Is everyone forgetting that that she shaved her head and attacked a car with an umbrella? Did they forget she drove a car with her infant child in her lap? Did they forget that she eloped and the marriage lasted for a weekend? She was obviously going through personal issues.
shareI think the key phrase there is "She was ...". It looks like she was going through a period of mental Ill health, which is hardly surprising given her age and the pressures she was under, but as a result of which they want to take away her freedom for the rest of her life. Which happens to be a very profitable thing for them (father and lawyers and quite possibly others) to do.
It seems she actually wants some help but presumably in a supportive and not controling way. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable and mature position to take.
Oh, there's got to be a lot more to her issues than a "rough period" for her to be under conservatorship! The legal criteria for conservatorship are very strict, most people conserved people are elders with dementia, the developmentally delayed who will never be able to care for themselves, or people with disabling long-term mental illnesses like schizophrenia.
Britney seems to have a severe, chronic, long-term mental illness (bipolar disorder has been rumored for ages), and the thing about severe, chronic, long-term mental illnesses is that some people who suffer from them can appear perfectly normal at times, yet still be unable to manage their own affairs. And that's what a lot of people jumping on the "Free Britney" bandwagon don't understand.
Her shaving her head wasn't crazy at all, she had found out that the lawyer for her then husband was going to request a hair sample to determine whether she had ever done drugs. Clearly she decided that if she had no hair they could make no such request. As long as she hadn't already been served with the court order requesting a hair sample then I say good for her, it was a sound strategy.
Now how many other celebrities have we seen do even worse like Sean Penn smashing cameras, when celebrities get hounded a constant basis they sometimes lash out, not a sign of insanity.
As for the child in her lap, I've seen that happen before and again while it may not be smart and put the kid at risk it still isn't a sign of crazy just a sign of stupid.
Even the married and divorced in a weekend isn't crazy as it happens more than you would think by people doing again stupid things.
In the end she is not a very smart person probably what most would call dumb. But being dumb isn't a crime nor is it something people should be placed in a conservatorship for. Let her live on her own and apply the same standards that are applied to the average homeless person. If a homeless person talks to themself and thinks they are god they aren't committed or placed under someone's care those things only happen when they are a danger to themself or someone else... that doesn't mean is too stupid to avoid doing something that gets them hurt it means are imminent threat to injury someone or try to injure themself. If she wasn't worth millions her dad wouldn't have even tried to get control of her it is all about the money.
I guess we'll never know how I'll she really is. But there have been videos like this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kbOpt4IrpNc that make us question how bad it was for her at one point.
shareYou're forgetting she was 5150'd in early 2008, after all that, after an incident in her home that was never made fully public. Apparently she locked herself in a room and threatened to harm herself and/or one of her children, and was put on an involuntary psychiatric hold for a couple of days. And, I believe, released before the 72-hour involuntary hold was up.
FYI in order to be put under a 5150 hold, a person has to be a danger to themselves (suicide risk), danger to others, or "gravely disabled", that is, so unable to care for one's self that it's dangerous. Such as being so depressed you can't eat food that's put in front of you, something like that.
That was 13 years ago. People that have actually tried to hang themself have been treated and released in less than 13 months... the simple fact is they have taken things that would never had resulted in a lifetime conservatorship and made it a lifetime one for her and the only reason is the money. If she was poor they would have likely released her in 13 days.
shareLegally, they couldn't have put her under conservatorship because of that one incident, in order for her to qualify for conservatorship she has to have some kind of long-term mental disability that keeps her from being able to make her own decisions.
I just wanted to remind everyone that when she had her public breakdown over a decade ago, there was a lot more to it than the head-shaving incident.
Yes, they were supposed to have had an ongoing serious mental disability... although it would appear they have had nothing more than an ongoing scam with a crooked judge as there does not appear to the type of serious mental disability going on with her. People with a serious mental disability that requires a conservator aren't going to be capable of performing as she has done for the past 10 years, and if someone were suffering from the type of mental disability that they needed a conservator they shouldn't be being worked as she has been during this time period as it would likely be detrimental to her well being.
shareWe don't know what her mental status is, and frankly that's information that her family and the court can't legally make public (even if we're all dying of curiosity).
She does seem to have some sort of long-term mental illness, apparently including bipolar disorder because that's the only reason people take lithium, but there may be more to her problems. But there's two questions here - whether she needs conservatorship at all, and if so... are her family members the right conservators!
Yes there are two questions, and it isn't clear whether she really needs conservatorship or not... but it is clear that it is wrong to put her money hungry dad in charge of her. It he was a professional that had a clue about what he was doing it would be one thing, but giving a former welder control of what is essentially a multi-million dollar company is fucking ridiculous.
shareWell, the dad doesn't seem to have enriched himself directly, he's reportedly been living in an RV for some time now. Maybe he likes living in an RV and has millions of dollars in a banks somewhere, but as far as I know he's been more honest than some people would have been in his position. That's the thing about professionals, if put in charge of other people's assets, they're allowed to pay themselves for services or expenses and... there have been problems.
And the thing is, if Britney is "given her freedom", her next husband will probably end up managing the money, and she does tend to pick total dirtbags.
Lots of women have a habit of marrying dirtbags just like lots of men have habits of marrying gold diggers. The courts aren't supposed to be tasked with stopping this.
As for her dad being prudent with her money, last I read he had pissed away over a million in legal fees. That's an amount of money that is way out of whack with what he has been tasked with doing. What should have been done was to create a trust to manager her money and a court appointed trustee which while professionals as you say are also limited in what they can do with money and assets they manage and are not prone to the ridiculous things that have already been noted by her father as what they do as managers of a trust is subject to overview and any mismanagement can result in serious legal problems and financial liability.