In Los Angeles probate court on Thursday, lawyers for Britney Spears and her father did not address the question that fervent Spears fans want to be answered: why does the pop star still remain under court-appointed tutelage?
The question, long voiced by supporters of #FreeBritney and dissected in the new FX and Hulu documentary, “Framing Britney Spears”, appeared to have little influence on Thursday’s court proceedings to determine the intricacies of the singer’s day to day life. “Toxic” activities of the day and finance.
Instead, the court-appointed attorney for the singer, Samuel Ingham III, and his father’s lawyer, Vivian Lee Thoreen, discussed the details of the deal: who would be allowed to make investments on behalf of the successful artist – his father , James “Jamie” Spears, or the trustee Bessemer Trust, who was recently named co-conservative in Spears’ nearly $ 58 million estate.
It is the latest development in the controversial 13-year-old tutelage of the beleaguered singer – also known as legal guardianship – since her audience broke away in 2007.
Thursday’s hearing, a conference on basic procedures, is one of many that has taken place since guardianship became permanent in 2008. But it is the first to proceed amid a voracious and renewed interest in looking at the big picture, powered by “Facing Britney Spears,” which debuted last Friday.
“It is no secret that my client does not want her father to be a co-conservative,” Ingham reiterated at the hearing, which was made available through the Los Angeles Superior Court website. “But we recognize that removal is a separate issue, and the court has refused to remove it.”
Spears indicated that guardianship, which is generally used for elderly people who cannot take care of themselves and to protect themselves against fraud or undue influence, is “voluntary”. Guardianship began as a temporary arrangement after his brief hospitalization in 2008, but became permanent shortly thereafter.
“They came and went, the same thing they always argue about … like it was all they did while Britney was paying,” said #FreeBritney organizer Leanne Simmons, who appeared in the documentary and reported the audience during a rally held simultaneously on Thursday.
Jamie Spears, father of singer Britney Spears, leaves Stanley Mosk court in 2012.
(Nick Ut / Associated Press)
The New York Times feature-length documentary made it clear that virtually no one outside – neither the #FreeBritney advocates, nor those who were once part of their inner circle – really know why guardianship remains for someone so young, well- successful and apparently quite functional like Spears.
And those who know are not talking. Thus, speculation abounds in the documentary, which deepens in the events that led to the tutelage. The document is at its best when it examines those who profited and delighted in Spears’ mental health crisis in 2007 and questioned those who targeted and defamed the pop star throughout his career.
A kind of reckoning has already taken place on social media, with much criticism of celebrities who appeared to be cruel to Spears at the time. The hashtag #WeAreSorryBritney emerged to collect video receipts and demand apologies from celebrities and media members who mistreated the star.
In California, anyone can apply to the court to end guardianship, Including the conserved, the conservative, a relative or friend of the conserved or another interested person. The court may ask the court investigator to assess the case and the condition of the conservator to see if guardianship should be closed.
But the success rate is not high, according to Jamie Spears’ lawyer Thoreen, who appeared briefly in the documentary before returning to the senior legal team. The singer did not appear in court and – until she revealed in a lawsuit last summer that she wanted her father to be removed from his post as the sole conservative – rarely expressed his thoughts about the legal arrangement.
On Tuesday, a veiled comment she posted on Instagram was widely considered to address the documentary and its developments in the covert probate court. (This was after her boyfriend Sam Asghari publicly scolded his father for his role in the relationship.)
“I will always love being on stage … but I am taking the time to learn and be a normal person,” wrote Spears. “I just love to enjoy the basics of daily life !!!! Each person has his story and his opinion on other people’s stories !!!!
“We all have so many beautiful and brilliant lives … Remember, no matter what we think we know about a person’s life, it’s nothing compared to the real person who lives behind the lens.”
The post was catnip for those who analyze their Instagram account for encrypted messages about their well-being. (A podcast by comedians Tess Barker and Barbara Gray was dedicated to him and ultimately gave rise to the hashtag used by the movement.)
“We are extremely grateful for Framing Britney Spears and for the show of love and interest that Britney has had,” the organizers of #FreeBritney told The Times on Thursday. “We are happy to see that people are finally understanding that this guardianship is rooted in profound injustice. It is our duty, however, to point out that James Spears is not the only culprit. There are several other people involved who must also be held accountable. “
The next hearings in the case of guardianship were scheduled for March 17 and April 27.
Christi Carras, editor of the Times, contributed to this report.