I have two vulnerable relatives with a guardianship in place (our version of a conservatorship). My mother is the one who takes care of them. She also works in elderly care and has seen too many vulnerable elderly people exploited and abused by their relatives. That's why her basic principle now is that every vulnerable person should have a guardian who is independent from both the vulnerable person and their relatives. This cannot completely avoid abuse and exploitation, but it reduces opportunities for those to occur to a very low level.
Much like with Britney, the court hears from the individual to be placed under a guardianship as well as the ones making the application. If necessary a guardianship is granted, but the guardian is an employee of the state, so they cannot benefit from the vulnerable person's estate and any decisions about work or spending are made based on what is best for the vulnerable person.
What surprises me in Britney's case is that it seems upside down to me - with the guardianship in place, my relatives cannot legally enter contracts but they get to make all of the small decisions in their day-to-day lives, like going for a coffee. But Britney apparently can still sign contracts, but she is not allowed to go for coffee without permission.
And my relatives would be entirely unable to even read a statement like the one Britney read today, let alone write it.
Another relative who would have benefited from a guardianship opposed the application in court just like Britney did today. Managing to speak lucidly for maybe the only time that week. So the court rejected the necessity for a guardianship was there and refused it. That person was wholly incapable of holding down an even an unskilled, part-time temporary job, not to mention performing like Britney, but the court decreed that even if we're self-destructive, as long as we have capacity, that's a path we must be allowed to choose. It didn't end well. And it was heart breaking for us as a family. But I still agree with the judge. The capacity was there, even if the choices made were poor.
In my opinion, the court should appoint an independent conservator, employed for an appropriate salary on a temporary basis to be reevaluated in a year. Someone who cannot benefit from Britney working. Whose motivation should be to help Britney live as independently as she is able to.