
&&&
Well, hundreds of celebrities go on T.V. every day and leave their kids out of it. So a lot of mothers don't talk or brag about their kids on T.V. In private, yes. Why some even write books and blogs and don't mention their kids!
Odd that Cindy didn't reply to her. She doesn't get THAT many tweets from interested cruisers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why is she waiting for a tweet? The phone number and Cindy's e-mail address is clearly listed. How dumb are these sheeple?
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 70
Kids can indeed legally make money as minors if they are contracted by their parents. And that's the whole problem, that it wasn't set up for them to make money because it was just a reality show. That is my whole problem with it!
Many people are pushing for reality show kids to be classified as actors with all the benefits. They had lines "Coming up on Kate Plus 8!" they were told to go here, there, and there just like actors, everything was arranged and heavily produced. Much closer than just a lot of improve on a set than kids just living their lives.
Is this the first time you are posting here or are you just changing your name? I ask people to stick to the same name and not do drivebys.
April 10, 2012 7:39 PM
Obviously they were not under contract, so legally they were not making any money. I posted before that I do not believe that just because the birth of the kids thrust them into the tv-viewing world that the money belongs to the children.
I am not driving by Administrator. This is the name I am posting under.
Without the kids' very existence, there would BE no money. There would be no mansion, there would have never been any media attention. You think some middle-class couple in PA would have made millions with a TV show? No offense but neither of them are talented in show business skills. The entire reason anyone even knows who they are are the kids.
(Crap stirrer.)
Obviously they were not under contract,
&&&&
Yes.....they were under contract. This is why Jon went to court so much to get them out of their contract. Read the court documents and articles from that period. The entire family was under contract. TLC would be one dumb piece of work not to put them under contract. Of course they were. They started paying the kids after the PA Labor Dept investigated them.
Also I don't have the first clue where your info is coming from about the initial child support nor does it make one iota of sense to me as someone familiar with family law. As Source Please would say, source please! I don't think you have one.
If you are not a drive by is this your first time posting then? You sound so familiar.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 81
Because the birth of 2 sets of multiples brought Jon and Kate to the attention of viewers through TLC doesn't mean that the money made from the show or anything that has anything to do with the kids, the kids'.
&&&
You're joking right? Who are you and what name did you use before. I don't cotton to drive bys who post outrageous things like this. Own it.
April 10, 2012 8:05 PM
No I am not joking. That is what I believe. Doesn't it seem strange to think just because the kids were born the money belongs to them? In what family does the money belong to the children?
This is my opinion and I am owning it. This is the name I post under.
No I am not joking. That is what I believe. Doesn't it seem strange to think just because the kids were born the money belongs to them? In what family does the money belong to the children?
&&&&
In a family where the children worked for it and were massively exploited for it. Doesn't happen too often, I'll give you that. But it sure happened here. And when they are old enough to realize they can sue and choose too, like many other stage moms before her, Kate is going to owe them a lot.
That's my opinion, a popular one at that, and I own it too.
Oh and they weren't "thrust" into the tv-viewing world. They were adults and made the decision to go into the public eye. Other families have said no (Dilleys). Don't make it sound as if they had no choice, that's false.
Furthermore, they decided to sell their childrens' privacy and private identity to the world when they were not of age to consent to this. They weren't acting, they were having their real lives filmed. AND they profited off this. When Jon wanted it to stop, she wanted the gravy train to continue. So she continued to profit off them and would still be doing so today were it not for TLC having to fight Jon in court and the show's low ratings. She'd jump at any chance to sit on her lazy orange ass and make a buck off her kids like a sideshow.
legally they were not making any money.
&&&
Legally, they made 15%, and legally, they also have a trust fund pushed for by Jon himself.
Legally, it was all legal.
What is unconscionable is that eight people made 15 percent while one person made 85 percent. I did the math and something is a bit odd about that one.
In what family does the money belong to the children?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In a family where the children supported the parents. It's not a child's job to be the breadwinner in the family. It's supposed to be the other way around.
Oh and they weren't "thrust" into the tv-viewing world.
&&&
In fact the very first action that started all this publicity was that Kate called the Reading Eagle herself and organized the whole thing. Reading Eagle last year detailed exactly how it all went down and good on them for telling the truth. For someone who just saw fame land in her lap, she sure made quite a bit of calls!
Spring Has Sprung said... 92
In what family does the money belong to the children?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In a family where the children supported the parents. It's not a child's job to be the breadwinner in the family. It's supposed to be the other way around.
April 10, 2012 8:18 PM
That makes no sense to me. The kids did not support the G family. The show was about raising multiples. The kids were not raising themselves.
So some think it's perfectly acceptable to give birth to children, put them out there for the amusement/entertainment of television viewers, film them and expose them without their consent, and then have the parents collect the money because none of it belongs to the children?
I guess child slave labor is still alive and well in this country, and there are some that approve of it. Who would have thought it?
Sacre Bleu, famous phrase via cartoon series "The Inspector"? And also commonly used by Hercule Poirot? Et tu, Ms. Whodunit?
Did you install the IP tracker, Admin? I think you're gonna need it.
Sacre Bleu!, you're done. I don't have an issue with other opinions, but I can't allow child exploiters to hang out here. It becomes an ethical problem for me.
