Shocking testimony from Britney Spears

BattleCorp

McGinniesta wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the process of conservatorship.

Does it bare any resemblance with the ward of court system?

It's very like a power of attorney over someone.

A conservatorship is a form of adult guardianship in the US, which allows the conservator — mostly another family member — to be in charge of the conservatee. A conservator is a person or institution that protects the conservatee and gets distinctive powers from the court to do so.

The situation is contingent on the ability of the individual to take decisions of their life on their own. It’s mostly for individuals who do not have the necessary functioning capacity to look after themselves, their interests, finances, living arrangements, medical care and their general well-being or are susceptible to fraud of some kind.

The court usually appoints a conservator in case of old age, dementia, developmental disability or physical or mental limitations. The entire concept is based on keeping the conservatee healthy, out of harm’s way and keeping their best interests in mind.

kilburn

Mrs OBumble wrote:

She's already had some kids, and must have treated them pretty damn badly that they are in the sole custody of their father. So stopping her from abusing any more kids is probably a good idea.

Jesus you can't say things like that about people, the woman has mental health issues and you say she abused her kids I wouldn't be posting stuff like that against a very wealthy famous person online if I was you...

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah right, 'cos mothers lose custody of their kids for no reason.:rolleyes:

Just like doctors prescribe lithium for no reason.


If you want to stop child abuse in general, you need to stop children being created in abusive situations.

What are you basing any of that on?

Neyite

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't think there is any proof in the public domain that Spears abused her kids so it's a stretch to accuse her of that. But sole custody of her children wasn't given to their father for nothing. At the very least, Spears was viewed by the courts as being incapable of caring adequately for her children.
.

She shared custody 50:50 with her ex husband for years now, right up until her father tried to hit one of the boys. That prompted her ex to file a restraining order against her father meaning that she could not see her children in the vicinity of her father. Given his control over her entire life, this meant reduction of the custody to 70:30. Indeed it was to protect the kids - but from her father not her.

It's possible that her ex initially had sole custody in the early days of her mental health issues until she stabilised her health, but they shared parenting after that.

The diagnosis that was submitted to the court two years ago was early onset dementia. If that's actually the case then it tends to be rapid and if she was showing signs then, she'd be quite bad with it now.

Either she's too mentally ill to be in charge of her life, her fertility and her finances, so is too unwell to work or she's got health issues that are carefully managed and is fit to work so therefore should be able to make decisions about her own life and her own earnings - It can't be both.

Dontfadeaway

Neyite wrote: »

She shared custody 50:50 with her ex husband for years now, right up until her father tried to hit one of the boys. That prompted her ex to file a restraining order against her father meaning that she could not see her children in the vicinity of her father. Given his control over her entire life, this meant reduction of the custody to 70:30. Indeed it was to protect the kids - but from her father not her.

It's possible that her ex initially had sole custody in the early days of her mental health issues until she stabilised her health, but they shared parenting after that.

The diagnosis that was submitted to the court two years ago was early onset dementia. If that's actually the case then it tends to be rapid and if she was showing signs then, she'd be quite bad with it now.

Either she's too mentally ill to be in charge of her life, her fertility and her finances, so is too unwell to work or she's got health issues that are carefully managed and is fit to work so therefore should be able to make decisions about her own life and her own earnings - It can't be both.

So she does see her kids and it says it’s unsupervised. If she abused them it would be supervised. Sad how people just assume.

I’m sure she has some mental problems still but maybe not to the extreme they are making out.

ceadaoin.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah right, 'cos mothers lose custody of their kids for no reason.:rolleyes:

Just like doctors prescribe lithium for no reason.


If you want to stop child abuse in general, you need to stop children being created in abusive situations.

One of the kids alleged abuse from her father not her. This is why she is unable to see them unsupervised. Previously she did see them unsupervised but obviously since her father controls every aspect of her life they don't trust that he won't be around.

BattleCorp

Neyite wrote: »

Either she's too mentally ill to be in charge of her life, her fertility and her finances, so is too unwell to work or she's got health issues that are carefully managed and is fit to work so therefore should be able to make decisions about her own life and her own earnings - It can't be both.

Your two examples aren't mutually exclusive. There are many examples of people with mental illness who produced absolutely world-class artwork, Van Gogh being one such example. Another example is Cody Lee, who won America's Got Talent a number of years back. He is blind and autistic and can still sing and earn money but certainly wouldn't be able to look after himself.

Britney Spears might well be able to sing and dance etc (work) but not able to look after other more complicated areas of her life such as finances etc. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

I'm not arguing for or against the conservatorship but it was put there for a reason. Whether that reason is still there, I don't know.

KKkitty

chopperbyrne wrote: »

There was a documentary about Britney in about 2004.

In it, a guy alleged that her mother tried to get her into a relationship with him, when he was 20, and she was 14.

If true WTAF!

Junkyard Tom

People have a right to destroy themselves if they wish.

B.A._Baracus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

People have a right to destroy themselves if they wish.

Heres the thing though, if you didn't have a pot to piss in a lot of people would gladly let you do just that.
Throw money into it like Britney has and suddenly its different - 'we have to act for her best interests' lol.

Neyite

BattleCorp wrote: »

Your two examples aren't mutually exclusive. There are many examples of people with mental illness who produced absolutely world-class artwork, Van Gogh being one such example. Another example is Cody Lee, who won America's Got Talent a number of years back. He is blind and autistic and can still sing and earn money but certainly wouldn't be able to look after himself.

