Free Britney!

[Warp12]

The foundation of an argument for conservatorship lies in a determination of mental health. From what I can gather, she has been evaluated as recently as 2019, when she had her last stay in a mental health facility.

If we don't know the details of these evaluations, there is simply no argument to be made. It is all conjecture, and conspiracy theory. The fact that she is steadfastly against any further evaluation, probably does not bode well for her case.

Of course, in the court of public opinion, the verdict doesn't require any such evidence.

 

[dirtywick]

On the other hand she’s not drooling and pooping herself

 

[casebro]

...or doing something stoopid like give her father MILIONS!.....

 

[Paul2]

The foundation of an argument for conservatorship lies in a determination of mental health. From what I can gather, she has been evaluated as recently as 2019, when she had her last stay in a mental health facility.

If we don't know the details of these evaluations, there is simply no argument to be made. It is all conjecture, and conspiracy theory. The fact that she is steadfastly against any further evaluation, probably does not bode well for her case.

Of course, in the court of public opinion, the verdict doesn't require any such evidence.

My understanding is that stating the foundation of a conservatorship as an issue of mental health is stating things too broadly. That is, a conservatorship is only for people who cannot manage their own affairs, and having a mental illness is not a guarantee that you can't handle your own affairs.

 

[dudalb]

Omg, a pop star dancing? She must be insane

And, in the case of Britney, making a s...tload of money doing it. Clearly crazy.

 

[arthwollipot]

The foundation of an argument for conservatorship lies in a determination of mental health. From what I can gather, she has been evaluated as recently as 2019, when she had her last stay in a mental health facility.

If we don't know the details of these evaluations, there is simply no argument to be made. It is all conjecture, and conspiracy theory. The fact that she is steadfastly against any further evaluation, probably does not bode well for her case.

Of course, in the court of public opinion, the verdict doesn't require any such evidence.

Therefore we shouldn't be talking about it at all. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Roboramma]

But yet, we seem to have plenty of experts who are commenting on her mental health status as though they know all of the facts. Go figure.

We don't need to know all the details of her mental health to know that she's not in the advanced stages of dementia.

I don't need an X-ray of her legs to know that whatever such an X-ray may reveal, she's capable of walking from her bedroom to her kitchen without help. I know this without even having seen her do it! How is that possible? For all I know she's got an athletic ankle and bad knees. But however bad (or not) her legs might be, she's able to dance on stage. That limiting factor tells me something about the health of her legs, and allows me to infer that she is actually capable of very simple tasks like walking from her bedroom to her kitchen (if she has those things).

Similarly, I don't need to know the details of her mental health to know that however bad it may be, she isn't in a state that justifies a conservatorship. It's pretty simple.

 

[xjx388]

The foundation of an argument for conservatorship lies in a determination of mental health. From what I can gather, she has been evaluated as recently as 2019, when she had her last stay in a mental health facility.

If we don't know the details of these evaluations, there is simply no argument to be made. It is all conjecture, and conspiracy theory. The fact that she is steadfastly against any further evaluation, probably does not bode well for her case.

Of course, in the court of public opinion, the verdict doesn't require any such evidence.

That’s a dodge. Surely you have a personal conception of when a conservatorship is appropriate beyond, “I leave it to the experts.”

Would it be ok to put you in a conservatorship if an expert said that you needed it? Even if you were still productive in your work? Even if you could still express what you wanted?

 

[Warp12]

That’s a dodge. Surely you have a personal conception of when a conservatorship is appropriate beyond, “I leave it to the experts.”

Would it be ok to put you in a conservatorship if an expert said that you needed it? Even if you were still productive in your work? Even if you could still express what you wanted?

California law is detailed here, and a good read:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-conservatorship.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

It is not a matter of what "I think about myself". This is a concept, when it comes to mental illness, similar to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

So, yes, I do leave it to the experts. Meaning, those who are trained to evaluate mental health; and to those who are trained to interpret such findings, and implement actions which are based upon the law.

 

[dirtywick]

Therefore we shouldn't be talking about it at all. Is that what you're saying?

sounds like more of a justification for being unreasonable

 

[jollyroger85]

The foundation of an argument for conservatorship lies in a determination of mental health. From what I can gather, she has been evaluated as recently as 2019, when she had her last stay in a mental health facility.

If we don't know the details of these evaluations, there is simply no argument to be made. It is all conjecture, and conspiracy theory. The fact that she is steadfastly against any further evaluation, probably does not bode well for her case.

Of course, in the court of public opinion, the verdict doesn't require any such evidence.

Your argument is BS. Having mental health issues doesnt prevent one from managing their affairs. The fact she has been working the time is a strong argument she's functional. The fact you so easily would be willing to deprive someone of their liberties is just sad.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Careful people. Caring about other people just means you are getting "too emotional."

