Framing Britney Spears

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH and DD are both bipolar and this scared the hell out of me. I believe Jamie is also bipolar and if something happened to me I could see a similar situation happening - a very sick person trying to take care of another very sick person and it all turning out horribly.

As someone who has seen many manic episodes, Brittany's behavior was all too familiar. She is clearly very ill. I feel for her as I'm sure it is all very real to her and she is scared and angry, but it is unlikely reality is quite like she portrayed it to be and she needs help.

Jamie's mother committed suicide, so he has his mom's mental health issues likely impacting him as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If she is sufficiently competent to headline a Vegas show and financially support her entire family, then she’s sufficiently competent to make her own life decisions. That’s the crux of it. So what if she loses her money and never performs again? It’s her life. Those are her choices to make.

How did the Vegas residency go? Was she able to handle it? Is she still performing?

Perhaps she better to do it? Maybe it was a test to see how she did?

Here’s the thing: even a trained monkey can dance on cue.

She is accustomed to a certain lifestyle. It’s expensive. Her lack of capacity will require a lifetime of a paid trustee to handle her business and ensure she is properly cared for. Someone needed to set that up.

You people really don’t understand how difficult it is to deal with a person with mental health and addiction issues. Because of her celebrity, it’s an added layer of issues.

The question is competency, right? Because a competent adult has every right to blow all their money and become homeless and destitute. Do we know that she's actually incompetent?

Apparently the court has reach that conclusion multiple times over the last decade or so.

It’s doubtful the court has screwed up. It’s doubtful she’s magically improved.

[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.

They barely get to see her because she’s incapable of competent parenting. Hence the IUD, which seems a very sensible decision given her limitations. As is preventing her from marrying the loser BF salivating at the prospect of getting his hands on her loot. The only thing I object to is her being compelled to work if her heart’s not in it, which it seems it isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If she is sufficiently competent to headline a Vegas show and financially support her entire family, then she’s sufficiently competent to make her own life decisions. That’s the crux of it. So what if she loses her money and never performs again? It’s her life. Those are her choices to make.

How did the Vegas residency go? Was she able to handle it? Is she still performing?

Perhaps she better to do it? Maybe it was a test to see how she did?

Here’s the thing: even a trained monkey can dance on cue.

She is accustomed to a certain lifestyle. It’s expensive. Her lack of capacity will require a lifetime of a paid trustee to handle her business and ensure she is properly cared for. Someone needed to set that up.

You people really don’t understand how difficult it is to deal with a person with mental health and addiction issues. Because of her celebrity, it’s an added layer of issues.

The question is competency, right? Because a competent adult has every right to blow all their money and become homeless and destitute. Do we know that she's actually incompetent?

Apparently the court has reach that conclusion multiple times over the last decade or so.

It’s doubtful the court has screwed up. It’s doubtful she’s magically improved.

DP. There’s a long list of judicial decisions that the American courts have gotten very very wrong over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If she is sufficiently competent to headline a Vegas show and financially support her entire family, then she’s sufficiently competent to make her own life decisions. That’s the crux of it. So what if she loses her money and never performs again? It’s her life. Those are her choices to make.

Dancing and performing in Vegas does not equate to good mental health and the ability to do function independently.

Successfully maintaining a professional career is evidence that one’s mental health problems are under control.

Thanks to the current arrangement, yes.

Agree, if her father had not set up the performances she’s done, she would be broke. If she doesn’t wantto perform then make a public statement you are semiretired, or completely retired, and no longer performing. Then refuse to perform.

And she wants the IUD removed to start a family! How did she do with the first one? It is extremely rare for a woman to lose custody.

[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.

They barely get to see her because she’s incapable of competent parenting. Hence the IUD, which seems a very sensible decision given her limitations. As is preventing her from marrying the loser BF salivating at the prospect of getting his hands on her loot. The only thing I object to is her being compelled to work if her heart’s not in it, which it seems it isn’t.

