Britney Spears and Conservatorships

[WotgunShedding]

This is horrifying. She’s asking for a judge to reconsider the conservatorship and the details of how little autonomy she has is awful.

“I have an IUD in my body right now that won’t let me have a baby and my conservators won’t let me go to the doctor to take it out.”

How is this allowed?

@ExhaustedFlamingo I know everything can be spun to make either party look bad, but thought this was video of her with her dancers was interesting twitter.com/britpinkbitch/status/1407911391080579072?s=21

Testimony was interesting and regardless of what happens she’s clearly going to need a lot of psychiatric help. I hope she gets back some freedom!

@ScribblyBaller

I remember reading Frances Farmer's autobiography when I was a teenager and being horrified at what she went through. Some real comparisons to be drawn with Britney Spears' situation 80 odd years later.

oh no...

just had a glance at Wiki.. what a horrific experience that poor woman..

sometimes I loathe humans 😔

This is a dreadful situation and I agree with those who say it is unlikely to happen to a man.

I can't take seriously the claims of early onset dementia. There's something very nefarious going on there because in 12/13 years she would have seriously deteriorated and quite possibly have died if that was a true diagnosis.

It can be hard to watch someone suffer severe mental health episodes but clearly she's not in a permanent crisis state because that doesn't fit with being able to perform world tours and hold down a job as a TV presenter on American Idol.

To have her life controlled to this extent is appalling and it does reek of paternalistic sexism.

I think it's clear that money and power plays a central role in this. I can understand her family being worried about poor financial decision making, squandering her fortune and debt but that's the case for a hell of a lot of celebrities out there especially ex child stars.

Macaulay Culkin is a comparative example of a parental stage managed child star who has been through some publicly rough years. I can't remember exactly what happened with him and his brothers but I think it was the opposite to this and they were able to seek emancipation from their father's management.

@redheadonascooter

Yes *@kirinm* the original court paperwork (which were available publicly) listed dementia as her condition. But dementia isn't always a diagnosis in itself it can be a catch all for a range of symptoms relating to other MH conditions.

And I agree. Early onset dementia that you'd get in your 20s would show signs of a deterioration, it's rare to have it that young and patients 'usually' go downhill reasonably quickly.

I've known several people who had an early dementia diagnosis. (I work in care). Few have lived more than 5 years post diagnosis and all have deteriorated rapidly. Early onset dementia is usually very aggressive. There is no way she would be able to speak in court the way she did with early onset dementia.

I think having listened to the audio now she sounds flustered, nervous and rushed which is not at all surprising considering that she's trying to get years and years worth of information out as quickly as possible. She's clearly reading from notes and tripping over what she wants to say, so in a rush is she to get it all out.

She also sounds utterly furious and I don't blame her one bit.

I really hope she isn't 'punished' for speaking out. One positive is that her children are nearing an age where they won't be party to custody arrangements for too much longer so they will be able to see her as and when they wish to as they'll need no ones permission - so that threat won't hold much weight. They're 14 and 15 now, and turn 15 and 16 in September. They're known to despise her father too, one of them made a video public a while ago slagging him off.

@Beannag I completely agree there should be a middle ground, the level of control in this case is horrible. Perhaps, as in your brother's case, permission to medicate in extreme circumstances, as opposed to this constant level of daily control.

Sadly I have lost a number of friends and family to addictions. This is why I have such mixed feelings about it, because I do understand that whether you are dealing with addiction or mental health issues, there is only so much you can do to help people and keep them safe. And yet, I do believe some of my loved ones would still be alive if it had been possible to force them into treatment for an extended period of time. So I just don't know. That's why I agree a middle ground is best.

I've known several people who had an early dementia diagnosis. (I work in care). Few have lived more than 5 years post diagnosis and all have deteriorated rapidly. Early onset dementia is usually very aggressive. There is no way she would be able to speak in court the way she did with early onset dementia.

It's a serious, devestating diagnosis. Surely it should have been investigated by independent medics at the time of the father's claim? You can't bandy such words around with impunity.

I can well believe she may need ongoing psychiatric care, she may need specific support for some decisions, or some areas of her life. But the golden rule (in the UK) when making any best interest decision, is that any proposed action MUST be the LEAST RESTRICTIVE option.

But this setup she is under seems to be the MOST restrictive.

It was never designed for this purpose, it was designed to allow protection for people with severe and permanent lack of capacity, for example an elderly person suffering with dementia, or someone with significant learning disability. Not for someone with a mental illness which may fluctuate and vary in severity.

