Framing Britney Spears

[Anonymous]

Absolutely...the whole illness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or family members or other loved ones. This isn't applicable to Britney and her $60 mn, but bipolar people can spend away their life savings on frivolous purchases..or damaging ones like drugs or hookers. It's an unchecked impulsivity during the mania phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or family members or other loved ones. This isn't applicable to Britney and her $60 mn, but bipolar people can spend away their life savings on frivolous purchases..or damaging ones like drugs or hookers. It's an unchecked impulsivity during the mania phase.

PP here +1 or gambling, risky investments etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or family members or other loved ones. This isn't applicable to Britney and her $60 mn, but bipolar people can spend away their life savings on frivolous purchases..or damaging ones like drugs or hookers. It's an unchecked impulsivity during the mania phase.

And often enormous pain and suffering that not infrequently can lead to suicide in the depressive phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or family members or other loved ones. This isn't applicable to Britney and her $60 mn, but bipolar people can spend away their life savings on frivolous purchases..or damaging ones like drugs or hookers. It's an unchecked impulsivity during the mania phase.

PP here +1 or gambling, risky investments etc

Or let boyfriends with poor intentions spend it on gambling, risky investments, living lavishly etc. and then divorcing her for half. I do think the conservatorship is problematic though. There has to be a middle ground to give her some freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or family members or other loved ones. This isn't applicable to Britney and her $60 mn, but bipolar people can spend away their life savings on frivolous purchases..or damaging ones like drugs or hookers. It's an unchecked impulsivity during the mania phase.

And often enormous pain and suffering that not infrequently can lead to suicide in the depressive phase.

+1 yes

[Anonymous]

Again, Britney’s spending could be controlled and she could still be allowed to move freely

[Anonymous]

As to Britney’s restrictions - again remember, she is not an entirely reliable narrator. Nobody who makes assertions without evidence supporting should be just taken at their word in a legal proceeding, that ignores the guarantee of cross examination. Aside from that, Britney’s mental illness makes her a less reliable narrator than she would be otherwise. It just does. Prior poster explained this in detail, how seriously mentally ill people don’t recognize the extent of their illness.

Further we are just coming out of a pandemic year where most of us were very restricted in our movements until the new normal started within recent weeks. Britney’s assertions about not having personal care - neither did most of us! Assertions of not going anywhere - how do we know this isn’t in part due to her protection in the pandemic? But also, she discusses being sent to a rehab after a blood test - think maybe Britney’s dabbled in drugs and her restrictions and not being allowed to go anywhere with boyfriend driving might have something to do with THAT?

When my niece was battling her drug addiction we kept her from seeing her drug supplier boyfriend to keep her clean and get her on the road to recovery. As a family without a conservatorship, but hearing her claims about her father I couldn’t help thinking he’s a guy living in recovery who is trying to keep his daughter descending into drug addiction again.

So there’s that, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As to Britney’s restrictions - again remember, she is not an entirely reliable narrator. Nobody who makes assertions without evidence supporting should be just taken at their word in a legal proceeding, that ignores the guarantee of cross examination. Aside from that, Britney’s mental illness makes her a less reliable narrator than she would be otherwise. It just does. Prior poster explained this in detail, how seriously mentally ill people don’t recognize the extent of their illness.

Further we are just coming out of a pandemic year where most of us were very restricted in our movements until the new normal started within recent weeks. Britney’s assertions about not having personal care - neither did most of us! Assertions of not going anywhere - how do we know this isn’t in part due to her protection in the pandemic? But also, she discusses being sent to a rehab after a blood test - think maybe Britney’s dabbled in drugs and her restrictions and not being allowed to go anywhere with boyfriend driving might have something to do with THAT?

When my niece was battling her drug addiction we kept her from seeing her drug supplier boyfriend to keep her clean and get her on the road to recovery. As a family without a conservatorship, but hearing her claims about her father I couldn’t help thinking he’s a guy living in recovery who is trying to keep his daughter descending into drug addiction again.

So there’s that, too.

You are truly a horrible person. Just horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She is functioning well enough to support her entire family and associated staff. Perhaps her family should be put under conservatorship since they clearly can't work or take care of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As to Britney’s restrictions - again remember, she is not an entirely reliable narrator. Nobody who makes assertions without evidence supporting should be just taken at their word in a legal proceeding, that ignores the guarantee of cross examination. Aside from that, Britney’s mental illness makes her a less reliable narrator than she would be otherwise. It just does. Prior poster explained this in detail, how seriously mentally ill people don’t recognize the extent of their illness.

Further we are just coming out of a pandemic year where most of us were very restricted in our movements until the new normal started within recent weeks. Britney’s assertions about not having personal care - neither did most of us! Assertions of not going anywhere - how do we know this isn’t in part due to her protection in the pandemic? But also, she discusses being sent to a rehab after a blood test - think maybe Britney’s dabbled in drugs and her restrictions and not being allowed to go anywhere with boyfriend driving might have something to do with THAT?

When my niece was battling her drug addiction we kept her from seeing her drug supplier boyfriend to keep her clean and get her on the road to recovery. As a family without a conservatorship, but hearing her claims about her father I couldn’t help thinking he’s a guy living in recovery who is trying to keep his daughter descending into drug addiction again.

So there’s that, too.

You are truly a horrible person. Just horrible.

Get a grip. Really.

[Anonymous]

All the Free Britney nonsense speaks volumes about how ignorant most people are when it comes to mental health and/or addiction.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that families struggle to protect their loved ones. It is not easy to secure a guardianship or conservatorship. There are people who prey upon others and steal their money, retirement, SS, VA benefits, etc.

Preventing her from marrying protects her interests. I can’t tell you how many families are left with no way to protect their loved one once a spouse is in the mix.

[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?

The people on here are NOT mental health experts, they clearly have an agenda. Please talk to a real person, not some anonymous flack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As to Britney’s restrictions - again remember, she is not an entirely reliable narrator. Nobody who makes assertions without evidence supporting should be just taken at their word in a legal proceeding, that ignores the guarantee of cross examination. Aside from that, Britney’s mental illness makes her a less reliable narrator than she would be otherwise. It just does. Prior poster explained this in detail, how seriously mentally ill people don’t recognize the extent of their illness.

Further we are just coming out of a pandemic year where most of us were very restricted in our movements until the new normal started within recent weeks. Britney’s assertions about not having personal care - neither did most of us! Assertions of not going anywhere - how do we know this isn’t in part due to her protection in the pandemic? But also, she discusses being sent to a rehab after a blood test - think maybe Britney’s dabbled in drugs and her restrictions and not being allowed to go anywhere with boyfriend driving might have something to do with THAT?

When my niece was battling her drug addiction we kept her from seeing her drug supplier boyfriend to keep her clean and get her on the road to recovery. As a family without a conservatorship, but hearing her claims about her father I couldn’t help thinking he’s a guy living in recovery who is trying to keep his daughter descending into drug addiction again.

So there’s that, too.

You are truly a horrible person. Just horrible.

Get a grip. Really.

The one who needs to get a grip is the person going on and on making up stuff about a stranger based one life experience that she handled poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the Free Britney nonsense speaks volumes about how ignorant most people are when it comes to mental health and/or addiction.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that families struggle to protect their loved ones. It is not easy to secure a guardianship or conservatorship. There are people who prey upon others and steal their money, retirement, SS, VA benefits, etc.

Preventing her from marrying protects her interests. I can’t tell you how many families are left with no way to protect their loved one once a spouse is in the mix.

+1 You've stated the truth. Some of the posters here seem to have very limited experience with these types of issues or perhaps have their own issues and ate resistant to family intervention.