Framing Britney Spears

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Britney and her boyfriend have been together for 5 years. He's put up with a lot of BS in 5 years. Do you really think this is some long game con for him trying to get her money?

Yeah maybe.

But that's not the question anyone should be answering. It's whether or not she is mentally unfit enough to have a conservatorship for over a decade. This is INCREDIBLY unusual and very controlling.

Most people with mental illness have conservatorships for the entirety of their adulthood

This is false.

No it's not. I work with individuals with mental health in the court system this is literally my job. Do some people with minor mental health issues get control back of their money and Life choices? yes; but people with severe mental illness that is only stabilized through medical intervention and those who have had multiple relapses the odds of them getting conservatorship back in their adulthood for any meaningful amount of time is nil

+1

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, did someone here just compare Britney Spears to Virginia Woolf?! Oh my.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people live their lives in unfortunate ways. I am baffled as to why Britney isn't allowed the same. And would argue that this life is not a whole lot better for her anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Britney and her boyfriend have been together for 5 years. He's put up with a lot of BS in 5 years. Do you really think this is some long game con for him trying to get her money?

Yeah maybe.

But that's not the question anyone should be answering. It's whether or not she is mentally unfit enough to have a conservatorship for over a decade. This is INCREDIBLY unusual and very controlling.

Most people with mental illness have conservatorships for the entirety of their adulthood

Dude, what? I've been living with a severe mental illness my entire life. I work, I have relationships, I travel, I take care of the home that I own. Most people wouldn't even know I have a mental illness.
If you mean certain mental illnesses, you really need to specify that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people live their lives in unfortunate ways. I am baffled as to why Britney isn't allowed the same. And would argue that this life is not a whole lot better for her anyway.

If one of my family members were displaying all the bizarre behaviors that she did and hanging out with weird people who could take advantage, I wouldn't willingly let that kind of situation continue. She could have wound up on the streets and her boys would be paying a big emotional price, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Britney and her boyfriend have been together for 5 years. He's put up with a lot of BS in 5 years. Do you really think this is some long game con for him trying to get her money?

Yeah maybe.

But that's not the question anyone should be answering. It's whether or not she is mentally unfit enough to have a conservatorship for over a decade. This is INCREDIBLY unusual and very controlling.

Most people with mental illness have conservatorships for the entirety of their adulthood

This is false.

No it's not. I work with individuals with mental health in the court system this is literally my job. Do some people with minor mental health issues get control back of their money and Life choices? yes; but people with severe mental illness that is only stabilized through medical intervention and those who have had multiple relapses the odds of them getting conservatorship back in their adulthood for any meaningful amount of time is nil

+1

You are only dealing with a small proportion of people with mental health issues. Your experience is by no means applicable to the broader population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people live their lives in unfortunate ways. I am baffled as to why Britney isn't allowed the same. And would argue that this life is not a whole lot better for her anyway.

If one of my family members were displaying all the bizarre behaviors that she did and hanging out with weird people who could take advantage, I wouldn't willingly let that kind of situation continue. She could have wound up on the streets and her boys would be paying a big emotional price, too.

It's called free will. Women are allowed to have it. Do you think her boys haven't already paid a price? They barely get to see her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, rational person here, or at least I think so!

I think that many things can be true at once

1) I thought that reading the transcript she seemed scattered but listening to her talk she seemed cogent. I believe that she has a significant mental health diagnosis.

2) I think her logic for requesting to not be evaluated was actually one of the clearer points she made. My first reaction when I read that was the same as PPs but it was clear that the reason she was requesting to not be evaluated is that last time she was and it was a bad experience and it did not help her.

3) I think this is a situation where the public knows very little about her actual diagnoses and that the grey area for abuse is very large. If you convince the public and the world that she's so severely mentally ill that you can't trust what she says, and you medicate her heavily so she seems off all the time, and when everyone involved in the situation is profiting massively from her being locked in a gilded cage, then the idea that she has been essentially abused and used for a decade is as plausible as the idea that she's mentally ill and will believe anyone working in her interest will be controlling her. And when the doctors are on the payroll and chosen by the people making millions off of her, it just becomes difficult to trust that they are working in her best interest.

