{"id":3787,"date":"2020-11-05T22:14:42","date_gmt":"2020-11-06T02:14:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/?p=3787"},"modified":"2020-11-05T22:22:22","modified_gmt":"2020-11-06T02:22:22","slug":"freebritney-movement-calls-for-conservatorship-reforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/freebritney-movement-calls-for-conservatorship-reforms\/","title":{"rendered":"FreeBritney Movement Calls for Conservatorship Reforms"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Guest Editorial by Thomas F. Coleman, Esq.
Daily Journal \/ Nov. 6, 2020
According to Rolling Stone magazine, BritneySpears
is \u201cone of the most successful artists of all time.\u201d
Millions of her fans would agree.
Spears is rich. Super rich. She reported more than
$59 million in assets at the end of 2018. However,
since 2008 when she was involuntarily placed into a
probate conservatorship in California, she has not
been able to control her own assets. A court placed
control of her finances with Britney\u2019s father and a
professional fiduciary.
Many of Britney\u2019s fans believe the conservatorship
order should be lifted. They argue that
the emotional and psychological
problems that prompted judicial
intervention some 12 years ago no
longer exist. They want the restrictions
on her financial and personal life to end.
To bring public attention to their cause
\u2013 one that also seeks broad
conservatorship reforms \u2013 the<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
FreeBritney movement is staging a<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
rally outside of the Stanley Mosk\nCourthouse in downtown Los Angeles\non November 10 at 12:30 p.m. Perhaps\nas they come and go during the lunch\nhour, some of the probate court judges who control\nthe lives of more than 15,000 conservatees in Los\nAngeles County will notice the protest and learn of its\ndemands.\nWhat injustices do these supporters say their pop star\nidol has endured? For starters, the #FreeBritney\nmovement\u2019s website articulates the incongruity of\nBritney\u2019s abilities and work ethic with the harsh\nrestrictions that have been placed on her freedom.\nThe website notes: \u201cSince the beginning of the\nconservatorship, Britney Spears has recorded 4\nalbums and performed in 4 world tours in addition to\na 4-year Las Vegas residency.\u201d And yet, despite her\nability to function at such a high level, the website\nstates: \u201cUnder the conservatorship, Britney Spears\nhas been denied the freedom to make phone calls,\noperate a motor vehicle, send and receive mail, and\naccess her finances.\u201d\nIn addition to judicially imposed restrictions of\nBritney\u2019s freedoms, the website liststhe types of civil\nrights violations and injustices that are occurring to\ntens of thousands of other conservateesin California.\nIt is estimated that more than 60,000 adults currently\nhave open conservatorship casesin the state and more\nthan 5,000 new cases are filed each year.\nThe #FreeBritneymovement\u2019swebsite complainsthat\ntoo manyofthese vulnerable adults have been \u201cdenied\ndue process, deprived of property,\ndeprived of liberty, denied right to\nconfront accusers, denied right to trial,\ndenied right to counsel, unlawfully\nconfined and isolated, and unlawfully\nchemically restrained.\u201d\nA review of court records in Britney\u2019s\ncase shows a number of such\nviolations, especially the violation of\nher right to counsel. Had she been\nrepresented by an attorney of her own\nchoice, perhaps many of the other\nviolations would not have occurred, or\nif they had happened, they would have\nbeen challenged on appeal.\nWhen her conservatorship proceeding wasinitiated in\n2008, Britney wanted to be represented by her own\nlawyer. The court would have none ofit. Her chosen\nlawyer was summarily dismissed and replaced by a\ncourt-appointed lawyer selected by the judge\npresiding in her case. This ruling caused the first civil\nrights domino to fall, resulting in future violations of\nher rights, such as Britney\u2019s court-appointed lawyer\nsometimes arguing against her rights.\nForcing a litigant to accept a court-appointed lawyer\nin a conservatorship proceeding violatesmanyaspects\nof due process. Among them is the right to have an\nattorney who does not have a conflict of interest.\nThe court-appointed attorneyassigned to the case had\ndual loyalties. He was supposed to represent Britney\nbut he also had a duty to assist the court in the\nresolution of the matter to be decided. (Local Rule\n4.125.) Thislocal court rule creates a potential, if not\nactual, conflict of interest because it gives an\nappointed attorney two people to satisfy \u2013 the client\nand the judge. Furthermore, once an attorney is\nappointed, no other attorney may represent a\nconservatee or proposed conservatee. This\nundermines the right of a litigant to be represented by\ncounsel of choice. (Local Rule 4.126.)\nBritney Spears, and other proposed conservateeslike\nher, have a right to a lawyer who will advocate for\ntheir stated wishes and defend their constitutional\nrights. Having a court-imposed lawyer who is\ndependent on a judge for fee authorizations in the\ninstant case and appointments in future cases\nundermines the prospect of zealous advocacy. It is\nhard for an attorney to challenge judicial actions when\nthe attorney is thinking about a stream of income that\ndepends on the judge in the case at hand.