Britney Spears might well be able to sing and dance etc (work) but not able to look after other more complicated areas of her life such as finances etc. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

I'm not arguing for or against the conservatorship but it was put there for a reason. Whether that reason is still there, I don't know.

Yes, true, but there's a big difference between ill people being supported to have a job that they love, that is their passion, and being forced to work despite being severely ill. She says that she didn't want to do the tours or the Vegas residency, and was forced by her father and her management team put in place by her father. That's not the actions of a loving father towards a daughter with health issues.

There may have been a need for the conservatorship like you say, but 13 years on it does look on the face of it, like she was a cash cow for the people around her, mostly her father. I think that her capacity needs to be assessed by a court appointed impartial expert and not one hired by the team that's profiting off her.

Sudden Valley

Sounds very similar to what happened to brian Wilson, taken advantage by those that were supposed to be looking after his mental health. I see the lawyers have agreed that no more of the court sessions in the spears case will be recorded so perhaps there are more shocking accusations against her family.

the purple tin

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, true, but there's a big difference between ill people being supported to have a job that they love, that is their passion, and being forced to work despite being severely ill. She says that she didn't want to do the tours or the Vegas residency, and was forced by her father and her management team put in place by her father. That's not the actions of a loving father towards a daughter with health issues.

There may have been a need for the conservatorship like you say, but 13 years on it does look on the face of it, like she was a cash cow for the people around her, mostly her father. I think that her capacity needs to be assessed by a court appointed impartial expert and not one hired by the team that's profiting off her.

The ironic thing is that she has to pay for the legal team that Da Spears has hired to convince the judge to keep her in the conservatorship.

You are right these conservatorship set ups should have an outside psychiatrist checking up on the person and reporting back to the judge every month or two so they can decide if they are in a fit mental state or not.

It's amazing that she was kept locked into this agreement for 13 years like the goose who lays the golden eggs for her Da without the court ever checking back on the situation.

Donald Trump

the purple tin wrote: »

The ironic thing is that she has to pay for the legal team that Da Spears has hired to convince the judge to keep her in the conservatorship.

Tell that to any man who had to pay for his wife's divorce barristers!

JP Liz V1

This is toxic, her father needs locking up

kingtiger

I suppose its just a wait and see who was correct, my money is on Brittney's auld lad being correct and in her best interests

trial by the Internet almost never ends well

grassylawn

Forcing someone to get up and dance in front of crowds is not looking after their mental health.

SecretsOfEarth

kingtiger wrote: »

I suppose its just a wait and see who was correct, my money is on Brittney's auld lad being correct and in her best interests

trial by the Internet almost never ends well

13 years ago this may have been in her best interest as a temporary measure, when she was being hounded by paparazzi and enduring trial by tabloid daily.

Since its introduction, she has released 4 albums, completed three world tours, a four year Vegas residency, judged on X Factor USA, launched a lingerie line and released multiple fragrances. How is she able to do this while she is supposedly so unstable and unwell?

The whole thing stinks and boils down to a situation whereby Britney was a cash-cow in a legally-backed farce where she has to pay for her own legal counsel (which she couldn't choose) and that of her father (who opposes her interests).

expectationlost

it doesn't make any sense, from what little we know, that she would be in this conservatorship for so long

but has she not partly won her case by getting a co-conservator

well even that well management company doesn't want to be a conservator to her https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012290964/company-asks-to-withdraw-from-britney-spears-conservatorship

SecretsOfEarth

expectationlost wrote: »

it doesn't make any sense, from what little we know, that she would be in this conservatorship for so long

but has she not partly won her case by getting a co-conservator

Sort of, but it's a very small victory (if you could call it that).

A financial trust have been appointed co-conservator of Britney's financial affairs, sharing duties with her father. This still doesn't remove Britney's father from her conservatorship, which has been her main point of contention and has resulted in her refusal to record or perform.

Now that (apparently) the paperwork is about to be filed by Britney's lawyer to petition for the conservatorship to end, it'll be interesting to see how the case develops.

It has been interesting in recent days that Jamie Spears issued a statement refuting some of Britney's claims about the personal issues, and shifting blame to the current conservator of her personal affairs, Jodie Montgomery. His team have also conceded that no health evaluation was undertaken when applying for and implementing the conservatorship at the outset. The whole system raises major red flags around protection of the subject of the conservatorship and their interests.

expectationlost

SecretsOfEarth wrote: »

Sort of, but it's a very small victory (if you could call it that).

A financial trust have been appointed co-conservator of Britney's financial affairs, sharing duties with her father. This still doesn't remove Britney's father from her conservatorship, which has been her main point of contention and has resulted in her refusal to record or perform.

Now that (apparently) the paperwork is about to be filed by Britney's lawyer to petition for the conservatorship to end, it'll be interesting to see how the case develops.

It has been interesting in recent days that Jamie Spears issued a statement refuting some of Britney's claims about the personal issues, and shifting blame to the current conservator of her personal affairs, Jodie Montgomery. His team have also conceded that no health evaluation was undertaken when applying for and implementing the conservatorship at the outset. The whole system raises major red flags around protection of the subject of the conservatorship and their interests.

raises question about the judges

YFlyer

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

i love the way all the celebs are all falling over themselves to support britney now.but there was no one around when she went bat **** crazy a few years back.
they dropped her like she was dare i say "toxic".
****ing hypocrites.

At least she is getting support. How about Janet?