That makes no sense to me. The kids did not support the G family. The show was about raising multiples. The kids were not raising themselves.
^^^^^^^^^
Of course they supported their parents! They were the source of income. If they didn't support their parents, who did? Jon and Kate had no job. The show was not just some part-time extra holiday cash for them! It was their full-time job, and it was the kids who made the money for them.
Did you install the IP tracker, Admin? I think you're gonna need it.
&&&&
Only long enough to get Kimmie.
Sacre Blue --That makes no sense to me. The kids did not support the G family. The show was about raising multiples. The kids were not raising themselves.
The point is that without the oddity of the tups, there would have been no show about raising them. The contribution of their lives is critical to the packaging of the show. Kate used them as a stepping stone to an income. Now, she is using that "banked" income to support a lifestyle from which she benefits greatly. We just want something substantial left for them when they need it.
The kids' clothing in the Easter pics really took me aback. Old-looking dresses for the girls and embarrassingly large clothes for the boys. It appears to me that TLC and their minions did everything for Kate, who seems totally inept and incapable of doing even the basics for her kids. I pray those boys don't have to wear those clothes until they actually fit.
1. The only reason the TV show and all the other high-paid perks existed is because there were eight KIDS.
2. Without their existence, Jon and Kate would not have made even a fraction of what they made putting the kids on TV.
Thus it follows that the income generated by putting them on TV was BECAUSE of them.
Because of the above, you could logically and soundly argue that *100%* of the income belonged to the eight. It wouldn't have been made without their existence.
And here is this Sacre Bleu (CJ) person arguing the exact opposite of what logic tells us: that the kids earned NONE of it.
Wrong. Not only logically wrong, but morally wrong, as well. Every kind of wrong.
Maybe I'm being picky or I've let my animosity towards Kate as a "mother" color my judgement but the Easter pictures on her website disturb me. Something is off about them and I can't put my finger on what's wrong, if anything. Maybe the look in their eyes?
Kate's Going Down, 102. Concise. Correct. Thank you.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
I do believe that Kate is ONLY spending on the kids the equivalent of Jon's child support PLUS the same exact amount from her. Anything needed over and above (e.g., school tuition) I would bet is coming out of the children's 15%. In her warped mind, this is what's "equitable." And that is why her children are looking like ragamuffins.
She is not going to spend one nickel more from HER money than what Jon spends. I don't know how she's handling the mortgage, I hope that none of it is being covered by the kids' earnings. In my view, she should be paying that from her personal stash because SHE is the one who needs that house, not the kids.
I don't know about anyone else, but I did see the pix (one each of the tups only, there were none of the twins) she posted from Easter. I thought her boys' faces looked strained, not happy, and they look gaunt to me. Maybe it's normal. I just didn't like the way they looked. I don't think they have easy lives.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 99
Did you install the IP tracker, Admin? I think you're gonna need it.
&&&&
Only long enough to get Kimmie.
_______________________
lol, admin! One down, two to go. I betcha one of those remaining is deep in the heart of Texas, and it's not Dallas Lady!
aggiemom09121416 said... 71
There would be NO Jon and Kate without the kids.
=======================
What a mouthful you have spoken. Never mind the tups being farmed out before they were even born. Thank you!
Houses are so big these days. The house I now share with just my husband is quite a bit bigger than my childhood family of 7 had. Our expectations are so out of whack.
Sacle or whatever your name is, I didn't mislead anyone. You are completely misunderstanding what that part of the law is saying. But you're not worth explaining it to. But it's not saying that that only applies at 40%.
Sherry, lol. This one is rather bright, but she sure don't know how to read a child support law and interpret it correctly!
It's not the birth of the children that thrust them in the public eye, it's their parents decision to have a reality show for pay. There are a lot of multiple birth children in North America that are not in the public eye, because their parents CHOSE NOT TO EXPLOIT THEM.
When children work in the family business - being staged, being coached, having to follow direction, repeating scenes, sitting still in hot clothes for hours for photo shoots - that earns considerable money, then the money belongs to the children by the same right it belongs to their parents. They earned it.
This is the crux of the matter. By the very fact that they are not old enough to give consent, they are exploited and taken advantage of. Children on reality shows need legal protection from exploitation, even if (and even more so) the exploitation comes from their parents. The very same parents who should be protecting and nurturing them.
Katie Cry-duh said... 101
The kids' clothing in the Easter pics really took me aback. Old-looking dresses for the girls and embarrassingly large clothes for the boys. It appears to me that TLC and their minions did everything for Kate, who seems totally inept and incapable of doing even the basics for her kids. I pray those boys don't have to wear those clothes until they actually fit. ------
But yet Kate has money to take HER clothes to a tailor shop. All about Kate.
Audible, regarding the Easter pics. Yeah, they bug me too. First off, they would never have existed had kate behaved like a mother and not a manager/pimp. Hide the eggs in the backyard or indoors and voila! no pics on INF. The boys' clothing alone implies what an afterthought they are to her, in every way. The fact that the kids are running la-dee-dah in their front yard not bothered at all that a photographer is taking their picture. The fact that the only adults present are not their parents and are taking their picture. The huge number of eggs the girls have in their plastic bags while the boys have less eggs spilling out if their littler buckets. Mady and her (I think) posing for the paparazzo. No Cara. No Kate. No Shoka. The fact that these kids are pimped out by their own mother and they seem accepting and resigned to it. Yeah those pictures were all kinds of wrong
Just another, well said.
