Legal

Britney Spears' Free Will... It's just been revoked.

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:49:11 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Headlines about Britney usually involve the lighter side of things to say the least. But when a constitutional law scholar is claiming Ms. Spears' civil rights are being violated that is quite a shocker. The case revolves around a legal conservatorship placed on Ms. Spears' since her recent involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

Conservatorships are legal arrangements which are ordered when a court finds that a person is unable to care for themselves. As such care and custody of the person and their property or finances is entrusted to a court appointed third party. These arrangements are quite popular with parents of developmentally disabled children who cannot fend for themselves despite legally being adults. They are also used by the children or friends of elderly people who lose control of their mental faculties. Since the 1970s, they were also popular with "deprogramming" groups who would apply for them to help supposedly "brainwashed" victims of cults.

In the Spears' case, a conservatorship was issued over Britney and her immense fortune when she was incarcerated a second time as an involuntary psychiatric patient. Since then, the conservatorship has been extended through March 10th. Until that date her father has control over her custody and finances. However, on Thursday Ms. Spears' "confidant" and manager Sam Lufti presented the California court which had ordered the conservatorship with a document from a federal district court. Mr. Lufti and those excluded from Ms. Spears' life by the conservatorship, claim that the order is unconstitutional and had asked the federal courts to intervene. They found a lawyer, Jon Eardley, who argues that the order puts Ms. Spears' in a level of confinement similar to restrictions imposed on Guantanamo Bay terrorism detainees. The family retaliated by claiming that her former manager drugged and brainwashed her. While experts debate the chances of getting the order lifted, it will remain in place until the federal court can decide whether or not it has jurisdiction.

The brouhaha over the legal conservatorship restricting Ms. Spears has shed light and attention on a part of the law that often gets little press. Various groups have often opposed the idea of conservatorships, or claim that while they had the best of intentions originally, they do more harm than good.  They question why courts appoint professional conservators to manage the finances of the infirm or feeble, when so many bad things have happened in the past because of it. There are even common "dirty tricks" allegedly performed by conservators or their lackeys to bilk seniors or those supposedly under protection. They rail against alleged injustices perpetrated by those given power over another human. While very few TNT members likely control a $40 million+ fortune, they point out that it can happen to "any of us."

< TnT Top Ten: War Movies

Fidel Castro throws down the towel... >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, celebrity, Britney Spears, mental health, Lethal Weapom, Lethal Weapon (all tags)
Add this story to: newsvine reddit digg delicious

This story: 5 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Britney

skeptic.

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM EST

3.50 (interesting)

It is certainly true that when someone is given control of someone else's money, abuses often result.  In this particular case, I think that Britney's father is about as trustworthy a person as could be found.  It's not the same thing as appointing a professional conservator.  

While it may be a disquieting thought that anyone of us (those of us who still have at least one living parent) might be subject to having control of our own lives taken away from us if a parent filed a successful legal motion to become our conservator, in practice, such motions do not succeed without good reason.  I don't think that anyone has ever had control of their money taken away from them on the grounds that they don't visit their parents often enough.  Certainly in the case of Britney Spears, there is abundant evidence that she really is not competent, and the courts are doing her a favor by protecting her from her own bad judgment.  And with any luck, she will get good psychiatric care and will in due course enjoy improved mental health and will be able to take control again of her own money and life.

2

^ 1

Re: Britney

postillion.

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:09:37 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Britney's father has had his share of problems with drugs and alcohol, including a stint in rehab a few years back that was financed by Britney (according to internet gossip).

But even if he hadn't gone to rehab, I doubt that Britney would be really safe under almost anyone's conservatorship.  There's too much fortune and fame involved.  And family members seem quite capable of putting money ahead of the personal when it comes to that; all one has to do is look at Michael Jackson.

3

^ 2

Re: Britney

skeptic.

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:20:28 AM EST

3.00 (astute)

That's an interesting point.  It may be that neither Britney nor her father are well qualified to manage the Spears fortune.  Even so, it seems that Britney is crazier than her father, and so there is still some advantage to giving her father control of the money.  As in many situations, if perfect solutions are not available, we do the best we can.

4

^ 1

Re: Britney

pO157.

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST

none

While it may be a disquieting thought that anyone of us (those of us who still have at least one living parent) might be subject to having control of our own lives taken away from us if a parent filed a successful legal motion to become our conservator, in practice, such motions do not succeed without good reason.  I don't think that anyone has ever had control of their money taken away from them on the grounds that they don't visit their parents often enough.

I didn't really read all of the pages on all of my links, but baring an extreme accident or somesuch, isn't it usually the other way around? Don't most abusive conservatorships happen when a son or daughter claims the parent is incompetent to get their money? When I used to have a job that involved working in nursing homes you would often see this happen every once in a while. Certain patients had relatives that visited all the time, and they got pretty good care. Then you had patients who had their affairs managed by relatives that just didn't care or were possibly outright negligent with finances, and that was pretty bad. I would imagine the latter is more common than people would think.

5

^ 4

children vs. parents

skeptic.

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:17:13 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

Of course it is true that just as parents can become conservators for incompetent children (as in the case of Britney Spears), it is equally true that children can become the conservators for their incompetent parents.  And lots of other family arrangements can be made as well, involving siblings, grandparents, cousins, etc.  In my observation, lots of people do become incompetent due to senility or other diseases of aging, but in most cases there is no legal appointment of a conservator.  People usually manage the affairs of their incompetent relatives when this becomes obviously necessary.  Legal questions are likely to arise only for people who are not completely incapacitated, and who still seem to have some ability to manage their own affairs, although perhaps not as well as they used to.  The case of Britney Spears is unusual only in that such a large amount of money is involved, which is why it was necessary to get legal authorization.  The more money is involved, the more temptation there is for abuse.

This story: 5 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment

search »
Login »
Make a new account
Related Links »
More on Legal
Also by pO157
QuickLinks »
The Senate Majority Leader is a real class act
The best thing about the new Capitol visitors center is that he won't have to smell the tourists anymore.
- pO157
<—————+Ο————>
Not going away
Some interesting thoughts from constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira, who has four (four!) degrees from Harvard: [A] criminal defendant under this statute…signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right…to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum… Further, records could be subpoenaed directly…
- Steve Urkel
<—Ο———+—————>
Nothing is sacred
The Macy's Thanksgiving Parade gets Rick Rolled.
- Lou
<—————+—Ο———>
Yes We Can!
Obama inspires man to redistribute wealth.
- Steve Urkel
<———Ο—+—————>
Bad Candy
It's exactly what it sounds like. Or not. I dunno, I just liked the name.
- JimmyHavok
<—————Ο—————>
Farr off the flying Fiend
Cthulhuesque entity photographed by airplane passenger.
- Steve Urkel
<—————+—Ο———>
John McCain: furriner!
He's a Latin American immigrant! Why the media coverup?
- JimmyHavok
<—Ο———+—————>
Truth and love
New website stands up against hate in California.
- Steve Urkel
<Ο————+—————>
Submit a QuickLink:
If you'd like to submit your own QuickLink, you'll need to log in (or register) first.

Users own their contributions, all else is © 2006, 2007 Trees and Things, Incorporated.

Powered by Scoop.

Terms of Service

Privacy