Britney Spears asks court to end her father's conservatorship

[Mermaid02]

Free Britney

 

[TLSnell1981]

There are so many people who are worse off mentally and not stuck under one.

Doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from a conservatorship. It's heartbreaking to see someone taken advance of and left with nothing for their day to day care.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I think she wants to avoid an evaluation because it might show that she still has a need for a conservatorship because of her mental illness. I’m glad that she’s challenging it but she need to work within the system and she obviously doesn’t have appropriate representation yet. Given the popularity of the “Free Brittany” movement, I’m shocked someone better hasn’t stepped up to help her.

I've heard rumblings that she needs a conservatorship. Although I would like to see one less restrictive.. JMO

 

[nkereina]

It's not illegal to be irresponsible. If she wants to go through town tossing out hundreds until there is absolutely nothing left that is her absolute right, it might not be a great idea but in a free society bad ideas aren't illegal. Look at all the men who win and lose fortunes? We call them idiots but no-one strips them of their dignity and human rights, so if this isn't misogyny I really don't know what is, she has a right to be whoever she is even if that is a mess.

I never said it was illegal to be irresponsible, but isn't it one duty of the system to ensure people are taken care of? Britney has mental incapacities that may preclude her from appropriately managing her finances. She's a prime example of someone that should have some help and protections in that regard, but obviously the egregious conservatorship is not the answer. Ideally, there would be a court appointed third party trustee, similar to bankruptcy cases, that would temporarily handle the finances until Britney can show she's capable of making sound decisions. This would not be to further punish her, but to protect her while eradicating the additional unwarranted control that comes along with the conservatorship (i.e. asking permissions, birth control). It seems reckless to have her go from having zero control over her money to control over hundreds of millions at the snap of a finger, when the reason she lost control in the first place was because of the same mental illness she's still afflicted with.

 

[wenrob]

That's not the way it works in CA. The conservatee always has the right to challenge the conservatorship and has the right to a court appointed attorney, if one cannot afford/retain an attorney. It's one of those guaranteed rights because, if you think about it, certain liberties are taken away by the establishment of a conservatorship.

Plus, the conservatee isn't the only one with power to continue to challenge the conservatorship. A relative of the conservatee can do so as well.

That may not be the way it’s supposed to work but that’s the way it is for her. This is an opinion piece but I’ve read this several times over the years. Her current lawyer is court appointed.
https://apple.news/AgdG7eAzFSk6Fy-lnufTnig
“Spears was never permitted to pick her own lawyer, which may also explain the reason she didn’t mount an earlier challenge to the conservatorship. Probate law is complicated and it’s easy to see how, without a background in the law, she could have remained unaware she had the right to ask for its termination.”

 

[mi*vida*loca]

I never said it was illegal to be irresponsible, but isn't it one duty of the system to ensure people are taken care of? Britney has mental incapacities that may preclude her from appropriately managing her finances. She's a prime example of someone that should have some help and protections in that regard, but obviously the egregious conservatorship is not the answer. Ideally, there would be a court appointed third party trustee, similar to bankruptcy cases, that would temporarily handle the finances until Britney can show she's capable of making sound decisions. This would not be to further punish her, but to protect her while eradicating the additional unwarranted control that comes along with the conservatorship (i.e. asking permissions, birth control). It seems reckless to have her go from having zero control over her money to control over hundreds of millions at the snap of a finger, when the reason she lost control in the first place was because of the same mental illness she's still afflicted with.

I guess that's for the rich. I know plenty of poor people with mental health issues who are left to their own devices.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I somewhat disagree with this. I used to take my check when it was under my control and send *all* of it to charities, or buy three or four (or five) of something because it was a 'good' deal. I was always flat broke by the end of the first week after the check was deposited. It was affecting my life in a negative way. There's a difference between being irresposible with money and doing completely crazy stuff with it. I don't see a problem with having help to manage my money. Where i do see a problem is that Spears' conservators are using her money to exert absolute control *over* her life. I'm surprised they even let her have a boyfriend.

