Free Britney!

[Bob001]

There doesn't seem to be a thread about Britney Spears' situation. I've never been a fan, as I've never been a 13-year-old girl, but her situation raises legitimate questions about how people can lose their rights to a conservatorship and be unable to regain them. She's been exploited by her family since she was a young teen-age star, and she is now a 39-year-old mother of two whose life has been controlled entirely by her father for 13 years. It could probably happen to any of us if we had something that somebody else wanted.

Since the establishment of Spears’s conservatorship, she has released four albums, headlined a global tour that grossed a hundred and thirty-one million dollars, and performed for four years in a hit Las Vegas residency. Yet her conservators, who include her father, Jamie Spears, have controlled her spending, communications, and personal decisions.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare

And some conservatorships are outright criminal rackets.

In the United States, a million and a half adults are under the care of guardians, either family members or professionals, who control some two hundred and seventy-three billion dollars in assets, according to an auditor for the guardianship fraud program in Palm Beach County. Little is known about the outcome of these arrangements, because states do not keep complete figures on guardianship cases—statutes vary widely—and, in most jurisdictions, the court records are sealed.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah, she definitely had a rough patch - and who can blame her, given the intense pressure and scrutiny she was under - but I find it hard to believe that she's too mentally impaired to, for example, decide for herself whether or not she can get pregnant.

In fact, I find it very difficult to believe that she needs any kind of guardianship, let alone one as strict as she is under, but I do have to concede that there may be factors of which I, as a member of the public, am unaware. But from what I do know - and I have vaguely followed this story for a few years now - I see no reason for it at all.

 

[dirtywick]

It’s funny, my assumption on the matter would be the conservatorship had been based heavily on mostly public perception. I’m sure every one of us knows a person in a much worse position or serious mental illness than her that still retains a lot more decision making power.

I think the whole thing is bizarre and I feel very badly for her.

 

[Vixen]

AIUI - and I am open to correction - she was diagnosed with an affective mood disorder, which used to be know as bipolar. Her acting erratically at that stage of her life was not just someone 'going wild' or, 'going through a phase'. Bipolar can be a frightening illness. A good friend of mine had this and in her so-called 'manic phase' she'd go on wildly extravagant shopping sprees and do things like order four different meals all at once. She was a joy to be with when she was like this and we had great fun out and about; such a mood is highly infectious. However, she also had dangerously low suicidal moods - she had been in hospital several times after slashing her wrists - it is a serious condition. She's on lithium for life. I feel desperately sorry for Britney but she likely needs someone to help and support her. I doesn't need to be her father.

The depiction of the character 'Baby Face' Nelson in the film 'O Brother, Where art thou?'* a notorious bank robber, epitomises the manic phase of this syndrome really well.



*Whilst he was portrayed in the film as such, the reality might have been different.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?, a 2000 film featuring Michael Badalucco as Nelson. He is portrayed as working mostly alone, until meeting up with the main characters and having them along as he robs the next bank in quick succession to break a record. He is played as having a "thrill-seeking personality," what would later be called manic-depressive and now known as bipolar. After the excitement of the robbery is over he becomes depressed, leaves his share of the money and wanders off alone. When he last appears he is being taken by an angry mob to meet his death in the electric chair. The film is set in Mississippi in 1937, three years after the real Nelson's death.

wiki

It struck me at the time that Britney Spears' behaviour was very high risk in terms of possible harm to herself.

 

[Bob001]

AIUI - and I am open to correction - she was diagnosed with an affective mood disorder, which used to be know as bipolar. Her acting erratically at that stage of her life was not just someone 'going wild' or, 'going through a phase'. Bipolar can be a frightening illness. A good friend of mine had this and in her so-called 'manic phase' she'd go on wildly extravagant shopping sprees and do things like order four different meals all at once. She was a joy to be with when she was like this and we had great fun out and about; such a mood is highly infectious. However, she also had dangerously low suicidal moods - she had been in hospital several times after slashing her wrists - it is a serious condition. She's on lithium for life. I feel desperately sorry for Britney but she likely needs someone to help and support her. I doesn't need to be her father.
.....

Most people with mental illness, whether bipolar disorder or something else, are treated without losing all of their rights forever. If she was in extreme distress -- about which there seems to be some dispute -- she could have been committed to an institution and treated until she recovered. Conservatorships are for people who cannot recover, as from advanced Alzheimer's or severe brain damage, not for people who can work to earn hundreds of millions of dollars, from which her conservators benefit directly.