Agree but do think a neutral third party should be handling her conservatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They barely get to see her because she’s incapable of competent parenting. Hence the IUD, which seems a very sensible decision given her limitations. As is preventing her from marrying the loser BF salivating at the prospect of getting his hands on her loot. The only thing I object to is her being compelled to work if her heart’s not in it, which it seems it isn’t.

Agree but do think a neutral third party should be handling her conservatorship.

The rub is that then you have a third party who’s only motivation is financial and benefits by it continuing. Is that better than a family member? I don’t know. I don’t think any of us know anywhere near what one would need to know to have a valid opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They barely get to see her because she’s incapable of competent parenting. Hence the IUD, which seems a very sensible decision given her limitations. As is preventing her from marrying the loser BF salivating at the prospect of getting his hands on her loot. The only thing I object to is her being compelled to work if her heart’s not in it, which it seems it isn’t.

Agree but do think a neutral third party should be handling her conservatorship.

The rub is that then you have a third party who’s only motivation is financial and benefits by it continuing. Is that better than a family member? I don’t know. I don’t think any of us know anywhere near what one would need to know to have a valid opinion.

Agreed.

Her sister knows what’s what. Her comments over the years lead me to believe Britney isn’t well and the conservatorship is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Here is what confuses me about her working. I thought she actually has been on break from working for a few years? In other words, not currently coerced to work and choosing not to work. Reading her statement to the judge and putting the pieces together, it sounds like she was decompensating while she was still (probably) under contract in vegas. Hence her being told work or "get a lawyer" as she related to the judge. Like all celebrities, she was under contract to perform or could get sued no? Whether they did the right thing in patching her together with different treatments approaches to help her still work is debatable but the reality of her obligation to legally perform seems lost on her.

[Anonymous]

And her perception, as she told the judge, that it was her refusal to perform certain dance moves that contributed to her being punished (forced into treatment) reflects some severe deficits in her capacity to understand what was happening. Then but now as well.

[Anonymous]

Another party that took advantage of Britney is the New York Times.

The documentary that kicked off this thread is a travesty. A bunch of media and culture reporters getting their moment in the sun. Playing unvalidated clips. The gauzy treatment of the twenty something Britney fans who don’t understand mental health care and are often making money off their Britney words.

The NYT did this to make money. To diversify their “brand” into Netflix documentaries.

It’s horrible. The New York Times is big corporate media today.
And that’s why they’re so generous and helpful to conservatives — because they’re a Big Media company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what confuses me about her working. I thought she actually has been on break from working for a few years? In other words, not currently coerced to work and choosing not to work. Reading her statement to the judge and putting the pieces together, it sounds like she was decompensating while she was still (probably) under contract in vegas. Hence her being told work or "get a lawyer" as she related to the judge. Like all celebrities, she was under contract to perform or could get sued no? Whether they did the right thing in patching her together with different treatments approaches to help her still work is debatable but the reality of her obligation to legally perform seems lost on her.

Her dad commits her to working. She has no say. If she is that mentally ill, she should not be working the way she does. He's not looking after her interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what confuses me about her working. I thought she actually has been on break from working for a few years? In other words, not currently coerced to work and choosing not to work. Reading her statement to the judge and putting the pieces together, it sounds like she was decompensating while she was still (probably) under contract in vegas. Hence her being told work or "get a lawyer" as she related to the judge. Like all celebrities, she was under contract to perform or could get sued no? Whether they did the right thing in patching her together with different treatments approaches to help her still work is debatable but the reality of her obligation to legally perform seems lost on her.

Her dad commits her to working. She has no say. If she is that mentally ill, she should not be working the way she does. He's not looking after her interests.

So she currently forced to perform?

[Anonymous]

*is

[Anonymous]

I asked two real life doctors in my life about this, one of whom is a forensic psychiatrist who has spent a lot of time with the profoundly mentally ill, and both think the arrangement is bizarre. The psychiatrist thinks there must be some element of emotional blackmail stopping her from fighting more/sooner (likely to do with the kids). Both think the length and extent of the conservatorship is rare and questionable considering how much she has worked.

So a counterpoint to these experts on dcum, the actual experts who’s credentials I now disagree with you