In this op-ed, Haley Moss, a lawyer, explores Britney Spears's conservatorship, and why it's a disability rights issue.
After Britney Spears experienced very public mental health episodes in 2008, her father, Jamie Spears, petitioned the court to place Britney under an emergency conservatorship — a legal arrangement in which a judge can appoint a third party to make decisions on behalf of a person “who cannot care for himself or herself or manage his or her own finances.” Since then, Britney’s conservatorship has been a frequent topic of conversation — called the #FreeBritney movement —as supporters call into question her safety and hunt for clues on her social media under the suspicion that she was being silenced by her conservators. Recently, concern for Britney — specifically about the level of control her conservators exercise over her life, and whether it’s warranted — has picked up after her conservatorship was the subject of a popular documentary by the New York Times.
Fans and activists alike see #FreeBritney as a rallying cry, a way to allow their favorite pop star to regain control of her own life after what appears to be an egregious violation of her independence and civil rights. But that's not the whole story. What often gets left out of the Britney Spears narrative is two-fold: Britney was essentially deemed disabled in some way by the court, and conservatorships and guardianships happen far more frequently to disabled adults than is often discussed.
Much has been speculated about Britney’s mental health, including that she has bipolar disorder, a mental health disability and form of neurodivergence characterized by shifts in moods, energy and activity levels, and ability to perform day-to-day tasks. We don’t know her specific diagnoses, nor do they really matter. What we do know is that she is one of an estimated 1.5 million adults under a conservatorship or guardianship, according to AARP. According to the ACLU, people only end up under conservatorships if they are assessed as having some type of disability, making Britney’s case a disability rights issue.
Under conservatorship, disabled adults face restrictions on a wide variety of rights: Where they live, when and where they work, money management, and healthcare decisions. Conservatorships are often thought of as something that only happens to elderly people who can no longer care for themselves, people with terminal illnesses, or for people like me, who are diagnosed with autism or other intellectual and developmental disabilities. Because of the sensitive nature, proceedings relating to conservatorship are often private and confidential.
That was the case for Britney up until June 23, when we heard her testimony that she was put on medications she didn't want to be on, was unable to marry her boyfriend, and wasn't allowed to remove her IUD when she wanted to get pregnant. All of this is horrifying, but it also illustrates the lack of self-determination and agency disabled adults face under conservatorships, typically without the public batting an eye.
Sometimes I think about how, as an autistic person, I am extremely lucky that guardianship was not part of my adult life. I was once non-speaking and it was unclear what kind of support I would need as an adult. The support I needed as a little kid is not the same I needed as a college student, nor is that the same as the support I can use in my post-schooling life. Thankfully, I have parents who always believed in my ability to make decisions for myself and promoted my independence and choice to follow my dreams. Not all of us are as fortunate because parents of autistic and other disabled children may assume they will always be the best decision-makers, or are they are not told about less restrictive alternatives like supported-decision making, supplemental needs trusts, or other available options that aren’t incredibly difficult to reverse like conservatorship.
As she attempts to reverse her own conservatorship (something she's reportedly been trying to do for years), it's more and more clear that Britney is a privileged piece of a much larger disability rights issue. She is a white woman, does not seemingly have an intellectual disability, and has fame and the attention of a now-adoring public (that once scrutinized and ridiculed her over a decade ago). Her fans seem to view Britney's as a one-off situation that greatly benefitted her father, who now co-manages her conservatorship along with Bessemer Trust. Her struggle to end a conservatorship puts into focus how impossible it may be for multiply-marginalized disabled people who, in addition to ableism and sexism, experience racism, classism, and other harmful prejudices and stereotypes.
But it was Britney's testimony that really showcased how little disabled people are truly heard, even in matters of their own life. When Britney took the stand and talked about how she felt she wasn't “heard on any level” during her last appearance, it resonated with me. Even as an autistic attorney, I am familiar with that feeling: despite the immense privilege of a law degree and license, we can sometimes be seen as less capable, have our fitness to practice called into question over mental health, or know that any disability is a perceived ‘weakness’ in the legal world. Similarly, Britney's own desires have been seemingly dismissed over the years because she was deemed disabled in some way and seen by the courts as unable to be in control of her own life. After being placed under a conservatorship, and therefore seen as disabled, her words were automatically devalued.
Regardless of how the judge rules, Britney’s testimony being made public is a huge step in the right direction when so many people under conservatorship do not receive the opportunity to share their thoughts, hopes, and dreams even with the court because they are seen as incompetent. Britney freely spoke her mind to the court and to the world, which will hopefully empower other people with disabilities to do the same.
There is no doubt Britney Spears did the right thing in receiving or seeking mental health treatment over a decade ago. But losing her civil rights didn’t have to happen, nor should it continue to happen to people with disabilities. Instead, conservatorships and guardianships should be seen as an absolute last resort given how difficult they are to get out of — if Britney has been fighting to end her conservatorship for 13 years, imagine how difficult it is for disabled people who encounter numerous barriers to access to courts, lawyers, and education about their own rights, all who deserve respect and have opinions that should be heard and honored. Laws surrounding guardianship and conservatorships are governed on a state-by-state basis, with a continued movement towards abolishing guardianship and less restrictive alternatives like supported decision making. While Congress took a first step towards reexamining the restrictions conservatorships and guardianships place on disabled people, it’s safe to say #FreeBritney should not be a flash in the pan in the quest towards disability justice.
Everyone should be able to control who has a say in their life, and to make decisions on their own terms. To free Britney is to free all of us.
Let us slide into your DMs. Sign up for the Teen Vogue daily email.
Want more from Teen Vogue? Check this out: Britney Spears Speaks Out Against Conservatorship in Rare Public Statement