 

[HansMustermann]

Bipolar is also not usually something that requires conservatorship. And generally when any mental condition does, it usually has to be at a point where someone can't take care of themselves or function by themselves pretty much at all. Someone who can go around doing concerts, training backup dancers and whatnot, and generally making enough money by themselves to give the conservator guy an income that's squarely in the "rich" bracket, is quite obviously not at that point.

Frankly, I always found it utterly bizarre that she was given that in the first place. And that's putting it very mildly.

 

[kookbreaker]

I’ve known plenty of folks with bipolar and it really hits hardest in the early 20’s, as was the case with Britney. I know of none who need a conservator ship as of these days, but they are better with self care now then they were back in the day.

 

[Planigale]

In Europe this would probably have been illegal as the right to a private and family life is protected under the human rights convention, and she could not have been prevented from marrying and having children. Indeed I suspect most doctors would have been in danger of losing their license to practice had they inserted an IUCD against her expressed consent, or indeed without her free consent.

It is frankly astonishing that such a permanent removal of her rights over her own body could have been allowed. People should be allowed to make bad decisions.

 

[Ernie M]

In Europe this would probably have been illegal as the right to a private and family life is protected under the human rights convention, and she could not have been prevented from marrying and having children. Indeed I suspect most doctors would have been in danger of losing their license to practice had they inserted an IUCD against her expressed consent, or indeed without her free consent.

It is frankly astonishing that such a permanent removal of her rights over her own body could have been allowed. People should be allowed to make bad decisions.

In the U.S., older adults are easily deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. That's prevalent in power of attorney abuse, and guardianship/conservatorship abuse. Someone can easily take away someone else's life, liberty, and property. There's the strong likelihood you can't do a damn thing to stop it. Many broken systems and cruel people are involved.

The rights you mentioned pertaining to Europe, could be similar/same to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, in the United States Constitution.

There are cruel, sadistic people in the world. Someone can get power of attorney, get a guardianship/conservatorship over someone (called a ward), and, I paraphrase... control every aspect of their life: property, finances, medical decisions, housing and social relationships. They can isolate you from your family, put you in a nursing home and medicate you until you die. That's from "Is Elder Guardianship A Human Rights Violation?"

The article starts with the lead:

Many happy, independent, capable seniors are victimized and stripped off their rights.​

Britney Spears isn't a senior, but her conservatorship reeks of the same exploitive and fraudulent abuse seen in power of attorney abuse and elder guardianships.

(I think they meant to say, they are stripped of their rights, not off their rights.

But that's the point; the ease of which someone can strip someone of their rights, property, relationships, and life.

Britney Spears faces a difficult time getting out of her conservatorship.

Source:

Halpern, Jack. "Is Elder Guardianship A Human Rights Violation?" MyElder.com(23 Mar 2021) https[colon]//myelder[dot]com/elder-guardianship-human-rights-violation/

 

[Warp12]

I feel like there is a lot more to her condition than is publicly known. A lot is probably kept hidden in order to keep her "brand" somewhat intact.

 

[Bob001]

I feel like there is a lot more to her condition than is publicly known. A lot is probably kept hidden in order to keep her "brand" somewhat intact.

Why make that assumption? And why should anything be hidden? Legal proceedings are generally public so the public can have confidence in the process and the results. If she's being abused, as she herself says, how would we know? She's not allowed to hire her own lawyer or her own therapist or make any decisions for herself, even though she produces hundreds of millions of dollars of income that directly benefit her conservators. At an absolute minimum, her conservators should not be people who profit from her continued incapacity. This just stinks.

 

[Arcade22]

Why make that assumption? And why should anything be hidden? Legal proceedings are generally public so the public can have confidence in the process and the results.

Generally. That doesn't apply in this case. I know the law in the US varies between states, but more often than not the health and wellbeing of people is considered highly sensitive.

If she's being abused, as she herself says, how would we know?

You don't have to know. You don't have, or at least ought not to have, an absolute right to know every single detail about a persons health and wellbeing. Just because a court of law is involved doesn't change that. Personal integrity is valued higher than public insight in these kind of proceedings for this very reason.

This whole situation reminds me of those cases in the UK where parents with brain dead children were trying to release them from the hospitals care so they could take some completely futile "treatment" abroad. The hospital and doctors were legally prohibited from disclosing the child's diagnosis and status but the parents were allowed to go out in public and make public statements to the media and effectively lie about how all their child needed was to have this treatment and they would be cured.

