The case of Britney Spears has drawn attention to a legal arrangement that restricts some 1.3m Americans
FOR FOUR years, from 2013 to 2017, Britney Spears strutted, shimmied and sang such hits as “I’m a Slave 4 U” and “…Baby One More Time” before an audience of thousands in Las Vegas. Her concert residency earned $138m in ticket sales. But she has no say over her share. Her father, James Spears, oversees them through a peculiar legal arrangement known as a conservatorship, in place since the singer had a breakdown in 2008. He manages her finances, visitors and even medical decisions. Last year a judge added Bessemer Trust, a financial firm, as co-conservator with say over her money. A lawyer for Ms Spears—who stopped performing in late 2018—said the singer would not work again unless her father totally relinquishes control. Her fans campaign online against what they see as her unfair imprisonment, using the hashtag #FreeBritney. The American Civil Liberties Union, a lobbying group, cites her case as a reason to reform conservatorships. So do members of America’s Congress. Last week two Republicans, Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz, asked for a congressional inquiry into the practice. On March 17th Ms Spears’s bid to dislodge her father will get another court hearing in Los Angeles. What exactly are conservatorships, and why are they controversial?
Sometimes known as a guardianship, a conservatorship is a legal arrangement in which a court finds a person unable to make decisions and hands control of their finances and care to someone else (known as a conservator). Some 1.3m Americans, with a combined $50bn in assets, are denied the ability to make fundamental choices, such as where to live. Most are old and suffer from dementia; the rest are otherwise mentally impaired. An alleged mental illness seems to be the reason for Ms Spears’s situation, but little is publicly known about her diagnosis or condition. A conservatorship strips someone of almost all their rights—much as imprisonment or commitment to an asylum does—and only a court can restore them. That is rare.
Conservators have a fiduciary duty. But, given the vulnerable nature of the people whom they are meant to protect, the arrangement is ripe for abuse. “I Care a Lot”, a recent crime caper on Netflix, dramatises a common fear: a swindler becomes a legal guardian to old people without their consent and steals from them. Legal gaps at the state level, where the matter is regulated, make exploitation easier. For example some states let courts appoint “emergency conservators” without notifying the person in question or others who may come to their aid. The conservator can often sell assets, such as a house, without extra court approval. Patchy monitoring makes it hard to catch self-dealing.
Most conservatorships are avoidable. Less drastic alternatives exist, such as power of attorney, legal trusts for property and advance directives for health care. But most require some degree of pre-planning. “When you get people in the court system, either that planning hasn’t been done or something has broken down,” says Nina Kohn of Syracuse University College of Law. She devised legislation to help states bolster their rules and oversight. It would stop courts from imposing conservatorships on people without involving them in the proceedings (even if it means going to their hospital bedside) and require conservators to get explicit court permission before big decisions, like moving their ward to a nursing home. It would also make it easier for other family and friends to keep tabs on conservators. Only two states, Washington and Maine, have adopted her proposal in full.
As for Ms Spears, she appears to want to oust her father as conservator but keep the role of the Bessemer Trust. Her modest request seems reasonable. If Ms Spears wriggles out of her father’s control, fans will eagerly await her next comeback. One day the conservatorship may end completely. For now, the lyrics to “My Prerogative”, a song she covered, seem uncomfortably prescient: “I don’t need permission, make my own decisions / That’s my prerogative”.
By The Economist
