The Free Britney Movement Raises Questions about Conservatorships
Oops...she did it again. Similar to her glory days, the icon Britney Spears has hijacked the tabloids, media, and our hearts. Over the past few months, Spears' legal battle over her conservatorship, the legal assignment of a guardian to manage her affairs, has been flooding the public arena. From tabloid articles to the Hulu Documentary called “Controlling Britney,” the public has been arguing over whether she should be released from her conservatorship. Spears' experience raises questions over whether conservatorships are constitutional. Even though her recent victory in her conservatorship case is a step in the right direction, conservatorships should not fall out of the public eye.
In most cases, conservatorships are designed to aid people in their old age who are no longer able to manage their own affairs. But in other cases, such as Spears’s, they can be put in place for young conservatees, the subject of the conservatorship, because of mental limitations or disabilities. For older patients, conservatorships are likely to last until they die, whereas for younger patients, they have more opportunities to learn and overcome their mental limitations.
Because of this potential growth, conservatorships for young conservatees directly conflict with substantive due process, a doctrine established by the 14th Amendment. It states that the government cannot strip citizens of life, liberty, or property rights without proper consideration before a court. Generally, it is used to give citizens an outlet to fight for rights that are not explicitly recorded in the Constitution. Substantive due process is violated when disabled parties are placed in conservatorships because the conservatee's rights are confiscated and nearly impossible to reobtain. Therefore, conservatorships, in these cases, are unconstitutional, and Spears’s experience provides a poignant example of this.
Spears was diagnosed as mentally disabled in 2008 after a very public breakdown. Her father, Jamie Spears, took advantage of this diagnosis and placed her in a conservatorship. This allowed him to exploit and profit off her finances, while also controlling her career choices. Spears has remained in this conservatorship over the last thirteen years under the pretense of “mental instability.” However, for about seven of those thirteen years, she has continued to perform in concerts and residencies, tour, and work as an entertainer. If she is considered legally disabled and unable to handle her daily affairs, how is she deemed competent enough to continue to work?
Spears’s case demonstrates the main inconsistency within conservatorships. The definition of disabled is flexible and open to interpretation rather than clear and precise. This is dangerous for disabled individuals. Outside parties can easily create situations where, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, “disabled people can be stripped of their rights” and face “extraordinary difficulties...getting those rights back.” Lawfully, they are given little opportunity to fight for recovery of their individual liberties.
The criteria for implementation is not the only issue with conservatorships; the experience of the conservatee is also a problem. In Spears’ case, she experienced perpetual abuse for the past thirteen years. She expressed this in a hearing with a probate judge on June 23. Explaining how she is overworked by her management, she said, “I worked seven days a week, no days off, which in California, the only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking.” Spears also revealed how she has little control over her bodily and reproductive rights, saying,
“I was told right now in the conservatorship, I’m not able to get married or have a baby, I have a (IUD) inside of myself right now so I don’t get pregnant. I wanted to take the (IUD) out so I could start trying to have another baby. But this so-called team won’t let me go to the doctor to take it out because they don’t want me to have children–any more children.”
And through all of this, she exhibited how her voice was suppressed, “I have the right to use my voice and take up for myself. My attorney says I can’t.” This testimony shows how Spears has been censored. She has had little to no opportunity to speak out about her abusive experiences. Her social media is controlled by her management, and she is continually encouraged by the people around her to stay quiet. Because of this, Spears’ individual liberties and freedoms have been stripped under this conservatorship. She has been overworked with no access to her own money or control over her schedule. She has been denied the right to bear children. She is unable to get married. And through it all, she has been continually threatened and silenced.
The only way out of this abuse is a petition through court, but she is not granted this right either. In her testimony, she expressed how she has not had the opportunity to appoint her own lawyer because her management does it for her, meaning she has no say in her representation in court. This is an example of how her due process rights have been violated. Because of the current nature of conservatorships, the conservatee cannot be given fair treatment in court. They are not allowed to make their own decisions, which, according to Time Magazine, includes appointing an attorney—an integral part of a fair trial.
Despite the fact that conservatorships are the sensible decision in some cases, there are other options for disabled people. A few alternatives include advanced healthcare directives, power of attorney, and shared control over finances and decision-making. An advanced healthcare directive is a legal document that provides medical instructions for a patient's health if they are unable to make their own decisions. This directive is only used in the worst case scenario and allows for the patient to maintain control of their medical decisions until that point. Power of attorney is the process where the patient can appoint an attorney to act on their behalf in legal practices. These are usually used for those who are uneducated in the legal field. It allows for the patient to get professional help from an attorney of their choice. Shared control over finances and decision-making give the patient support from an outside source. This allows the disabled person to maintain some control of their life and to learn how to best control their affairs. In comparison to conservatorships, these options implement partial instead of full control. Because of these options, conservatorships should be considered as a last resort. Taking full control over someone else's life is a serious action and should be used rarely.
Additionally, the internal flaws of conservatorships need to be fixed. First, it should be harder to appoint one. As of now, it is too easy to obtain and implement a conservatorship. In fact, there is no explicit list of conditions for appointing a conservatorship. All the descriptions are vague and interpretive. California, and other states, need a strict process for conservatorships, listing certain conditions that require them. Second, disability conservatorships and old age conservatorships should be separated. The two situations are different and should require different considerations. An older person is most likely to never be released from the conservatorship, while the disabled person may be able to learn how to manage their own affairs. Lastly, there should be a more thorough screening process for guardians. The California handbook for conservators has limited requirements for appointing a guardian. In order to be elected, the conservator has to sign and read a statement of their duties. The requirements barely mention the relationship with the conservatee, and when it does, it gives suggestions instead of strict guidelines. To amend this, the court should require a letter from a therapist or mental health consultant confirming that the guardian will be a positive influence on the conservatee. It also should include stricter guidelines for the conservator-conservatee relationship.
The analysis of Britney Spears’ case demonstrates that conservatorships for disabled parties are unconstitutional. From the unjust diagnosis to the experience under the conservatorship, the substantive due process rights of many conservatees are continually violated. The significance of this issue is enormous. Unlike Spears, most disabled individuals do not have the same platform, making it harder to fight for their rights. In order to get Spears back on the stage, the conservatorship process needs drastic reform. Without it, the rights of mentally disabled individuals will be at serious risk.