4) It is one thing to say she's mentally ill and can't manage her affairs. It is another to restrict her from driving, to not let her friends/boyfriends take her places, to take her credit cards, to not let her live outside of a bubble.

5) There are mentally ill people all over this country who are not forced to take medication they don't want or forced to work or forced to stay in a house. And those people didn't manage to hold down a Vegas show for four years performing every night. Her work competency has to count for something here.

Seems to me like the family should, at large, be entirely removed from the payroll and she should be given a lot more freedom, at minimum. Someone can protect her fortune and ensure she keeps her doctor's appointments etc without preventing her from being able to go to Starbucks.

You have no idea that #2 is true. Her past evaluation may have saved her life. It is not "clear" and simple because unless you are her psychiatrist and evaluated her and her records, you are in no position to speak to her judgment. Regarding #5, how she was during Vegas is not relevant. Her current status is what matters. And again...none of us know anything about her functioning during her Vegas run. She is a performer with muscle memory to perform...it will be the last thing to go. It by no means suggests she was healthy or even necessarily safe. Regarding #3, that she is a waif/victim in need of rescuing...
She has said she is mortified by the documentary and it is unlikely that her mother, snd sister for example,.would completely wash their hands of the situation and allow her to be utterly exploited. The most likely factor here seems to be what a pp said. This is a perfect storm and brittany is talented, sweet, gullible and probably suffering from complex mental health issues that are likely very serious and complicated. The issue of father's role is probably what most agree on...another person in his role is in her likely best interest at this point. I wish she could be afforded privacy. What a sh#t show.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people live their lives in unfortunate ways. I am baffled as to why Britney isn't allowed the same. And would argue that this life is not a whole lot better for her anyway.

If one of my family members were displaying all the bizarre behaviors that she did and hanging out with weird people who could take advantage, I wouldn't willingly let that kind of situation continue. She could have wound up on the streets and her boys would be paying a big emotional price, too.

It's called free will. Women are allowed to have it. Do you think her boys haven't already paid a price? They barely get to see her.

PP here. I disagree with you and think it's inhumane to allow severely mentally ill people who aren't functioning well to spiral down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, rational person here, or at least I think so!

I think that many things can be true at once

1) I thought that reading the transcript she seemed scattered but listening to her talk she seemed cogent. I believe that she has a significant mental health diagnosis.

2) I think her logic for requesting to not be evaluated was actually one of the clearer points she made. My first reaction when I read that was the same as PPs but it was clear that the reason she was requesting to not be evaluated is that last time she was and it was a bad experience and it did not help her.

3) I think this is a situation where the public knows very little about her actual diagnoses and that the grey area for abuse is very large. If you convince the public and the world that she's so severely mentally ill that you can't trust what she says, and you medicate her heavily so she seems off all the time, and when everyone involved in the situation is profiting massively from her being locked in a gilded cage, then the idea that she has been essentially abused and used for a decade is as plausible as the idea that she's mentally ill and will believe anyone working in her interest will be controlling her. And when the doctors are on the payroll and chosen by the people making millions off of her, it just becomes difficult to trust that they are working in her best interest.

4) It is one thing to say she's mentally ill and can't manage her affairs. It is another to restrict her from driving, to not let her friends/boyfriends take her places, to take her credit cards, to not let her live outside of a bubble.

5) There are mentally ill people all over this country who are not forced to take medication they don't want or forced to work or forced to stay in a house. And those people didn't manage to hold down a Vegas show for four years performing every night. Her work competency has to count for something here.