She has the RIGHT to make poor choices. We all do. Making poor choices does NOT equal lack of mental capacity. And you can have capacity that fluctuates, depending on the time of day, month or decision to be made. And capacity decision are DECISION SPECIFIC, you can’t just blanket say someone ‘doesn’t have capacity’ - capacity for what?! Capacity to care for her children perhaps not, capacity to decide what to do with her day, who to see and what to eat, I can’t see any evidence that she doesn’t have capacity for that.

Like I said, I can well believe she requires some sort of support in some areas of her life, and the manager of that support may vary over the course of her life - but not this all encompassing permanent entrapment. It’s excessive and I can’t see ANY justification for it.

*manner of that support - not manager!

This is just a horrific case all round. I’m genuinely unsure if it’s best to just let her do her thing and suffer what she will suffer due to her diagnosis, or better to keep like this or if there is a mid ground, but she’s clearly deeply unhappy whatever.

It’s concerning she doesn’t wish to be evaluated again, which is I suspect because she knows she will be deemed incapable, but it’s important to understand if everything she says she has to do, the threats, are real or what she perceives to be real, which can be very different things. I’m not even sure her boyfriend is her boyfriend or paid to be her boyfriend and how reliable her perception of reality is even there.

I suspect that’s the key question. How much of this is real, and how much of this is Britney perceived reality and not actually real at all

We all know people who are very unwell mentally can perceive things and truely believe them, even though they are not remotely grounded in fact.

I think only independent doctors can decide how keen a grasp she has on reality. But she doesn’t wish to be evaluated, so this means they can only go on thr prevjous ones,

Overall it’s a horrific situation for all concerned.

It was never designed for this purpose, it was designed to allow protection for people with severe and permanent lack of capacity,

But that’s what they are saying she has. One of the lawyers said asking Britney to sign a legal document was akin to asking a comatose patient.

There’s no doubt what she presented was her perception of reality. This doesn’t actually mean it is reality. Sadly enough. And it’s interesting her parents did not use the opportunity to publicly fight their corner, simply saying they loved her. When they could easily have laid bare her diagnoses. I suspect they didn’t to protect her.

But I think that’s what we all need to remember, what Britney said is Britney perception of reality, it doesn’t mean for one moment it is reality. It might be, but none of us should assume that.

@NigellaSeed

I don't think *@Bluntness100* answered everyone's question of how come she's well enough to work if she's so unwell?

Not trying to goad you, but as your opinion seems to be that she must be very mentally unwell I am curious as to your take on her working in show business.

Yes, I'd be interested to hear this too.

How you can justify what you are saying Bluntness is beyond me.

Do you know one of the most terrifying things about my illness/ section etc. (psychosis)...

It was that if I was raped somehow or a victim of crime (during section or afterwards when still in treatment). That it would be unlikely any one would believe me. They would probably just take me from the police station back to the ward.

When you feel in a vulnerable place already and unsafe, thats literally the last thing you need.

She's been used as a cash cow for her family. It's horrific.

If my child was so unwell I needed to manage their life to such an extent but they had amassed a fortune in their early years enough to live comfortably on, then that's what I would do, to protect them and help them. Buy a nice house for them, support them with medical appointments and help them live a quiet normal life.

I wouldn't be putting them on stage and TV for more money!

They won't remove the IUD because if she gets pregnant she can't do the shows. It's horrific.

Poor woman should have been retired from public life and allowed to live a quiet life.

Conservatorships in the US are quite difficult to get, and equally as difficult to keep in place.

They're difficult to get out of place.

So who should we believe bluntness?

I cannot understand (and I am not a mental health professional so I have no expertise) how any one can claim she has the capacity of a comatose person and yet can work like a cart horse for thirteen years in a high pressure environment, in the public eye. She said herself she signed a contract after coming off stage even though she didn't want to.

The two just do not add up. Yes, medication can help you to lead a much more normal life if you have an illness but it cannot completely switch it off so that you are suddenly capable of all that.

I’m not saying anything other than we do not know the full story. We simply don’t. I’m not trying to say anything contentious. But we do not know her medical conditions. We don’t know if what Britney is saying is reality or perceived reality. And that’s th issue. We are all guessing.

There’s nothing I have said to be believed or not. I am asking th question. I don’t know th answer, none of us do. Other than this is a horrific situation.