The logic astounds. The kids and Kate and Jon were all doing the exact same thing--being filmed, doing couch interviews, going on trips, all together, all the same. But Kate and Jon only should be paid not the kids.
If a child picks some cherries for a farmer and an adult picks some cherries for a farmer and they both pick X amount of cherries, only the adult can be paid because he is the adult? I don't freaking think so. Gimme my money for those cherries I picked, farmer!
Well, this is know for sure...Sacre Bleu is NOT Kate. She could not come up with that pseudonym.
Sacre Bleu! said... 88
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 81
Because the birth of 2 sets of multiples brought Jon and Kate to the attention of viewers through TLC doesn't mean that the money made from the show or anything that has anything to do with the kids, the kids'.
&&&
You're joking right? Who are you and what name did you use before. I don't cotton to drive bys who post outrageous things like this. Own it.
April 10, 2012 8:05 PM
No I am not joking. That is what I believe. Doesn't it seem strange to think just because the kids were born the money belongs to them? In what family does the money belong to the children?
This is my opinion and I am owning it. This is the name I post under.
______________
Well if the kids weren't born we would've never heard of Jon or Kate.
They are know for having kids that why they got a show.
It's why they got famous and rich.
And she would have no need to read pesky little child support laws and actually make an effort, however misguided, to interpret them.
And no pics of the twins in the Easter photos on her website.
I wonder why.???
That makes no sense to me. The kids did not support the G family. The show was about raising multiples. The kids were not raising themselves.
__________________________________________________
Yo CT...I watched a few of those trashy shows. They were about going to an expensive kiddy attraction. I didn't watch too many, but did I miss the ones about raising children? I guess what initially attracted me was that I took my own children to some of those places. They only difference was my family had fun. I though that was the point.
BTW, the only parenting (raising in your terms) I saw was from the father.
Which brings me back to the question I've had since the beginning...,exactly what was plan B for Kreider if fame and fortune and a reality show hadn't "fallen in their laps"? The cavalier baby making against Jon's wishes, with their limited financial resources jams my circuits. Kate continues to use those kids like hostages to this day: "If you don't give me money, they'll suffer". Look at the chaos and destruction her thinking has caused, she's a category 5 tornado
A 3 bedroom home will, most likely, only have 1 or 1-1/2 baths. Children with sweet temperaments will share the inconvenience with resignation. Children with entitled temperaments will probably fuss and squabble. It will be Jon's parental opportunity to educate them. Jon can make this fun and family and fair. The Gosselin children need this more-natural environment to learn some basic social skills. (Maybe then they can go back to their other home and teach Kate. Oops, sorry.)
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 114
If a child picks some cherries for a farmer and an adult picks some cherries for a farmer and they both pick X amount of cherries, only the adult can be paid because he is the adult? I don't freaking think so. Gimme my money for those cherries I picked, farmer!
---------------
Honestly, in that scenario, the farmer is in trouble for violating child labor laws---
Oh, wait...
I guess Kate is learning to speak French now and one of the phrases she's learned is "sacre bleu!".
Admin you do a great job with the blog and I trust what you share.
Maybe Jon doesn't have the twins and tips at the same time. Who knows the exact arrangement. There were 7 kids in our family plus my parents. Our summer beach place had only 3 bedrooms. We survived and thrived.
Actually Check it's a good example because most states allow very young kids to work on farms! Within limits of course depending on the law.
Dmasy said... 122
A 3 bedroom home will, most likely, only have 1 or 1-1/2 baths. Children with sweet temperaments will share the inconvenience with resignation. Children with entitled temperaments will probably fuss and squabble. It will be Jon's parental opportunity to educate them. Jon can make this fun and family and fair. The Gosselin children need this more-natural environment to learn some basic social skills. (Maybe then they can go back to their other home and teach Kate. Oops, sorry.)
---------------
Dmasy, I like this a lot. But I do want to point out that the boys can just pee in the woods! JMHO, maybe it's just a PA thing.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 125
Actually Check it's a good example because most states allow very young kids to work on farms! Within limits of course depending on the law.
-------------
Are you talking about family farms I hope? Because if you are not and it's a migrant labor kind of thing then I am shocked. How young is "very"? I don't even want to know. OT anyway.
*facepalm*
Check Please, 126. Ha. I live in an Illinois woods, and guess what? You're right!
I watched dancin with them there stars this evening. Ms Kreider friend Sherri got sent home and was so upset. She has worked really hard, and had such a positive attitude.
So this well in Las Vegas,.seems a live dwrs show is starting. With golds like tia carrerr, Kyle Massey, Joey fatone. Even.Carson kressley is going to be on - as a host and dancer! Of Ms Kreider had even tried just a little, she too might be opening on Vegas.
I don't think the kids will have issues sharing rooms they did it be for they got the mansion.
I have also been reading some interesting research the past few days. Scientists studied to determine when babies and little kids stop being cute as.. Babies! When kids are about four and a half years old, their faces change, fat pads are lost, they become less cute.