Seems to me like the family should, at large, be entirely removed from the payroll and she should be given a lot more freedom, at minimum. Someone can protect her fortune and ensure she keeps her doctor's appointments etc without preventing her from being able to go to Starbucks.

You have no idea that #2 is true. Her past evaluation may have saved her life. It is not "clear" and simple because unless you are her psychiatrist and evaluated her and her records, you are in no position to speak to her judgment. Regarding #5, how she was during Vegas is not relevant. Her current status is what matters. And again...none of us know anything about her functioning during her Vegas run. She is a performer with muscle memory to perform...it will be the last thing to go. It by no means suggests she was healthy or even necessarily safe. Regarding #3, that she is a waif/victim in need of rescuing...
She has said she is mortified by the documentary and it is unlikely that her mother, snd sister for example,.would completely wash their hands of the situation and allow her to be utterly exploited. The most likely factor here seems to be what a pp said. This is a perfect storm and brittany is talented, sweet, gullible and probably suffering from complex mental health issues that are likely very serious and complicated. The issue of father's role is probably what most agree on...another person in his role is in her likely best interest at this point. I wish she could be afforded privacy. What a sh#t show.
.

+1 yes to all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for all the mental health experts weighing in here who believe the conservatorship should continue: Have you seen any other instances of an adult being put under a conservatorship for over a decade when that person has been professionally successful and paying their own bills the whole time?

It is not my area of specialty, but I will note that the successful and well known psychiatrist, Kay Redfield Jamison (author of "An unquit Mind" and other books on Bipolar Disorder, which she has managed for decades now I believe) relayed in her book that she had layers of protection on her ability to spend money. (Yes, money she earned). She is a brilliant, high functioning person who had managed the illness for many years. And still...she insisted on protections and had agreed to external limits, or did at the time she wrote the book. Most of it was set by her then living husband . It is a one way to prevent a difficult situation (a bad episode of mania) from descending into something worse. In the book, during her manic episode she spent a large sum of money in a small window of time. When balanced and stable again, she accepted the constraints. Not the same thing as this situation, but a form of it. Jane Pauley during her mania bought a house and began frantically furnishing it. It can be a real problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, rational person here, or at least I think so!

I think that many things can be true at once

1) I thought that reading the transcript she seemed scattered but listening to her talk she seemed cogent. I believe that she has a significant mental health diagnosis.

2) I think her logic for requesting to not be evaluated was actually one of the clearer points she made. My first reaction when I read that was the same as PPs but it was clear that the reason she was requesting to not be evaluated is that last time she was and it was a bad experience and it did not help her.

3) I think this is a situation where the public knows very little about her actual diagnoses and that the grey area for abuse is very large. If you convince the public and the world that she's so severely mentally ill that you can't trust what she says, and you medicate her heavily so she seems off all the time, and when everyone involved in the situation is profiting massively from her being locked in a gilded cage, then the idea that she has been essentially abused and used for a decade is as plausible as the idea that she's mentally ill and will believe anyone working in her interest will be controlling her. And when the doctors are on the payroll and chosen by the people making millions off of her, it just becomes difficult to trust that they are working in her best interest.

4) It is one thing to say she's mentally ill and can't manage her affairs. It is another to restrict her from driving, to not let her friends/boyfriends take her places, to take her credit cards, to not let her live outside of a bubble.

5) There are mentally ill people all over this country who are not forced to take medication they don't want or forced to work or forced to stay in a house. And those people didn't manage to hold down a Vegas show for four years performing every night. Her work competency has to count for something here.

Seems to me like the family should, at large, be entirely removed from the payroll and she should be given a lot more freedom, at minimum. Someone can protect her fortune and ensure she keeps her doctor's appointments etc without preventing her from being able to go to Starbucks.