The parents effectively and publicly accused the doctors and the hospital of murdering their child by refusing to have their child given proper treatment when in reality they were already dead and just a empty shell, and the hospital couldn't defend themselves at all except in the most general non-specific words possible because the privacy and personal integrity of the child was legally protected.

 

[Puppycow]

AIUI - and I am open to correction - she was diagnosed with an affective mood disorder, which used to be know as bipolar. Her acting erratically at that stage of her life was not just someone 'going wild' or, 'going through a phase'. Bipolar can be a frightening illness. A good friend of mine had this and in her so-called 'manic phase' she'd go on wildly extravagant shopping sprees and do things like order four different meals all at once. She was a joy to be with when she was like this and we had great fun out and about; such a mood is highly infectious. However, she also had dangerously low suicidal moods - she had been in hospital several times after slashing her wrists - it is a serious condition. She's on lithium for life. I feel desperately sorry for Britney but she likely needs someone to help and support her. I doesn't need to be her father.

. . .

It struck me at the time that Britney Spears' behaviour was very high risk in terms of possible harm to herself.

But does she need a conservator? Does she need to have certain rights taken away, like the right to control her own money, or all the other things they apparently have control over? She is an adult, right? She has not been convicted of any crime as far as I am aware? (I admit that I am not a big follower of celebrity "news" and gossip, so there may be some things I am not aware of.)

At her age, being told "No, you cannot have another baby; you must use this IUD and only the conservator can allow you to remove it" is effectively like sterilization since she won't be fertile for much longer.

Kanye West is also bipolar, but he doesn't have a conservator. He is free to make his own decisions like any other adult. That doesn't necessarily mean they will be the best decisions. But adults are free to make poor decisions with their life and suffer the consequences. Many celebrities make tons of money and yet manage to fritter it all away. Mike Tyson is one who comes to mind. All the money he made from boxing, supposedly he spent it all and was broke at one time. But later he was able to make more money doing other things. So somehow people muddle through even after making poor decisions with their money.

 

[dirtywick]

But, she's not braindead. She has an active social media presence, makes public appearances, and puts on live concerts. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense to believe she's faking that and is actually so mentally incapacitated that she shouldn't have decision making rights of her own.

 

[dirtywick]

But does she need a conservator? Does she need to have certain rights taken away, like the right to control her own money, or all the other things they apparently have control over? She is an adult, right? She has not been convicted of any crime as far as I am aware? (I admit that I am not a big follower of celebrity "news" and gossip, so there may be some things I am not aware of.)

Even if she did commit crimes, people convicted of crimes don't lose those rights either.

 

[Puppycow]

Even if she did commit crimes, people convicted of crimes don't lose those rights either.

For a time they do, if they are incarcerated. Once their sentence has been served, most of their rights are restored though.

 

[arthwollipot]

Seen on social media this morning:

If Ozzy Osborne is considered mentally sound enough to control his own finances, so is Britney Spears.

#FreeBritney

 

[The Atheist]

There doesn't seem to be a thread about Britney Spears' situation. I've never been a fan, as I've never been a 13-year-old girl, but her situation raises legitimate questions about how people can lose their rights to a conservatorship and be unable to regain them.

Her music is rubbish, but she's made some of the hottest videos on record, so I'm definitely a fan.

Her situation would be unconscionable in any sane country, but she's in USA, so about par for the course.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I feel desperately sorry for Britney but she likely needs someone to help and support her.

"Help and support" is one thing. "Be in total control of all her decisions and all her money" is another.

It's like she is apparently capable of doing a residency in Las Vegas for 4 years, of recording entire albums and promoting them, of being a judge on a talent show, and of taking on acting roles...but she can't be trusted to choose her own lawyer? Or her own housekeeper? Or to write a former employee a reference? Or to own a phone?

 

[Warp12]

Why make that assumption? And why should anything be hidden? Legal proceedings are generally public so the public can have confidence in the process and the results. If she's being abused, as she herself says, how would we know? She's not allowed to hire her own lawyer or her own therapist or make any decisions for herself, even though she produces hundreds of millions of dollars of income that directly benefit her conservators. At an absolute minimum, her conservators should not be people who profit from her continued incapacity. This just stinks.

You're right. It's probably just a grand conspiracy and the courts are out to get her, too.

: “I just want my life back. And it’s been 13 years. And it’s enough. It’s been a long time since I’ve owned my money. And it’s my wish and my dream for all of this to end without being tested.”

Keep dreaming, honey.