“I’m bringing this to people’s attention because I don’t want people to think my life is perfect because it’s definitely not at all, and if you have read anything about me in the news this week…
It helped us, as the public, to know what she wants, and ended the speculation over whether she was under this conservatorship voluntarily.
If I were preparing her, I would have coached her to present herself in a calm way, acknowledging that she did have problems 13 years ago that justified protection; showing awareness of what those problems were; and articulating the steps she’s taken to make sure that she doesn’t find herself in that situation again.
If it was a calm presentation, the court would struggle to find a reason why this conservatorship is needed.
While acknowledging she still has issues to work through, she has now directly placed her opposition to the conservatorship in front of the court.
The next step is to file a petition to terminate the order – and then the court would have a hearing.
Alexander Ripps: In the petition, Britney would have to state facts showing that the conservatorship is no longer required or that the grounds for establishing the conservatorship no longer exist.
If Britney doesn’t get evaluated, the court can consider her refusal to do so as a grounds for denying her petition to terminate .
We shouldn’t do that for someone unless they’re gravely disabled – developmentally disabled, unable to care for themselves, or resist undue influence.
If they’re able to have a 30-minute conversation with the court, we can tell a lot from that.
I was hoping, for Britney’s sake, that the court would close the courtroom to the public, because the nature of this conservatorship is highly personal.
The question is whether it’s necessary.
I don’t think the public has been privy to all the information as it relates to what was going on Britney’s life that may have made her susceptible to undue influence.