Fascinating research, and explains to me why I think school agree kids are boring. Unless they are kids I know, I just don't care. The folks who are obsessed with the kids became enamored of little kids with baby faces. They will be disappointed to see school age kids who are not babies like in the show. Kids do grow up.
Gosselin8ComeFirst said... 113
Katie Cry-duh said... 101
The kids' clothing in the Easter pics really took me aback. Old-looking dresses for the girls and embarrassingly large clothes for the boys. It appears to me that TLC and their minions did everything for Kate, who seems totally inept and incapable of doing even the basics for her kids. I pray those boys don't have to wear those clothes until they actually fit. ------
But yet Kate has money to take HER clothes to a tailor shop. All about Kate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The clothes bother me terribly, too. Ugh. The boys' outfits are so huge they will still fit them at their high school graduation. Shame on selfish greedy skanky kHate.
Joy in Virginia. Interesting research regarding faces of kids. I am unmoved by babies and toddlers. I only become interested in kids when they are around school age.
Admin
Regarding Kate not spending more on the kids then Jon's child support plus her half---that never occurred to me. How awful if that is true, but I really think it very well may be, much to my horror and disgust. Imagine the nitpicking to make sure to minimize your spending on kids! She is just mean enough to do it. Usually the non-custodial parent spends a lot more on the kids than child support, because they are happy to have them and go out to fun places. That's the way I remember it. Now though, nobody wants to pay child support, so everybody I know has joint custody, 50/50 time, and no support. OK for parents, but I always think it sucks for kids. Oh well, they are resilient and I don't hear them complain, oddly enough.
I just watched Pizza gate again... hmmm, when Steve tells kate to get a pizza order together, kate says she doesn't eat pizza. yet when she was running the marathon, did she not say that sh e couldn't wait till it was over so she could eat pizza???
Also, Jamie also said at the very end " Iam just here for the kids". She thot it would end with everyone hugging and saying " See ya later", but that isn't going to happen, says Jamie. and that is why we don't see her anymore.
Kate its you they leave, NOT the kids...
I was hoping she was going to crash, but her nose dive is taking longer then I had hoped...
Meagler said: just watched Pizza gate again... hmmm, when Steve tells kate to get a pizza order together, kate says she doesn't eat pizza. yet when she was running the marathon, did she not say that sh e couldn't wait till it was over so she could eat pizza???
____________________
In fairness to Kate, I heard her say and she tweeted that the ONLY time she will eat pizza is after the marathon(s). So I do think she is sticking to her guns (as far as the public knows).
I really like this blog. It's my go-to source for some cold hard inside info on the Gosselin's.
I'm kinda sad that it's now all secret sources and he-said she-said. Of course, we can't believe a word that comes out of Kate's mouth.
But if there was new court news or speeding ticket information or even when Chris Watts posted his pics on INF, at least it was backed up by direct links to the information.
While gossip blogs are a dime a dozen, it's somewhat a shame that integrity has been lost here. I'll still read but now I know to question everything. Unless I see a direct source for the information, I'll take it with a grain of salt. It's still entertaining. :)
Marie, I don't see it as integrity being lost. It sounds to me like Admin carefully checks out her sources.
The thing that's changed is there is a lot more speculation (although there always was a lot) and not many facts. Kate isn't in the news but people still want to talk about her. Not really a good combo for factual conversations.
Lets see...A cruise to honor/follow the Titanic from its maiden voyage has over 400 people on it...and kate the great has what? 7? maybe 8 people going?
Yup kate! You rock!
Starz22
Admin...I cant put my name/ URL in...but I can post anon now...HUM...I always put my name with my post. Now I guess I dont have to...
Things that make you go hummmm
Just like their E-town house, those kids were NEVER in their backyard. What would it have co$t to put up a huge fence back there? NO! Putting up a sign that says "don't stop, don't look!" on the front yard made more sense! She's an effing pimp, that's all there is to it!!
And she's back on form. Tweeting maniacally this morning. But something different today: She actually turned down a freebie!
Kate Gosselin @Kateplusmy8
...sadly,this am, we opened our LAST box of Nutrigrain cereal that we brought back from Aus/NZ...a sad day here!:(Wish we had it in the US!
XXXXXX
@Kateplusmy8 I can send you some nutrigrain!
Kate Gosselin @Kateplusmy8
@XXXXXX awww thanks but shipping would cost wayyyyyy too much! :( there's so many foods there that we loved!!! Thanks anyway...:)
New leaf???
Posted too soon. Almost every one of the 9 or 10 tweets after that were ALSO offers to ship her this cereal from Australia. And she turned ALL of them down.
Head injury?
New leaf? I doubt it. Kate's just covering her bases. If she said accepted the person may reply that they will pay for the cereal or ship it to her if she pays for the shipping. I'm sure if they say they don't mind paying the shipping she will provide them with her email so she can give them her address.
How bad would Kate look if she accepted the cereal offer and the the person asks her to pay the shipping. Then she would have to reply that shipping costs too much and would look like even more of a grifter when she says oh Nevermind I thought you would pay for it.
Although it is funny there is another person offering to buy her cereal. I wonder what the other one did with all that expired cereal.
