Britney Spears' case has shown why guardianship laws need to change
Around the world, fans of pop star Britney Spears celebrated her fathers announcement last week that he would resign as her conservator. This development is welcome news for Spears and her supporters, dubbed the #FreeBritney movement. But it will not end Spears conservatorship, which has prevented her from making decisions about her own life since it was established shortly after she had a mental breakdown in 2008. Nor will it prevent others from finding themselves in similar situations. That will require changing the underlying legal systems that created Spears predicament.
While many have only recently learned of conservatorship thanks to the #FreeBritney movement, this legal process is neither new nor unique to the US. It is a common court proceeding in which the court appoints someone to make decisions for individuals the court has found cannot make decisions for themselves. California where Spears lives calls this proceeding conservatorship and calls the appointee a conservator. More commonly, it is called guardianship and the appointee is called a guardian. While Spears has drawn attention to guardianship, the process typically entangles those far less privileged. Changes in the pop stars situation , as welcome as they may be, wont themselves trigger the reform of a legal mechanism mainly experienced by people society has historically treated as expendable.
Since medieval times, English law has recognised the governments power as parens patraie (or parent of the people) to manage the property and bodies of citizens with cognitive disabilities. The first guardianship statutes were adopted in England in the 1600s during the reign of Charles II. And countries around the world have parallel systems that enable courts to appoint others to make decisions for people determined unable to do so for themselves. In England and Wales, for example, the court of protection can appoint a deputy in such situations; in Scotland, sheriff courts can appoint a guardian.
Guardianship can provide valuable protection and assistance to those unable to care for themselves. Suppose an individual has a chronic illness but, due to advanced dementia, cannot understand the nature or consequences of that illness even with substantial help. If the person never executed a power of attorney appointing someone to make decisions for them, the best option may be for a court to appoint another person to make those decisions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/18/britney-spears-case-guardianship-laws
______________________________________________________________________________
I have personally known of cases where guardianship has been abused by someone for monetary gain, so this is kind of personal to me.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)is still being justified under, is similar or less to many other people who are free to screw up their finances and lives.
The difference being, I suppose, no one in these other peoples' families started the process. Example, shouldn't a family member step up and get a conservatorship for the Pillowfool Lindell before he pisses away his fortune?
Jilly_in_VA
(9,945 posts)Kanye, TFG are three people I can think of who OUGHT to be under conservatorship. Britney seems pretty sane to me. Her parents, OTOH, are money-grubbing bastards who want to live off her and her sister.
OAITW r.2.0
(24,312 posts)Never was a fan, so I don't know the backstory.
Jilly_in_VA
(9,945 posts)on the NBC website. Long, but explanatory. Even I didn't know all of it, and I thought I did. Poor girl has been through it and really seems to have come out the other side.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)shaved her head, trashed her car or a car.