As everyone knows cold, hard logic means you have to act like a psychopath who doesn't care about anyone.

 

[Belz...]

Careful people. Caring about other people just means you are getting "too emotional."

As everyone knows cold, hard logic means you have to act like a psychopath who doesn't care about anyone.

Or, too summarize, empathy is overrated.

Because of course we shouldn't treat people like emotional beings.

 

[Paul2]

California law is detailed here, and a good read:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-conservatorship.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

It is not a matter of what "I think about myself". This is a concept, when it comes to mental illness, similar to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

So, yes, I do leave it to the experts. Meaning, those who are trained to evaluate mental health; and to those who are trained to interpret such findings, and implement actions which are based upon the law.

I didn't see anything detailed about issues requiring leaving it to experts. The "Types of Conservatorships" link was very not detailed and not relevant to the specific issue, and the "With Heart" link was a 24-minute video, so a time-stamp to the relevant section would be appreciated.

The link to mental health conservatorships seems to precisely *not* apply to Britney, given the word "gravely" in the following:

These conservatorships are only for adults who are gravely disabled as a result of a mental illness

Can you be detailed as to where the detail is as to whether some common-sense, non-expert judgments can't be made by outsiders in any cases?

 

[jollyroger85]

The link to mental health conservatorships seems to precisely *not* apply to Britney, given the word "gravely" in the following:

Eaxctly, given she has been working (EXPLOITED) the entire time, she is exactly someone who should NOT be in a conservatorship. The state of Daddy's exploiting his meal ticket is self evident.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again Britney is not some Victorian heiress looked away in the west wing of the her family's old country estate.

She's been a celebrity for well over two decades now. For this nonsense to make literally any sense we'd have to believe she's been just emotionally stable enough to release albums and tour and do publicity and act but just emotionally unstable enough to be a functioning adult.

 

[Butter!]

Even Ted Cruz thinks this conservatorship is sketchy, and he'd probably prefer a world where we COULD toss wayward girls in asylums. But he understands that it's not just about wayward girls. Most of these arrangements, whether legit or not, are not applied to wayward girls. They're applied to old rich people.

People really need to stop focusing on Britney the individual and pay attention to the issue, which is legal abuse of conservatorships (easily enabled under the current laws and policies that govern them).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again Britney is not some Victorian heiress looked away in the west wing of the her family's old country estate.

She's been a celebrity for well over two decades now. For this nonsense to make literally any sense we'd have to believe she's been just emotionally stable enough to release albums and tour and do publicity and act but just emotionally unstable enough to be a functioning adult.

Really doesn't pass the sniff test that someone is too nutso to manage their affairs but is good to go when it comes to maintaining a regular stage show in Vegas and touring the world raking in millions.

 

[xjx388]

California law is detailed here, and a good read:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-conservatorship.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

It is not a matter of what "I think about myself". This is a concept, when it comes to mental illness, similar to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

So, yes, I do leave it to the experts. Meaning, those who are trained to evaluate mental health; and to those who are trained to interpret such findings, and implement actions which are based upon the law.

Don’t appeal to the law. After all, the law is something that affects us all and we all have a say in what the law should be. There is no source of fundamentally true knowledge from which the law is received.

 

[Bob001]

California law is detailed here, and a good read:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-conservatorship.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en
......

From your own link:

You must be sure that establishing a conservatorship is the only way to meet the person’s needs. If there is another way, an alternative to the conservatorship, the court may not grant your petition.

You may not need a conservatorship if the person who needs help:

Can cooperate with a plan to meet his or her basic needs.
Has the capacity and willingness to sign a power of attorney naming someone to help with his or her finances or health-care decisions.
Has only social security or welfare income every month and the Social Security Administration can appoint you Representative Payee. The Representative Payee is the person the beneficiary allows to receive social security checks in his or her name on behalf of the beneficiary.
Is married or is in a domestic partnership and the spouse or partner can handle financial transactions. The property must be community property or in joint accounts.

Some alternatives to a conservatorship

For Medical and Personal Care Decisions:

Advance health care directive
Court authorization for medical treatment
Informal personal care arrangements
Restraining orders to protect against harassment
For Financial Decisions:

Power of attorney
A substitute payee for public benefits (like veterans’ benefits or social security benefits)
Informal arrangements
Joint title on bank accounts or other property
Living trusts (also called “inter vivos” trusts)

Also from your link:

The court wants the investigator to:

Have a private interview with the proposed conservatee.
Explain how the conservatorship will change his or her life.
Explain what will happen at the hearing.
Explain about the proposed conservatee’s right to object to or oppose the conservatorship, to have a lawyer, to have a different conservator, and to have a trial by jury if he or she wants a jury to decide if a conservator is needed.

Do you really believe that all alternatives to a permanent conservatorship were fully explored? And do you really believe that all the requirements regarding notice to the conservatee of her rights were fulfilled?