Kate Gosselin@Kateplusmy8
@dady9898 happy happy bday! Hope it supersedes your wildest dreams :)
______________________________
"Supersedes"...does Kate even know the meaning of the word in addition to being able to spell it correctly! (Don't think so.) Most people misspell it "superCede"...think someone else is trying to clean up her Twitter account to make her look better.
Supersedes, yeah, riiiight...this from someone who said the Easter baskets were "beaming"...@@@.
P.S. to first post re "supersedes"...on the other hand, Kate probably did write that, because, as usual, it's the wrong word...think she meant "surpasses."
She sure sounds defeated this morning on Twitter.
Kate Gosselin @Kateplusmy8
...sadly,this am, we opened our LAST box of Nutrigrain cereal that we brought back from Aus/NZ...a sad day here!:(Wish we had it in the US!
______________
Ah back to her grifting ways all ready she may not have accepted yet.
But don't worry just give it time there's no way she can pass on ANYTHING that's FREE or semi-free.
Kate doesn't want to get cereal from mediocre twitter followers, she's grifting for the company to send her boxes of it.
She knows how to play the game.
"Oh poor me, my children will be so disappointed not to eat imported cereal anymore. But you all can't go out of your way to help me, it must, must, must be the manufacturer themselves that sends me their product for FREE! Woe is me!"
Maybe Kate's hoping Nutrigrain will ship her free cereal, and then she won't have to be bothered with her pesky fans. Wouldn't be the first time.
JudyK - "Eggsactly". K is just smart enough to know there are "big words" out there, but manages to screw up their usage on a regular basis.
Exactly how much S#!& did she bring back with her from Australia? I guess with so many people in the family, a "hairplane" full. Did she claim all of it? Food items?
It's such a sad sad day here too :(!! I'm out of the most delicious Jamaican rum that I've ever tasted!!!!! It's just so yummy!! Why oh why don't they have it here!! sniff sniff...(do you think somebody back in Ocho Rios will get wind of my whining they'll send me a crate full?)
Vanessa said... 151
Exactly how much S#!& did she bring back with her from Australia? I guess with so many people in the family, a "hairplane" full. Did she claim all of it? Food items?
It's such a sad sad day here too :(!! I'm out of the most delicious Jamaican rum that I've ever tasted!!!!! It's just so yummy!! Why oh why don't they have it here!! sniff sniff...(do you think somebody back in Ocho Rios will get wind of my whining they'll send me a crate full?
________
I'm so sorry I know how you feel I'm out of eggs and my fav bacon.
God I wish someone would send me some for free.
The kids did not support the G family. The show was about raising multiples. The kids were not raising themselves.
******
To further your own point then, if they kids were not able to even raise themselves, how could they have the ability to consent to have their lives displayed on TV?
They couldn't no more understand the life long impact of having cameras capture their very personal and private moments than they could make a casserole.
Yet, Kate ascribed this very grown up decision making ability to 4 year olds, but not the monetary benefits.
It is beyond obvious that the kids at some point became part of a story arc for each episode, with trips and events. What surrounds this, often not so obvioulsy, is that there is a huge media engine to feed in order to keep eyeballs watching the program. I agree that was work and a job for Jon and Kate, as well as the kids.
There were constant photo shoots and media appearances. J+K were the supervising adults and parents, but the kids were right by their side.
How does this not deserve compensation?
Berks Neighbor said... 148
Kate doesn't want to get cereal from mediocre twitter followers, she's grifting for the company to send her boxes of it.
She knows how to play the game.
"Oh poor me, my children will be so disappointed not to eat imported cereal anymore. But you all can't go out of your way to help me, it must, must, must be the manufacturer themselves that sends me their product for FREE! Woe is me!"
************************************************
Old shameless habits die hard.
As the kids get older, less and less people are
going to give a damn that they're having a "sad day" because they ran out of a particular brand of cereal. Oh boo-hoo.
Hey Kate, tell that to a family living in a homeless shelter.
Useless f*ck.
Oh, and good for Jon! Enjoy your children :o)
Sad is having no cereal to feed your kids, not running out of AU cereal.
Vanessa said... 151
Exactly how much S#!& did she bring back with her from Australia?
--
I was thinking the same thing. Seems like she also brought back lots of rice cakes she twitted about.
Seems like the Aus trip was a yr ago? (right?) So almost 18 months later, they finally crack open that last box of free cereal.
Wonder what else she brought back?
If the cereal is gone, guess it's back to EGGS!
I also read upthread someone mentioned the idea of Kate not wanting to overspend on the kids, to keep her child expenses in line with what Jon contributes. That's creepy, but could be a lot of truth to it. When she was begging of the extended care of her baby nurse, she said she and Jon shouldn't be expected to pay everything for the kids, and she later was quoted something along the line of 'why should they spend THEIR money on the kids" (Jon's inheritance), she wanted others to help them pay for their expenses.
Sad? Over cereal? Good grief.
Some are arguing that Jon's house is too small..Kate has a mansion, the kids are with her the majority of the time...have you looked at their sad faces lately? Big doesn't necessarily bring happiness with it.
Well Kate since you can't afford milk.
You being on your last box of cereal should really matter now should it.?