You have no idea that #2 is true. Her past evaluation may have saved her life. It is not "clear" and simple because unless you are her psychiatrist and evaluated her and her records, you are in no position to speak to her judgment. Regarding #5, how she was during Vegas is not relevant. Her current status is what matters. And again...none of us know anything about her functioning during her Vegas run. She is a performer with muscle memory to perform...it will be the last thing to go. It by no means suggests she was healthy or even necessarily safe. Regarding #3, that she is a waif/victim in need of rescuing...
She has said she is mortified by the documentary and it is unlikely that her mother, snd sister for example,.would completely wash their hands of the situation and allow her to be utterly exploited. The most likely factor here seems to be what a pp said. This is a perfect storm and brittany is talented, sweet, gullible and probably suffering from complex mental health issues that are likely very serious and complicated. The issue of father's role is probably what most agree on...another person in his role is in her likely best interest at this point. I wish she could be afforded privacy. What a sh#t show.
.

+1 yes to all

Both of us are speculating. My point is that the situation could go either way, and when I’m erring on whether to completely strip a human being of their autonomy, I want to err on the side of too much not too little freedom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for all the mental health experts weighing in here who believe the conservatorship should continue: Have you seen any other instances of an adult being put under a conservatorship for over a decade when that person has been professionally successful and paying their own bills the whole time?

It is not my area of specialty, but I will note that the successful and well known psychiatrist, Kay Redfield Jamison (author of "An unquit Mind" and other books on Bipolar Disorder, which she has managed for decades now I believe) relayed in her book that she had layers of protection on her ability to spend money. (Yes, money she earned). She is a brilliant, high functioning person who had managed the illness for many years. And still...she insisted on protections and had agreed to external limits, or did at the time she wrote the book. Most of it was set by her then living husband . It is a one way to prevent a difficult situation (a bad episode of mania) from descending into something worse. In the book, during her manic episode she spent a large sum of money in a small window of time. When balanced and stable again, she accepted the constraints. Not the same thing as this situation, but a form of it. Jane Pauley during her mania bought a house and began frantically furnishing it. It can be a real problem.

Yes but this is a problem that can be solved with a credit card with a 20k limit. I just can’t think of plausible reasons to restrict her movement to the extent it has been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for all the mental health experts weighing in here who believe the conservatorship should continue: Have you seen any other instances of an adult being put under a conservatorship for over a decade when that person has been professionally successful and paying their own bills the whole time?

It is not my area of specialty, but I will note that the successful and well known psychiatrist, Kay Redfield Jamison (author of "An unquit Mind" and other books on Bipolar Disorder, which she has managed for decades now I believe) relayed in her book that she had layers of protection on her ability to spend money. (Yes, money she earned). She is a brilliant, high functioning person who had managed the illness for many years. And still...she insisted on protections and had agreed to external limits, or did at the time she wrote the book. Most of it was set by her then living husband . It is a one way to prevent a difficult situation (a bad episode of mania) from descending into something worse. In the book, during her manic episode she spent a large sum of money in a small window of time. When balanced and stable again, she accepted the constraints. Not the same thing as this situation, but a form of it. Jane Pauley during her mania bought a house and began frantically furnishing it. It can be a real problem.

+1 The financial consequences can wreak havoc on a spouse, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I was that judge, I would remove dad and put a whole new team in place, issue orders that Britney doesn’t have to work anymore and can get her IUD out and have a baby and get married (with reasonable prenup in place) and have an increased allowance but not unfettered access to her entire fortune. Then she where she is in a year.

Agree.

This sounds sane

Yes, could a lawyer or social worker explain why this is even an issue. If someone under a conservatorship wishes to have a new conservator,* and it has to be overseen by a judge, and (here at least) money is more than sufficient to hire someone/some entity that is reputable, shouldn't this already be done and done? Even without the eye-popping conflicts of interest of her father, why wouldn't this be a matter of course even in more typical conservatorships; it seems it could cut down on a lot of abusive or just problematic situations from developing in this type of relationship. (*And it's not like she asking for a new one every 6 months or someone questionable or ANY other red flags.)

It makes me wonder about the judge's ethics!