It’s up to her to prove inducement, undue influence, or duress then. If she was vulnerable to believe their threats then maybe the judge’s findings that she’s vulnerable to outside exploitation isn’t so unfounded. And there’s not much that can be done until she actually petitions to end the conservatorship.
But how can she, if no-one will listen to her and she has her therapists chosen for her?
Are we to assume here that everyone is unethical and unprofessional?
They don't have to be. They can be overworked, have their own biases, do the minimum, not stick their necks out, worry about consequences to their careers, and default to systems and rubber-stamping without much reflection, like most people. However, most people do not hold non-family members' self-determination and personal lives in their own hands.
Oh you are blessed. I have lawyers coming out of my ears. And they not only do pro bono work but contingency, and have sliding fee schedules. Any attorney would be happy to take a dollar to secure their place as her lawyer. Think of the publicity they would garner. Priceless.
No, but I think it's a fair train of thought to assume that the blatant misconduct of Britney's father would suggest he may have cherry-picked therapists that were easily bought off or hired because they would do what he wanted. Unethical therapists are absolutely a thing, it would not be the first time a therapist was brought in by a parent just to force someone onto meds or to refuse to listen.
But the court appointed a professional conservator to take over decisions about Britney's personal life about two years ago, so that decision would the conservator's, not his. Of course the conservator could be unethical, too--that's also a thing.
I believe it was the financial management team that resigned because they read that Britney did not want them any more. They were, IIRC, appointed in the first place at Britney's request, so apparently someone at some point was listening to her.
Any way I can double or triple like this post?
I'm not assuming this but I have to say that there is so much abuse in this system and that there are many people that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves who get into one of these conservatorships and can't get out while the people who put them in it bleed them dry.
www.youtube.com
www.cheatsheet.com
It seems to me that the very same things that could work against Britney--specifically her money and fame--would also work for her in this case. There are a lot of people working on her case; there is a lot of public scrutiny. This is not the case where no one cares or is paying attention or where one person is fully in charge. She's still working; people see her all the time.
Yes, I mentioned him a few pages ago and Vagabond added Mickey Rooney. You could also add Casey Kasem to the list. Amanda Bynes, Joni Mitchell and Randy Meissner of the Eagles are celebrities who have conservatorships now; Amanda Bynes wants hers to end, but it was extended through this year.
There seems to be attention on it now. For a long time, it was only her most hard-core fans. And already there is talk of reform of the system and a bill making it through the legislature that will do that.
I think they do think they're doing their jobs.
I don't think that was my claim at all. I specified what I meant in Britney Spears' case, which was not just that she is rich and famous. She has been working for the last several years and has not been in isolation. There have been multiple people and organizations working on her case for years.
And why do you think they are not?
I don't think she's physically isolated, but I also don't see anyone truly in her corner who's only looking out for her. It seems as if all her relationships are transactional or have become transactional.
One of the key characteristics you see with abuse cases is that the victim is cut off from other people as much as possible. I don't see that here. Maybe you do.
Based on what?
I think they are doing what the systems, in this case judicial, were deiberately set up for them to do and allow them to do. Like make a decision quickly without speaking to the person whose rights were about to be curtailed and not raise alternatives, as described in The New Yorker article.
I found some of the information in that article chilling. It says she made two attempts at the beginning to retain an alternate attorney but was deemed not to have the capacity to do so and had to settle for one from a court shortlist of connected cronies. It was noted that the attorney who was appointed spent ninety minutes with her once and said it was three times longer than any other appointments they had scheduled. There is also an interviewee who witnessed a statement by her father of a conflict of interest with this attorney.
Supporting the parents and brother financially for years is a courtesy not a necessity and it sounds like the father has a history of mandated work requirements. As an alternative, money to support her children and for her personal expenses could have been protected using other methods and her other business interests downsized if needed. It ought to be her choice not theirs whether she wants to support all these people and business interests, or be a spare change Santa Monica Pier busker or perform in Las Vegas while her father screams demeaning things at her. It's not clear from the article that is the case.