Would appear that Kate's "one babysitter" got the kids ready for school this morning, because she's in Twitter Mania Mode this a.m.
Here's the correct usage of the word "sad" Kate. You are one sad excuse for a human being.
A millionaire grifting for cereal.
It's infuriating to read her drivel when countless children in our country and all over the world are lucky to get one meal per day.
Well, it appears that she might have successfully grifted some free cereal.
Incredulous. This woman has no shame.
Besides the grifting, what first struck me is this: What mother of a large family HAS TIME to announce to the whole world she is almost out of cereal?
If this is the most pressing need on her right now, she needs to get a life.
If she thinks she is stressed now, just wait till the kids want cars and college tuition...every week, it's: mom I need gas money, lunch money, spending money..monthly bills, 8 of the latest phones and data packages..8 kids on your car insurance..what about all that orthodontic work? prom expenses (about 500 each),...Kate's going to stroke out.
Winsomeone said... 158
Some are arguing that Jon's house is too small..Kate has a mansion, the kids are with her the majority of the time...have you looked at their sad faces lately? Big doesn't necessarily bring happiness with it.
_______________
I agree also isn't Kate off some where traveling with Steve.?
And the kids are at home with the nannies at least Jon would be at home with them.
Kate has always said the kids love to be together- the twins are best friends and the 3 little girls wanted to share one bedroom despite Hannah being offered her own; the boys are buddies and love to be in each other's company. They are used to sleeping in the same room. In Jon's house, maybe the older girls will share a pull-out couch in living rm and Jon bunk in w/ the boys and the little girls have the other room. No big deal. I'm sure they will be happy. Also they can play outside and get dirty and have fun!
Ugh, read the tweet by the person who wants to work for Kate as a nanny.
Once a Viewer said... 163
Ugh, read the tweet by the person who wants to work for Kate as a nanny.
__________
I'm guessing that person missed the last epi of Kate plus8.
Admin, keep up your blog as is...no improvement neededd. IDIOTS, don't like statements here? Easy fix for that but I'll let you figure it out for yourself. That ought to keep you busy for a while.
Whine from me...WHY can't she be gone? I'm tired of her and her crap. I'm tired of her non-special kids being given attention they haven't earned. I'm sick of hearing her 'promote' Mady as the next child star. She doesn't have the talent, looks, personality, etc., to make it. Sorta kinda just like her mother-figure. And we all know it is HER wish for Mady to go into 'the business' and because Mady has done a 180 degree and now is HER toady to be in favor, she feeds into 'the desire for stardom' foisted on her.
Hope Jon keeps on pushing for normalcy for his kids, hope he is able to keep living life his way out of the limelight and hope he eventually finds his 'soulmate', as he sure didn't have one yet.
She doesn't care one iota if shipping is "too expensive".
She's trying to get it from the company. Then if she tweets about it (like the coffee maker, etc) she can get free cereal and even compensation possibly. Also, someone probably finally clued her in that taking food from strangers is not wise, you don't know what might have been done to it.
If someone "mediocre" person wrote this, it would get no notice. Whenever she says it, it always comes across as a blasting begging billboard. She certainly has set up her own bad reputation.
Did she include Kellogg in her tweet this morning? My guess is that she wants Kellogg to send her some Nutri-Grain cereal. If she's successfull with her latest grift she can call herself Keurig Kellogg Katie (sorry Starbucks). If she really wanted the cereal she could ask Steve's relatives to send her some and she could pay the shipping. Oh wait, never mind.
If she has court today, she cannot be traveling with Steve. Nor can she be practicing for DWTS Vegas style...oh wait, she does not practice, snark.
Not sure this posted..
As a proud Quebecoise I can assure u that Sacre Bleu is only used in Louisianne-dialect...CJ..google is not always yr friend.
ps...we learned from the Dionne quints..when will this madness end?
Kate's Easter pics really bother me. The children are so very thin. That monster needs to stop assigning portions and let them eat what they want.
barbee said 165:
Admin, keep up your blog as is...no improvement neededd. IDIOTS, don't like statements here? Easy fix for that but I'll let you figure it out for yourself. That ought to keep you busy for a while.
~~~~Totally agree!
Re: Mady: I think she has always liked the spotlight, thus her jealousy of the tups. Remember the epi they had headshots and went to the talent scout? She had been practicing her smile and Cara was a little more hesitant. The scout was not impressed. Mady was always dramatic, and did love doing her little acts.('commercial' for paper towels in OBX iirc, Asian chopsticks, dress-up a few times...) I don't think it's fake but def coached, exaggerated talent, encouraged and publicized by Mommy.
Beth said... 170
Kate's Easter pics really bother me. The children are so very thin. That monster needs to stop assigning portions and let them eat what they want
___________________________________________
Kate's fav certainly isn't going without. However, Aaden's little arms are kike sticks and Collin's face looks very thin and drawn.
Beth said... 170
Kate's Easter pics really bother me. The children are so very thin. That monster needs to stop assigning portions and let them eat what they want.
*******
I agree with you about a couple of the kids in particular. She does serve tiny portions but another reason ( and I am only suggesting, no fact here, just supposition) that certain medications can make kids lose their appetite and thus weight.