Britney said she was forced and threatened to work. What if it was then shown she wanted to? Demanded to? That the stories she told didn’t occur? What then? That’s the thing, absolutely none of us know the full story here.

The only thing we do know is this is complex and horrifying.

@Bluntness100

It was never designed for this purpose, it was designed to allow protection for people with severe and permanent lack of capacity,

But that’s what they are saying she has. One of the lawyers said asking Britney to sign a legal document was akin to asking a comatose patient.

There’s no doubt what she presented was her perception of reality. This doesn’t actually mean it is reality. Sadly enough. And it’s interesting her parents did not use the opportunity to publicly fight their corner, simply saying they loved her. When they could easily have laid bare her diagnoses. I suspect they didn’t to protect her.

But I think that’s what we all need to remember, what Britney said is Britney perception of reality, it doesn’t mean for one moment it is reality. It might be, but none of us should assume that.

Sorry bluntness but she clearly DOES have capacity in very many areas - capacity assessments are time and situation dependent, and decision specific.

Someone can lack capacity to manage major financial decisions but are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they want to buy for dinner in the supermarket. The solution there is to have someone else manage their overall finances and give them a weekly or even daily budget that they can then spend as they wish on their food. NOT cut them off from accessing their own money and not allow to decide how to spend it!

You can’t decide just someone is lacking in capacity in all areas - capacity doesn’t work like that. And it is horrifying that this has ever happened to her at all, let alone that she is still being controlled TODAY based on some phoney assessment of her capacity decades ago when she was in crisis!

@Bluntness100

It was never designed for this purpose, it was designed to allow protection for people with severe and permanent lack of capacity,

But that’s what they are saying she has. One of the lawyers said asking Britney to sign a legal document was akin to asking a comatose patient.

There’s no doubt what she presented was her perception of reality. This doesn’t actually mean it is reality. Sadly enough. And it’s interesting her parents did not use the opportunity to publicly fight their corner, simply saying they loved her. When they could easily have laid bare her diagnoses. I suspect they didn’t to protect her.

But I think that’s what we all need to remember, what Britney said is Britney perception of reality, it doesn’t mean for one moment it is reality. It might be, but none of us should assume that.

Did she sound comatosed to you? What is her diagnosis because they haven't actually explained it anywhere.

If you were her parent and you heard how distressed she was because, using your words, her perception of reality is that she is being abused by her father, would you not consider stepping down and allowing someone else to be appointed? If he REALLY had his daughter's best interest at heart? Or could there be other financial reasons he wants to stay involved?

Rino the only area I disagree with you is this is still done on an evaluation decades ago, in Britney own words she’s been evaluated many times and this has been confirmed by the courts and done by independent court appointed doctors.

The rest I agree, my only point is we do not know the results of the evaluations, they are kept sealed. But they are not decades old. That’s for sure.

And if you are saying she doesn’t have the capacity to even go out for a coffee without permission, then she surely doesn’t have capacity to sign a fucking contract!

Sorry but i just don’t buy it. She is mentally unwell, she needs care and support - she does NOT need every single moment and movement in her life to be controlled by her misogynistic family who care only for the how much money they can get from her.

What are they protecting? Because it’s not her personal well-being. More like they are protecting their own financial interests. She is a financial asset to them, and that’s all.

I wouldn't trust those evaluations in honesty. And I honestly think the way she has been treated by those around her, her parents ffs, is going to have exacerbated any problems she does have

“ If my child was so unwell I needed to manage their life to such an extent but they had amassed a fortune in their early years enough to live comfortably on, then that's what I would do, to protect them and help them. Buy a nice house for them, support them with medical appointments and help them live a quiet normal life.

I wouldn't be putting them on stage and TV for more money! ”

Wholeheartedly agree!

Also shes continued to work but estate isn’t getting bigger! It’s reported her estate was $57million in 2001. Since the conservatorship has started shes apparently earned $250mil from tours alone, not including album sales, perfume line, royalties. Her estate is now meant to be $59million. Where has all this money gone?! Is someone scrutinising her accounts? Surely she can’t have spent that all, even being extravagant? I’m sure one of the documentaries said her dad went bankrupt when she was a child, if that was the case in England he’d never have been allowed to be her deputy… I can’t find anything saying he did when I googled it but you do wonder about the money management. Whole thing is a mess

I think it's clear that those around her cannot be trusted to tell the truth and it is very, very easy for a group of people around someone with bipolar to make out she is lying.