But the difference is that the calm and collected version of you prefers this situation. Plainly the people helping you are decent good people who are advocating for your well being, so you trust them when you are ok to care for you when you are not ok. In a sense you are a participant in your care.

The Britney situation looks different, imagine the people caring for you were detrimental and when the fog would subside and you would try to advocate for yourself and no-one would listen. The fact her father isn't allowed near her young sons is really deeply disturbing.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I never said it was illegal to be irresponsible, but isn't it one duty of the system to ensure people are taken care of? Britney has mental incapacities that may preclude her from appropriately managing her finances. She's a prime example of someone that should have some help and protections in that regard, but obviously the egregious conservatorship is not the answer. Ideally, there would be a court appointed third party trustee, similar to bankruptcy cases, that would temporarily handle the finances until Britney can show she's capable of making sound decisions. This would not be to further punish her, but to protect her while eradicating the additional unwarranted control that comes along with the conservatorship (i.e. asking permissions, birth control). It seems reckless to have her go from having zero control over her money to control over hundreds of millions at the snap of a finger, when the reason she lost control in the first place was because of the same mental illness she's still afflicted with.

Maybe it's the interpretation of the duty of the system that causes differing opinions. To me it is not the duty of the system to make sure people are taken care of, it is the duty of the system to keep people out of each other's way so each can exercise their own rights as they see fit. To me the duty of the system is to protect our rights, not to allow other humans to swoop in under the cloak of the system to subvert other's rights as an American. It does not seem reckless to return her rights to her in an instant. That's like saying someone who was jailed in error and is let go belongs in a halfway house because they shouldn't be left to their own devices with all that freedom. Should she have a cluster of advocates around her, probably, but this is not the same as not having any rights.

 

[rigs32]

Dad makes a ton of money off the current situation. Plus the court appointed conservator makes about $10k a month. If you're unethical, it's not surprising that you wouldn't want to shut down that gravy train.

There was a podcast about the situation a few months back that discussed her attempts to choose her own advocate/lawyer and the judge refused to allow it under the terms of the conservatorship.

What I don't understand is if stress = problems for Britney, then how can dad force her to work (tour, Vegas, etc) when that must be stressful? Oh wait. It's so the money keeps rolling in. If they really cared about her, there would be no need to force her to work.

 

[TwoMisfits]

But the difference is that the calm and collected version of you prefers this situation. Plainly the people helping you are decent good people who are advocating for your well being, so you trust them when you are ok to care for you when you are not ok. In a sense you are a participant in your care.

The Britney situation looks different, imagine the people caring for you were detrimental and when the fog would subside and you would try to advocate for yourself and no-one would listen. The fact her father isn't allowed near her young sons is really deeply disturbing.

Well, it "looks different", but Brittany herself in her testimony yesterday both advocated that she didn't want an evaluation and that she suffers daily with many active mental health symptoms that likely brought about the conservatorship in the 1st place.

Now, that said...it's public and it's ugly, and if Brittany has made her dad and the other current conservators an enemy in her mind (whether or not he or they truly are), keeping them in any way part of the process is not helping her...so some change should probably be pursued. But, if I'm the judge, it would likely not be a whole "okay Brittany, have at it" in her current mental state, but might involve appointing a type of "guardian ad litem" (whatever the term of art is for the unbiased person supporting an adult vs a child) and getting the GAL's and her docs' advice on what might be best, if she won't allow an evaluation to happen.

 

[daisy2013]

Or why hasn't a top-notch lawyer stepped up themselves to do it pro-bono? They would really make a name for themselves.

Because she has been adjudicated to lack capacity to enter into a contract including retain an attorney. Her current attorney was appointed by the court and she had no say in who it was. He has offered to step aside if the court wished to appoint a new one. The court has not said whether it will appoint a new attorney. An attorney can’t just say the represent someone pro Bono or not.

