I’m not ENTIRELY sure that this article is reliable, but it says that Jamie-Lynn will be giving her baby to her mother to raise while she goes back to “show business.”
a) Doesn’t it seem like her career is dead in the water?
b) Does this mean that Jamie Lynn’s baby will be more like her sibling than her own child? Wacky!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
if this is true I think it stinks. I know grannies raise their grandkids often and that can be the best thing for the kiddos, but I kind of think this particular baby is in danger of being put on a reality show about fetus beauty contests in utero if Lynn Spears has legal control over it. The idea of a super rich woman “reluctantly” giving up her child, I think there is some fishiness, when that woman has been stage-mothered from here to kingdom come.
That said, I don’t know why I think Jamie-Lynn would be a better caregiver than her mother was. Maybe the baby-daddy should take the kiddo. I guess as Salt n’ Pepa say, “there’s only one true judge and that’s god, so CHILL, and let the father do his job. if I, wanna take a guy, home with me tonight, it’s none of your business.” and so on.
This whole situation makes me sad, but there really are many more tragic things happening in the world than a rich pregnant teenager who will never have to worry about feeding and housing herself and her kid(s).
January 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
maybe this means the baby will be the next jack nicholson. didn’t that happen to him?