Right which is why I said the degree and who is in charge. I would include financial in that too. The concept of financial control is hardly controversial but the way it is set up and the dollars others get for doing so are under a microscope.
She attempted to remove him and allow the temporary one to become the permanent one a bit after he stepped down.
An article I read said the initial reason she didn't get back to performing was her father's health crisis he had and so her show that was supposed to start in 2019 was postponed (so she was supposed to work in 2019). If I follow the timeline it sounds like following her father stepping down due to his health issue and a temporary conservator assigned she requested to have her father removed and the temporary one become permanent and a judge has denied that. She is now saying she won't work until her request is granted. Perhaps there's another article out there that states she refused to work back in 2018 prior to her father stepping down in 2019 and having a temporary one assigned but it doesn't sound like she's refused since 2018.
Are all of these California?
but why does it matter if she squanders her $ lots of celebrities do? I think setting up a trust for her kids so they'll always be taken of & pay off her house/cars & then let her be
That is not my understanding of the situation. My understanding is that she canceled her residency because of her dad’s health issues and that recently she has refused to work if he is not taken off as conservator. Do you have a link to show she has refused to work since 2018?
Your understanding is probably right since I didn’t delve too far into it, only that she refuses to work now and the last time she worked was in 2019. In any case, she is not being forced to work now which was how you claimed that her father is abusing her.
I guess it doesn't matter, but who wants to see her do that? Again, I'm not saying the conservatorship should stay in place for that reason, but it would be nice if there was some middle ground that could allow a trusted advisor to manage her finances while lifting the other restrictions. She has her bipolar diagnosis working against her as well as the fact that she's never had to manage money in her adult life working against her, so it seems some transitional guidance would be warranted. I don't even think she could be legally compelled to set up a trust or pay off her bills once the conservatorship is lifted.
I asked earlier in the thread but no one responded. Do you have a source for the bipolar diagnosis? I’m not being snarky, I really would like to read about it. I can only find speculation.
It came out she had bipolar disorder back around 2007-2008 I believe. I didn't watch the "I Am Britney Jean" documentary, but these articles cite that she opens up about it there: Britney Spears Checks Into Mental Health Facility: Why It’s Normal (prevention.com) , Britney Spears opens up on bipolar disorder: 'I turn into a different person' - Independent.ie
Yeah, those are speculation off of a remark she made. One I’m sure many of us are guilty of making. She does not say she was diagnosed with it she was comparing her state of mind to it. Lithium is also prescribed for depression. I’m not saying she does or doesn’t have it but the media diagnosing her does more harm than good IMO. As someone who suffers from anxiety and depression it just doesn’t sit right with me when they do that. Mental health is an extremely personal thing.
Listening to her statement last week is telling. I seriously doubt she did herself any favors.
It’s not that anybody wants to see her to do that. The question is it legally allowed to stop her from doing that, at this time? And even if the protective side of us can see what’s likely coming if all restrictions are lifted, it doesn’t mean it isn’t her right to try. At the very least, the current set up is detrimental to her and needs to change.
It’s interesting how two people can listen to the same thing and come away with two very different opinions.