 

[billlaurie]

I can't help thinking of "I care a lot." I thought it was fiction but I guess not. This conservatorship stuff, and the levels of people legally involved, is truly frightening in the way that it steals a person's autonomy.

 

[billlaurie]

I can't help thinking of "I care a lot." I thought it was fiction but I guess not. This conservatorship stuff, and the levels of people legally involved, is truly frightening in the way that it steals a person's autonomy.

 

[AndreaA]

”The system” really isn’t there to protect people from themselves. If it was, then every person who wins the lottery would automatically be put into conservatorship until it could be determined that they were capable of handling the money themselves. But that’s NOT how it works.

She was initially put into conservatorship because she (clearly) had a mental breakdown AND HER FATHER TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT. Plenty of people have breakdowns and they don’t have relatives swoop in to take over. I mean hell, maybe she wanted to burn her candle at both ends and go out in a blaze of glory. Wouldn’t have been pretty, but it would at least have been HER choice. Is she still mentally ill? Of course - but who WOULDN’T be after a decade of being under the control of others?? Who WOULDN’T be anxious, depressed, unable to sleep, etc., knowing that at any moment another decision to limit their freedom could be made?

I think she should be ADVISED to have a financial planner and ADVISED to seek mental health help (and I believe she is open to both of those things) and I think that she should be ADVISED that the bulk of her fortune should be placed in a trust that will pay out some sort of monthly allowance that will allow it to support her for her lifetime. I don’t think her father should have ANYTHING to do with it.

 

[mylilnikita]

This brings to light of who is monitoring the monitors?

 

[TwoMisfits]

I can't help thinking of "I care a lot." I thought it was fiction but I guess not. This conservatorship stuff, and the levels of people legally involved, is truly frightening in the way that it steals a person's autonomy.

It's only done when competency is in question...I mean, no one bats an eye when a senior citizen slowly suffering from dementia, but who still could take part on most days in their day-to-day decisions, is taken to a competency hearing and has their autonomy taken away for their long term good.

We don't know how badly Brittany suffers from mental issues and her docs can't tell us. All we know is that this started when she lost custody of her kids, then she wouldn't turn over her kids after a visit, and then she was hospitalized and placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold (which is usually used for the times, like my sis, when there's a full mental break from reality in some way). This was the original solution to that chain of events, but that chain of events does show that this was not instituted without cause. The kids being at risk with her no longer being competent was the catalyst.

 

[TLSnell1981]

But the difference is that the calm and collected version of you prefers this situation. Plainly the people helping you are decent good people who are advocating for your well being, so you trust them when you are ok to care for you when you are not ok. In a sense you are a participant in your care.

The Britney situation looks different, imagine the people caring for you were detrimental and when the fog would subside and you would try to advocate for yourself and no-one would listen. The fact her father isn't allowed near her young sons is really deeply disturbing.

This isn't a fog or likely a temporary condition but lifelong impairment. It's very sad but a reality for some.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Not surprised, but hello, if she was mentally competent years ago, she would have hired attorneys to end the conservatorship then.

She didn’t know she could. And she couldn’t just hire other attorneys. Hers was appointed by the court and her only option. When you don’t have control over your life, down to your birth control, how do you really expect her to retain counsel?

 

[mi*vida*loca]

Imagine a man being forced to have vasectomy against his wishes and not being allowed to get married. How would that go over ?

 

[LuvOrlando]

Imagine a man being forced to have vasectomy against his wishes and not being allowed to get married. How would that go over ?

Pfft, since medical insurance ONLY decided to include birth control pills as covered within a month of Viagra being declared a medical necessity I think we all know the answer to that one. I remember my Dr's needing to say the pill was medically necessary for cramps in the 90's and then there was the blue pill in the news then suddenly POOF, like magic, things changed in like a week... it was seriously the most ridiculous thing ever. I wish I had saved the newspapers from back then, I lived in NYC at the time.