Judge denies request to remove Britney Spears' father as co-conservator

Authored by nbcnews.com and submitted by 18-24-61-B-17-17-4

A judge on Wednesday denied a request to remove Britney Spears’ father as the conservator of her estate.

Spears' request to suspend James "Jamie" Spears immediately upon the appointment of a financial institution as sole conservator of estate "is denied without prejudice," the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled.

Spears, 39, has been under a legal conservatorship involving her father for over a decade. Last week in dramatic testimony, she alleged that she was overworked without any breaks, medicated with lithium and prohibited from having more children after her conservators did not allow her to remove her birth control device — decisions she said were approved by her father and co-conservator, Jamie Spears.

Jamie Spears filed a petition Tuesday to investigate the claims that his daughter raised while asking the judge to end her conservatorship.

In his petition, Jamie Spears and his team requested the court to "investigate the veracity of the allegations and claims made by Ms. Spears," which he has vehemently denied, saying that he only has his daughter’s best interests at heart.

Her father also filed a response on the same day as the petition, expressing concerns over Jodi Montgomery, who was appointed as Britney Spears' temporary conservator of the person in September 2019.

In his response, Jamie Spears said he was "concerned about the management and care of his daughter" and that Montgomery did "not reflect her wishes." He added that Montgomery was the sole conservator who oversaw the decisions related to the singer's personal life and medical treatment since her appointment.

In a statement, Montgomery's lawyer said that her client "has been a tireless advocate for Britney and for her well-being," adding that if Spears wants any issue brought up to the court, Montgomery "is and has always been ready, willing, and able to do so."

The lawyer, Lauriann Wright, also added that the singer's right to marry and family planning are unaffected by the conservatorship.

Attorneys for Britney Spears did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday about the filings.

Jamie Spears declined to comment on the judge's decision.

Jamie Spears was appointed as his daughter's conservator in 2008. He was temporarily made the sole executor of his daughter’s estate in 2019 after his co-conservator, Andrew Wallet, resigned.

A year after Wallet resigned, Britney Spears’ attorney, Samuel D. Ingham III, filed a petition to have Jamie Spears removed. Ingham said his client was afraid of her father, would rather have a professional handle her case and would refuse to perform so long as her father is in charge of her affairs.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny denied the singer’s request but did assign a financial institution, Bessemer Trust, as Jamie Spears’ co-conservator and Montgomery as Britney Spears' conservator of the person.

Britney Spears told a Los Angeles judge that she was not aware she could request to end the conservatorship, alleging that her father has punished her for not complying with his desires and felt like she was "enslaved" by his demands. The singer also expressed privacy concerns about her medical treatment, saying that she was watched at every hour of the day.

Following her testimony, Spears was inundated with support from actors, singers and media personalities, including her sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, and fellow pop singer, Christina Aguilera. Scrutiny of her case has been heightened in the wake of "Framing Britney Spears," a documentary about her conservatorship released in February, helping to fuel the #FreeBritney movement on social media.

Though much of her life has played out in the public eye, the court has sealed a number of documents from public record because of concerns about the singer’s privacy. Ingham filed a motion last year to open her case to the public.

During her testimony, Spears said, “I just want my life back. It’s been 13 years and it’s enough."

In her closing remarks, she said: “I feel ganged up on, bullied, left out and alone. And I'm tired of feeling alone. I deserve to have the same rights as anybody does, by having a child, a family, any of those things and more so.”

Mad_Bum_ on July 1st, 2021 at 15:50 UTC »

Conservatorships are weird.

This sounds like a horror story. For arguments sake, imagine being a totally sane person who has no control over any aspect of your life.

I don't think the state should have this power. If a person is in need of help to function in society, they should be admitted to a medical facility, not legally bound to the will of another.

Regardless of her actual mental state, she makes millions of dollars due to her talent. Why would she be obligated to use that money to fund a state mandated conservatorship? Her alleged mental illness is not her fault. I understand she may need to pay for her own care, but how do you remove her choice of who cares for her.

She is coherent enough to have a life and perform like a dancing monkey in Las Vegas (I say dancing monkey because the money she makes isn't at all in her control so she is just a pawn).

The whole situation is whack.

Lets say she is in the mental state of needing a conservatorship... why, even in a place where she is deemed incapable of dealing with her own life, can she not have say over the conservator?

Tonjiar on July 1st, 2021 at 07:09 UTC »

As posted by u/thenoid1114 in r/news

“For everyone who doesn't know how to read articles or hasn't actually researched anything about this case, this decision does not mean that her conservatorship can't end.

This was an informal proceeding. There was no trial. This was a courtesy granted by the judge so that Britney could speak on the record on her own behalf. There was no way this judge was going to end the conservatorship without an actual trial/investigation.

He instructed her attorney to file a formal petition to end the conservatorship.”

misdirected_asshole on July 1st, 2021 at 03:10 UTC »

Is there any reason he should legitimately have control over the affairs of a 40 year old woman? Am I missing something in all this?