\nAn attorney has duties \u201cas a zealous advocate and as\nprotector of his client\u2019s confidences.\u201d California\nState Auto Association v. Bales, 221 Cal.App.3d 227\n(1990). Case law speaks of \u201can attorney's duties of\nloyalty, confidentiality, and zealous advocacy.\u201d In re\nZamer G, 153 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1267 (2007).\nThe judge in Britney\u2019s case grounded her decision to\ndismiss Britney\u2019s chosen attorney and replace him\nwith a court-appointed attorney by finding that\nBritney lacked the capacity to retain counsel. The\nproblem with this conclusion is the manner in which\nit was reached.\nThe court did not afford Britney an evidentiary\nhearing on her capacity to retain counsel. The matter\nwas decided behind closed doors, without Britney\nbeing present and without allowing her chosen\nattorney to present evidence in Britney\u2019s favor or to\ncross-examine the doctor whose declaration the court\nrelied on for her decision. This procedure was rife\nwith due process violations.\nAn individual who is the target of a conservatorship\npetition has the right to due process throughout the\nproceeding. Conservatorship of Sanderson, 106\nCal.App.3d 611 (1980). The Due Process in\nCompetence Determinations Act creates a\npresumption that every adult hasthe capacity to make\ndecisions, including the capacity to contract. Probate\nCode Section 810. The mere fact that an individual\nhas a mental disability does not negate this\npresumption.\nThe Legislature has clarified the right of proposed\nconservateesto retain private counsel. \u201cThe proposed\nconservatee has the right to choose and be\nrepresented by legal counsel.\u201d Probate Code Section\n1823(b)(iv)(6). (Emphasis added.)\nThe constitutional right to counsel of one\u2019s choice\nwas affirmed long ago by the California Supreme\nCourt. \u201cAlthough the right to be represented by\nretained counsel in civil actions is not expressly\nenumerated in the federal or state Constitution, our\ncases have long recognized that the constitutional due\nprocess guarantee does embrace such a right.\u201d Roa v.\nLodi Medical Group, Inc., 37 Cal.3d 920, 925\n(1985).\n\u201cThe right to present evidence is, of course, essential\nto the fair hearing required by the Due Process\nClause.\u201d Jenkins v. McKeithen (1969) 395 U.S. 411,<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\n
So is the right to cross-examine hearsay
declarants such as the medical doctor who submitted
a capacity declaration in Britney\u2019s case. In re Lucero
22 Cal.4th 1227, 1244 (2000).
The judge in Britney\u2019s case surely was not trying to
protect Britney\u2019s assets when she appointed counsel
in the case. That attorney, with court approval, has
been paid millions of dollars in legal fees in this case
over the years. Last year alone, the court authorized
payment to him of more than $500,000.
The #FreeBritney movement raises some legitimate
concerns about Britney\u2019s case \u2013 concerns that arise
from systemic flaws in the conservatorship system.
The question is whether anyone in power is listening.<\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thomas F. Coleman is legal director of Spectrum
Institute, a nonprofit organization advocating for
conservatorship reform in California and
guardianship reform throughout the nation. Email
him at tomcoleman@spectruminstitute.org The
Daily Journalis California\u2019s premier legal newspaper.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Guest Editorial by Thomas F. Coleman, Esq.Daily Journal \/ Nov. 6, 2020According to Rolling Stone magazine, BritneySpearsis \u201cone of the most successful artists of all time.\u201dMillions of her fans would agree.Spears is rich. Super rich. She reported more than$59 million in assets at the end of 2018. However,since 2008 when she was involuntarily placed into aprobate conservatorship in California, she has notbeen able to control her own assets. A court placedcontrol of her finances with Britney\u2019s father and aprofessional fiduciary.Many of Britney\u2019s fans believe the conservatorshiporder should be lifted. They argue thatthe emotional and psychologicalproblems that prompted judicialintervention some 12 years ago nolonger exist. They want the restrictionson her financial and personal life to end.To bring public attention to their cause\u2013 one that also seeks broadconservatorship reforms \u2013 the FreeBritney movement is staging a rally outside of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles on November 10 at 12:30 p.m. Perhaps as they come and go during the lunch hour, some of the probate court judges who control the lives of more than 15,000 conservatees in Los Angeles County will notice the protest and learn of its demands. What injustices do these supporters say their pop star idol has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3781,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3787"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3787"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3787\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3791,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3787\/revisions\/3791"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaapg.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}