Quote:
Originally posted by darkfantasy
If you read the NYT article one of the reasons for her conservatorship is an undisclosed mental condition. It's been confirmed.
And no, she was not just being chaotic. Something was obviously seriously wrong. Paris was a coked out mess for years, yes, but she was not shaving her head, sleeping in parking lots overnight, running off with paps and getting hospital holds more than once. And don't make me seem like I'm trying to be shady because I love britney to death. But the conservatorship was obviously needed and remains needed if the courts say so.
|
I know you're not being shady sis no worries. I'm convinced her shaving her head had some deeper meaning than "Y'all I'm just going crazy", she got a tattoo that night too. It maybe was her way of telling "look **** the media, and the image they want of me" what better way to destroying your image when you're a female popstar than shave your hair ? I don't know why she did it, but it had a meaning.
As for the article :
"Ms. Spears’s team presents her onstage as fully in control, and backstage, as the mastermind of her show, an artist in top form. But that view seems at odds with the conclusions routinely drawn about her at probate court in Los Angeles, where an undisclosed mental illness and substance abuse led her family to take action in 2008."
A few line after :
"According to the arrangement, which is typically used to protect the old, the mentally disabled or the extremely ill"
Mental illness = mentally disabled ? Where does the "substance abuse" comes into play here ? What substance ? Does Britney looks like a mentally disabled person ?
And then :
"Ultimately some of the people who would help to decide whether to end it are the conservators and doctors who now help oversee it, many of whom receive fees from Ms. Spears’s estate for their work on her behalf."
Finally :
There has been some debate in California over whether court-appointed lawyers do enough to advocate the rights of those under conservatorship. Just last year, the state’s Senate Committee on Judiciary noted in a report: “In theory the court-appointed counsel should be arguing on the proposed conservatee’s behalf for a less-restrictive alternative to conservatorship whenever possible.”
Mr. Ingham has been awarded more than $2 million in fees for his work on Ms. Spears’s behalf since 2008. This is in addition to the $6.9 million paid from the estate to the conservators and other lawyers who have helped manage Ms. Spears’s affairs under the current arrangement. Ms. Spears has never publicly questioned any of these payments, but critics of the process have.
“As long as she is bringing in so much money and as long as the lawyers and conservators are getting paid, there is little incentive to end it,” said Elaine Renoire, president of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, an advocacy group. “Usually, the conservatorship just keeps going unless the conservatee makes a fuss or the family does.”