Legal Conservatorship: The Fine Line Between Manipulation and Protection?
The legal principle of conservatorship can be defined as the “taking away [of] civil liberties from one person and giving them to someone else” when that individual is not capable of caring for themselves or managing their finances. The US Department of Justice estimates that there are roughly 1.3 million active cases of legal conservatorship, with around $50 billion held in conservatee assets.
The ‘FreeBritney’ movement over recent years has brought this legal concept into the limelight,with Britney Spears being subject to this form of guardianship for over 13 years as her father exerts complete control over her estimated $60 million fortune. Although this began in her ‘best interest’ following several public breakdowns which prompted concerns for her mental health, subsequent events indicate the development of an abusive and exploitative relationship. This has raised serious ethical concerns surrounding the concept as a whole, exposing it as a manipulative rather than protective measure.
Spears’ conservatorship was implemented in 2008 after she shaved her head amidst the ongoing custody battle for her children against her ex-husband, followed by her hitting a paparazzi car with an umbrella. After losing custody of her children, in protest, she locked herself in a bathroom with her son and refused to come out – which resulted in her being placed in a 5150 involuntary psychiatric hold. Following this, Jamie Spears petitioned the court for a conservatorship through which he could take control of both her financial and personal affairs. In a matter of days, her life transitioned from complete freedom to requiring prior permission and approval for something as simple as going to the supermarket.
The manipulative nature of conservatorships cannot be overlooked – the US Government Accountability Office found hundreds of cases of financial exploitation, neglect and even physical abuse in instances of legal conservatorships. Furthermore, $5.4 million was stolen by conservators in the 1990-2010 period alone. This directly contradicts what would be expected of a ‘protective’ measure, and instead legally enables the manipulation and exploitation of those who are vulnerable.
This issue was addressed by Spears herself in her most recent court appearance, where she labelled conservatorship as “abusive” and outlined the disturbing details of her own. It was revealed that the conservatorship significantly interferes with her bodily autonomy. She is not allowed to remove her IUD, preventing her from having another child, and was placed on Lithium (a psychiatric drug) against her will, resulting in her feeling intoxicated. In addition to this, she was not allowed to pick her own lawyer for the court proceedings and consequently was not made aware of the fact that she had the option to petition the conservatorship to end. From this,it seems that the rules of conservatorship are structured in a way which makes it impossible to end one. This is also more widely acknowledged by Brenda Uekert, a principal court research consultant: “You can’t even get an attorney, because a judge has already determined that you don’t have the ability to make decisions for yourself.”
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “people only end up under conservatorships or guardianships if a court identifies them as having a disability. This includes people with psychiatric disabilities, developmental or intellectual disabilities, age-related disabilities like dementia, and other types of disabilities.” This prompts further ethical concerns and becomes problematic from a disability standpoint – conservatorships should not be forced upon an individual simply for having a disability.The criteria are simply too broad, posing the risk of the principle being overused.
This can be applied to Britney’s case - there are numerous discrepancies that have been highlighted by the FreeBritney movement. While the details of her mental illness are not publicly available, it has been a topic of debate whether her mental state is genuinely debilitating enough to mimic that of an individual suffering from dementia. During the course of her conservatorship, she has performed hundreds of shows and made millions – in 2009 alone she performed 97 shows and made $131.8 million. Surely this is not achievable for someone with a debilitating mental illness who is incapable of caring for themselves. Despite all this, Spears’ recent request to remove her abusive father from the conservatorship has been denied.
Not only does Spears’ court battle bring the concept of legal conservatorship into mainstream conversation, it also provides a commentary on how the judicial system consistently fails to protect the rights of women. Bill Cosby, a man accused of drugging and sexually abusing over 60 women, was released on the same day that Britney's freedom was denied The callous lack of regard for female bodily autonomy perpetuates a cycle of acceptance whereby male authority is upheld and prioritised over the testimony of a woman.
Although the intention of a legal conservatorship may be noble, this is not the case in practice as the entire concept is based upon stripping bodily autonomy. The criteria for satisfying a conservatorship is too wide and does not seem to be applied as a “last resort,” as suggested by Spears’ case and likely thousands more. There are numerous alternative protective systems available for those with disabilities and mental illnesses that are less invasive, and do not require the individual to surrender their rights – examples include supported decision-making, power of attorney and advanced medical directives. Britney’s battle for freedom makes it evident that the criterion of conservatorships is in need of dire reform in order to become a protective rather than manipulative measure.
#FreeBritney