.My friend's son age 7 now takes ritalin for ADD and he has become very thin and hates to eat. But his behavior now is much better.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 100
Did you install the IP tracker, Admin? I think you're gonna need it.
&&&&
Only long enough to get Kimmie.
-------------------------------------------------
Admin, why not at least keep it long enough to finally get rid of the shit stirring sheeple here who keeps changing her name? We all know who it is, and most of us are sick and tired of it.
Franky 169, I'm also a proud Québecoise and I totally agree 'Sacré bleu' is never used around here.
As for Kate's Easter pics, the childrens' smiles seem to be forced. I find it funny that in the INF pictures and those that Kate posted, Mady and Cara are no where to be seen, nor were there any pictures of Kate. Were the tups left with a sitter on Easter? Something is just not clicking here and I can't seem to put my finger on it.
Does this bitch have no shame. Complaining on twitter about running out of cereal from her Australia trip. Many people from all over our country today would be happy to have ANY type of cereal to feed their children. God i just want to punch her in the face.
I watched the New, Now, Next awards on logo cable channel mon night. They had little Eden on there in a lip sync bit with Willem from RuPauls Drag Race. The kid looks like a mini drag queen, maybe that's why her show will be on 10 pm after RuPaul. It premieres next Monday and I hope admin has a post to discuss it.
There was an extended commercial for it during the awards show. From the add, it appears the show will involve mostly Eden s mother yelling at other adults, and her obviously gay manager having temper tantrums in response.
I have to call a friend who used to do drag, and ask him if this is the kind of show drag fans might be interested in. I an still boggled that anyone would think this is a good premise for a show, and who in the world will watch it at 10 pm on the channel that advertises it caters to a gay audience. I do know a lot of middle aged straight females and teen daughter s who watch the channel a lot, to. Santino from project runway is one of the regular judges, along with Kelly Osborne, and Rus pal Michelle visage.
Well, one minor gossip site has picked up the story:
http://www.realitytea.com/2012/04/11/kate-gosselin-finds-out-jon-is-headed-to-court-on-twitter-jon-accused-of-being-a-deadbeat-dad/
Haven't read it yet, doubt any of the "facts" are correct. Comments on these are always the best part.
I never thought of that but you could well be right, NLAN. Wow.
(I know also my daughter ( older teen) says some students sell their own Rx at school to one another for some fairly big money!)
And yes, I think at least one G kid who now looks so thin well maybe on a Rx of this type. It's just a theory and no slamming anyone please!
My last post was referring to judges on rupauls drag race. just a thought rupaul would be fun on dwts. He could compete as a he or a she! Love rupaul!
” if you don't love yourself, how you gonna love anybody else? Can I get an Amen!”
Great idea for something I would watch! Send Ms Kreider to rupauls Drag U for an intensive intervention. Ru might be able to get her to develop some insight, and he could definitely help her develop some style and improve her self marketing.
Very interesting, NLAN, particularly the Kate part. I can't say it would surprise me. BTW, glad to see you posting here again.
Franky & Bluebird, yes, we know it's not real French. I remember the cartoon, "The Inspector," who was sort of based on Clouseau (of Pink Panther fame). The Inspector was always yelling "Sacre bleu!" whenever anything went wrong (which was always), and it was a reason to laugh. Based on Sacre Bleu's arguments and language on this blog, I am pretty sure this was CJ.
One thing that's interesting with CJ: You almost never see her posting on any of the pro-K8 blogs, and this is because she has been run off of ALL of them. You will find only a handful of the pro-K8 fans engaging her directly; most of them maintain a safe distance.
I hate when Kate calls her nanny a babysitter. Babysitters come for a few hours on the weekend when you want a date night at the movies. Nannies are professionals there during the week. I'm not that guy who makes you feel better I'm a doctor. Just like I don't just watch your kids, I'm your NANNY.
Why was CJ run off the fan blogs?
Regarding a few of the comments made regarding the custody and support issue, wanted to ask administrator:
When a custody or support decision is made in court by the judge, is that public info? My guess would be no. I'm asking due to someone commenting that since all sorts of minor details are publicized regarding Kate, wouldn't it have also been publicized if Jon had gotten more custody. My guess would be that this would not be public info. and that this would not be a valid excuse.
My second question would be in regards to a comment suggesting this hearing could have been to increase Jon's support due to Kate making less now. Just because Kate made much more before her contract with TLC ended, wouldn't Jon's support still be based on what he could reasonably afford?
In other words, if the wife and children could afford a much better lifestyle with the wife's income but then the wife's income later decreased, would the father, even if he couldn't afford it, be expected to pay an increased amount of support so that the wife and children could maintain the style of life they'd become accustomed to?
My guess on this would also be a no.
There are situations where a wealthy ex-spouse is ordered to pay a hefty amount of child support to keep his (or her) children in the lifestyle to which they were accustomed. But in these cases, I assumed it was because the spouse could afford it, not because the children needed to be maintained in a wealthy lifestyle.
But my assumption would be that in this case, just because the G. children had a certain lifestyle while the contract with TLC was in place....it does not mean that Jon would be legally obligated to maintain that lifestyle after the TLC contract (and payout) ended...IF he cannot reasonably afford it.
Or am I wrong?
