Britney Spears' conservatorship and how this works in England

Britney Spears’s fight to end her conservatorship has intensified after she made her first public testimony to the court. 

The controversial conservatorship has been debated by Britney’s fans since it was first granted by the Los Angeles superior court in 2008 following her breakdown and a petition made by her father, Jamie Spears. 

The conservatorship is split into two parts:

The first concerns her finances and the second her personal autonomy. 

About Britney’s conservatorship

Jamie Spears was initially in charge of both parts but stepped down as her personal conservator in 2019 because of health reasons. Jodi Montgomery, a care professional, replaced him on a temporary basis but Britney has requested this be made permanent. 

In August last year, Britney’s court-appointed attorney said that she strongly opposed her father's position as the sole conservator of her finances and asked that his control be limited. As a result, a judge appointed an outside financial group, Bessemer Trust, as a co-conservator. Whilst this limited her father’s control, Britney is still requesting the court to remove him and allow Bessemer Trust to become the sole conservator. 

In her impassioned speech on Wednesday 23 June 2021, Britney referred to the conservatorship as embarrassing and humiliating. She told the court that she felt ganged up on and bullied, being left out and alone without the same rights as everyone else. 

Of most concern was Britney’s comments that her conservatorship would not allow her to marry her boyfriend or have another child, preventing her from removing her contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD). She also said that she felt "forced" to tour by her management, that her therapist was falsely told she was not co-operating or taking her medication when she spoke out against going into a Las Vegas residency. Britney alleges that she was then prescribed lithium against her wishes. 

The #FreeBritney movement has often said that Britney attempted making calls for help through her Instagram posts. Specifically posting pictures of her wearing a yellow top which her fans believe to be in response to comments asking her to wear yellow if she needed help. Britney heartbreakingly addressed her social media posts admitting that she lied and told the world she was happy when she was not. Instead, she described herself as unable to sleep, being angry and depressed to the point of crying every day. 

Britney’s belief is that the conservatorship is doing her "way more harm than good" and said she "honestly didn't know" that she could petition to end the arrangement. 

Whilst the fight over the conservatorship will continue both in the Los Angeles Superior Court and the court of public opinion, it is interesting to consider how things would differ if Britney lived in England. 

How things would differ if Britney lived in England

A conservatorship is similar to a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection. 

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (“the Act”) the court may appoint a person as a deputy of another individual who lacks the mental capacity to make decisions and manage their affairs themselves. 

Ultimately, the court must decide whether it is in the individual’s best interests for a deputy to be appointed and, if so, what powers are appropriate. Much like the US conservatorship there are two types of deputy

1.  those who made decisions concerning an individual’s health and welfare, and 
2.  those who made decisions about an individual’s property and financial affairs. 

As the medical evidence in Britney’s case has not been publicly disclosed, it cannot be said if the Court of Protection would have made an order appointing Jamie Spears or Jodi Montgomery as Britney’s health and welfare deputy. However, as a general principle the court is reluctant to do so. 

The court prefers deputyship applications to be made as a last resort promoting 

collaboration between individuals, their families, local authorities and medical professionals to make decisions that are in an individual’s best interests. 

Permission from the court must be obtained to make a health and welfare deputyship application which is often refused. Notwithstanding this fact, the court is more likely to grant permission and approve an application to deal with a specific issue or where there are a series of linked decisions which need to be made over time. 

Even if the Court of Protection appointed Jamie Spears as a deputy, he still would not be able to prevent Britney from getting married or insist that she stay on contraception. 

Under the Act, a deputy cannot consent to marriage or make decisions about non-therapeutic sterilisation. Instead, an application would need to be made for the court to decide. All deputies must act in accordance with the statutory principles set out in section 1 of the Act. Applying these principles, Britney is not to be treated as unable to make these decisions unless all practicable steps to help her do so have been taken without success. 

Jamie should also involve Britney in decision making so far as is possible, taking into account her past and present wishes. The views of anyone interested in her care and any factors Britney would take into account if she was able to do so. Given Britney’s clear expression of wishes, it is likely that Jamie would have breached his duties by simply refusing to make these decisions rather than seeking the court’s approval. 

Aside from the restrictions on Britney’s personal autonomy, significant concerns have been raised about the potential conflict of interest in the management of Britney’s finances. Lay deputies, rather than professionals such as solicitors or accountants, are not entitled to be paid for acting in their role as a deputy. 

Role as a deputy and being paid

They are authorised to be reimbursed for their reasonable and legitimate expenses, such as travel but if any of these exceed £500 they may have to explain why to the Office of the Public Guardian who supervise them. 

Conversely, Britney’s conservators take a percentage of her income and a salary, thereby profiting from their position. It is also alleged that her conservators also refused to allow Britney to appoint her own attorney to represent her in her bid to remove the conservatorship. 

It therefore appears there is a clear conflict between the conservator’s personal interests in retaining their income and their duties to make decisions that are in Britney’s best interests, such as potentially ending their authority.  

The impact of Britney’s speech at court on the outcome of her fight remains to be seen, but one thing is clear, the court of public opinion is ruling strongly in her favour and it is clear to see why. 

The underlying principles of a conservatorship or a deputy are to protect those who lack capacity to make their own decisions to ensure that their best interests are met. Britney’s speech left little room for doubt as to whether she feels these principles are being promoted. 

Based on what we know to date it is likely that if her case were being heard in England then the deputies would either be replaced or the order discharged completely. 

I will continue to watch Britney’s fight with great interest and support #FreeBritney. If you would like to find out more information on this subject you can contact Lisa Cox via lisa.cox@birkettlong.co.uk or 01206 217307.