So What’s Going On With Britney Spears?
Have you ever had a loved one who appeared to be struggling with a mental or physical health issue that affected their ability to care for themself? Maybe for a few days, a month or so, or even years? How often have we seen someone we care about going through a rough patch and thought “I wish I could help?” And when does that wish turn to an insistence that someone must intervene?
Chances are, you’ve felt this way. You may have even discussed options like an intervention or an involuntary commitment, or even sought guardianship or conservatorship for a loved one. It’s a difficult and heartbreaking situation, and court intervention is undoubtedly sometimes necessary for a “person in need of protection,” as we sometimes refer to those who may be particularly vulnerable by reason of any number of mental or physical health issues.
Though it’s very hard to quantify accurately, a study by the AARP in 2013 estimated the number of Americans under guardianship and conservatorship to be approximately 1.5 million (1). And while the recent case of Britney Spears’ conservatorship battle has drawn international attention, there are countless others for whom conservatorship or guardianship has quietly been a lifesaving tool. Consider an advanced Alzheimer’s patient with a loving family whose intervention is necessary to make sure she gets the care she needs, or an accident victim whose spouse needs to pay bills and make medical decisions when he is in a coma.
The testimony we heard from Britney Spears this week (2)—the pleading in her voice, the urgency and desperation that she conveyed—reminds us, however, that not all cases are so black and white. There are instances in which a person needs care for a season of life, helping them to get the treatment they need to get back on their feet. And there are some who need help in some aspects of life but can manage on their own in others. “Capacity” (as we define it for purposes under the law) is very rarely a zero-sum game; it can often be a sliding scale, and one that changes from year to year or even sometimes from hour to hour. In Britney’s case however, the court has granted power over nearly every aspect of her life: both a conservatorship over the person (known in Alabama as a guardianship) to Jodi Montgomery, a professional California conservator; and over her estate assets (here also known as a conservatorship) to her father, Jamie Spears, and Bessemer Trust, a family office.
Most states have laws in place dictating that, even when a person is under conservatorship or guardianship, those powers should be exercised using the least restrictive means necessary. Here in Alabama, the court is to only exercise its authority “so as to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of the incapacitated person” (3). In California, where the Spears conservatorship is, the legislature has stated that the intent of laws protecting people like Britney is for them to result in “more independent, productive, and normal lives” (4). While we should keep in mind that Britney’s testimony is just that—her personal testimony, and just part of the evidence the court will eventually consider—it certainly seems as if her current life is in no way independent or normal, though she has undoubtedly been productive despite it.
At the heart of the discussion about the Britney Spears conservatorship and about how those with disabilities are treated under the law, however, is one thing we can all agree on: Regardless of disability or individual need, all people under guardianship or conservatorship deserve to be treated with dignity, deserve to be heard, and deserve to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. As for whether Britney and her #freebritney supporters will be successful in removing Jamie Spears and the other conservators from the seemingly excessive control they have over Britney? Only time and the Los Angeles County Superior Court will tell. Here’s hoping Judge Penny does the right thing, whatever that may be.
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/cons_prot/2013/guardian-decisions-on-ltss-report-AARP-ppi-cons-prot.pdf
Listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVrhKBhMrEI or read the transcript of her testimony here: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009858617/britney-spears-transcript-court-hearing-conservatorship
Ala. Code § 26-2A-105(a)
Cal. Prob. Code 1801(d)