When a custody or support decision is made in court by the judge, is that public info? My guess would be no. I'm asking due to someone commenting that since all sorts of minor details are publicized regarding Kate, wouldn't it have also been publicized if Jon had gotten more custody. My guess would be that this would not be public info. and that this would not be a valid excuse.
&&&&
In their case it's not public info because they asked their file to be sealed. If it's an unsealed file it would be public.
The only thing we can see is the docket which just lists the hearings, doesn't say what happened. I remember looking at the docket last year and it was several pages long. Yet we know next to nothing about most of those hearings because none of it was public.
When a custody or support decision is made in court by the judge, is that public info? My guess would be no. I'm asking due to someone commenting that since all sorts of minor details are publicized regarding Kate, wouldn't it have also been publicized if Jon had gotten more custody. My guess would be that this would not be public info. and that this would not be a valid excuse.
&&&&
In their case it's not public info because they asked their file to be sealed. If it's an unsealed file it would be public.
The only thing we can see is the docket which just lists the hearings, doesn't say what happened. I remember looking at the docket last year and it was several pages long. Yet we know next to nothing about most of those hearings because none of it was public.
When a custody or support decision is made in court by the judge, is that public info? My guess would be no. I'm asking due to someone commenting that since all sorts of minor details are publicized regarding Kate, wouldn't it have also been publicized if Jon had gotten more custody. My guess would be that this would not be public info. and that this would not be a valid excuse.
&&&&
In their case it's not public info because they asked their file to be sealed. If it's an unsealed file it would be public.
The only thing we can see is the docket which just lists the hearings, doesn't say what happened. I remember looking at the docket last year and it was several pages long. Yet we know next to nothing about most of those hearings because none of it was public.
NLAN,
Wow, I thought the same thing! I thought that the kids may have been prescribed Ritalin(don't get me started on how misused this rx is for kids) and that Kate may have been helping herself to the script. I thought this not just because of her weight loss, but because of her mania at times. It is a big problem too, as a school social worker, we had an issue with a faculty member taking Ritalin that was kept in the nurses office as it was prescribed for a student to take during the school day. It is a very commonly abused drug in the suburbs, college campuses, etc.
Thanks Bluebird..our family created l'Oiseau Bleu y'a 64 ans..H-M is fading but families strong.
I think that is what bothers me about the kids with khate..is resigned the word I am looking for?
Admin, you've seen her comments (well, at least the ones that have been pulled over from Twitter). It is because she is endlessly argumentative and ALWAYS right. She can't ever "let it go." She is the sort of person who, no matter where she is or whom she is with, always believes herself to be the smartest person in the room. And if you want to take issue with that, well, she'll PROVE it to you.
I think she tires everyone out to the point where people just stop commenting, which ultimately kills the forum. You saw what she did on the CC blog--who wants to have a conversation with THAT? That's leaving aside, of course, the whole matter of the veiled (and sometimes not-so-veiled) threats she's always directing at people who dare to argue with her.
This whole non-sense of Jon's house having 3 bedrooms and that is not enough room for 8 kids.. It is not necessary for any child to have their own room, if they are lucky hey. When I was growing up I had my own room, cause there were only 2 of us, my brother & I we live in a 3 bedroom home. Most of my friends had 6 or more kids in their families and most of the houses in my area, are 2-4 bedrooms. One of my friends had 9, the other 11 and they lived in a 3 bedroom houses. Geez, the Duggars live in a big house that has 4 bedrooms, Mom & dad, grandma, the girls room and the boys room, and that is 21 people living there. most people do not live in a mansion. They live in 2-4 bedroom homes, the more bedrooms the higher the price of the home. Why you think they call some homes starter, they have a master bedroom and 1 bedroom.
Yes, milo, Kate knows EXACTLY how these things go (LOL):
miloandjack
@Kateplusmy8 Well, Kate...U know how these things go. U may end up w/100 plus boxes of Nutrigrain now! Ur loyal well-meaning fans! LOL
Gift, I see. Sad when even the sheeple don't want a sheeple! I think she actually is on the smarter side for a sheeple but not as smart as she thinks. I noticed how she starts out tame enough then as the posts go on her opinions get more and more outrageous and snippy to the point where she had progressed in just a few hours to saying baffling things like the children weren't working, the children were never exploited, it's okay for parents to take every dime of their money because it was never theirs. How do you even discuss something with someone like that? Like trying to talk to a Holocaust denier.
When she accused me of "misleading" people about child support because according to her, percentage of time only kicks in at 40% custodial time, I was done. She was flat out wrong about that, but was just giddy with excitement to announce I had "misled" everyone. Get outta here. :)
Back to the house issue, I am so glad I don't live in a country where a judge gets to tell parents how many bedrooms are necessary before they can get their kids. I am so glad that the law is much more concerned with whether your child is safe, happy and healthy rather than how much square footage your child has.
The Australia trip was a year ago. Is it just me or is hanging onto a box of cereal for a year just well, gross?
By the way didn't that ex-fan says that cj called her three times?
Exactly what does she SAY?
Baw-hahah I just googled Nutrigrain cereal to see what it looks like and this is what came up:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/top-sellers-are-cereal-offenders/story-e6frg3pl-1225698670300
New comments are not allowed.