can an attorney take her case on a contingency basis? $200,000 if successful, $0 if not, sort of thing?
As was said, she isn’t considered legally competent to sign that contract.
Right. She has access to enough money. The problem is she doesn’t really have legal standing to file a claim on her own behalf, because she isn’t legally competent.
Which is nuts, because she’s way more competent than most people who are pressumed to be legally competent. That’s an extremely low standard that most homeless people, convicted criminals, and ignorant 18 year olds meet.
They (her father and lawyer) aren’t maker her richer, she’s making herself (and them) rich by being forced to record albums, go on tour, and do a regular Vegas show. She has no authority to say, “I’m rich enough to last the rest of my life. I think I’ll stop performing now.”. She alleges that when she voiced an opposition to something in rehearsal, her father stuck her in a mental hospital as payback. Yes, she gets a $2000/wk allowance, but that’s at the whim of her father, who can take it away just as quickly. She can’t make a contract on her own. You say she could walk into a lawyer’s office and plop down some money - she can’t even go to the doctor on her own. She’s basically their trained monkey.
And you can say she’s not all that bright, and she may not be, but I’d say based on hearing her testimony she’s probably at least as bright as the average schlub walking freely down the street. Which she can’t do if her father doesn’t want her to.
StG
What is there we don’t know about Spears’ condition? So many people assume there are zero incidents that would still be cause for concern simply because we don’t know about them, but we don’t (and shouldn’t) have access to the full records. Yes, she’s been able to help choreograph dance numbers and train dancers. Yes, she’s been able to speak coherently in the courtroom. And yes, she’s been able to perform concerts.
But under what conditions? What’s her complete diagnosis? Does she have more than one condition? How stable is her condition? Have her medications (if any) been consistently effective over time? What troubling incidents have there been that we don’t know about? We don’t know those things, and we shouldn’t know those things.
Without knowing those things, how can members of the public decide from what, if anything, Spears needs to be freed?
Because she has a public facing job and is able to reliably handle it. She’s capable of functioning in public. And, unless we assume her lawyer is putting her up to this, she is clearly mentally capable of challenging the conservatorship.
The standard for removing someone’s right to self-determination, a fundamental right enshrined in even the Declaration of Independence, has to be quite high. She is currently unable to have her liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Due to how she acts in public, it just seems profoundly unlikely that she could be so incompetent that she needs a full on conservatorship. So, if she wants out of it, she should be able to get it.
It’s possible she still needs some help to function. But I am firmly of the opinion that you give someone as many freedoms as they can handle. Yet the info we have about her conservatorship seems to indicate she is being heavily micromanaged, and not given those freedoms. If she needs help, she can have people helping her without losing all freedom.
I obviously can’t 100% rule out that there’s info we don’t know that would say that all of this is okay, but it just seems rather unlikely based on what we do know.
And, even if she does need a conservatorship, it does seem to be a conflict of interest for it to be handled by anyone who would financially gain from her profession.
If the petition is successful, then it would have shown that she was legally able to contract. It is the whole point of the petition in the first place.
If what you are saying was true, then no minor could ever be emancipated, for example.
But, if she isn’t found competent, would it mean the lawyer was SOL and couldn’t get paid?
How does that work with child emancipation situations? If the child is not emancipated, how does the lawyer recover fees?
Children can contract. They do it all the time. Can a child not buy an ice cream cone? Does Dairy Queen have to give the money back?
But then that would suggest that they are not in the same position as someone under a conservatorship, would it not? One of the things she’s unable to do is handle her own finances.
Ice cream is a poor example- maybe partly because it might be considered food and therefore a necessity , and partly because if a minor wishes to void the contract, they can’t really return the ice cream - but mostly because no one is going to file a lawsuit one way or another over the ice cream cone. If someone is dumb enough to sell a minor a car, they will most likely have to give the money back - and of course, the minor will have to return the car.
As far as her incapacity : incapacity , at least in California (and probably in the rest of the country) is not based solely on a diagnosis but rather on deficits in one or more mental functions. And those deficits have to impact the ability for the person to understand the consequences of their actions. There’s a list here- and I can’t see where it’s possible to such a severe case of one of those deficits that you are unable to appreciate the consequences of your actions that is simultaneously mild enough to allow her to perform and record for the past decade.
Minors can enter into contracts, that’s not the problem. The reason most people don’t sign contracts with minors is that the minor can legally void the contract at any time for any reason. Thus, you can’t really sign long-term contracts and be able to rely on the minor to perform, and at best all you can get back if they void the contract is advance compensation - you can’t get any damages that the contract might specify, because the contract is void.
You think that a court anywhere in a first world common law country would rule that an ice cream cone was a necessity?? Seriously?
My point is and continues to be that those things–or rather, what we see of those things–do not necessarily constitute mental capacity. She may be perfectly competent. We. Can’t. Know.
IANAL. My sole experience with conservatorship had to do with an elderly relative, but it showed me that you’re correct and that the standard for removing someone’s right to independence is quite high. There would have to be pretty compelling evidence showing that someone is, in fact, not as capable as mere public behavior (which, for celebrities, is often carefully scripted and controlled, regardless of mental capacity) would lead the general public to think.
With that high threshold in place, the judge still decided that Ms. Spears should remain under conservatorship. One could conclude that the judge is part of a conspiracy to deprive Ms. Spears of her rights, that the judge is an idiot who doesn’t fully comprehend conservatorship and/or was unduly influenced by the testimony of Ms. Spears’ greedy father, or that there’s more than we know that’s going on here.
Unless we all have all the evidence before us–and again, we should not have–we’re in no position to determine anything.
No, I don’t really - did you read the rest of the sentence? No court is ever going to rule one way or the other because no one is going to file a suit over an ice cream cone.
Here’s a good article about the abuse of conservatorships in the elderly.
Rudy chatted with the nurse in the kitchen for twenty minutes, joking about marriage and laundry, until there was a knock at the door. A stocky woman with shiny black hair introduced herself as April Parks, the owner of the company A Private Professional Guardian. She was accompanied by three colleagues, who didn’t give their names. Parks told the Norths that she had an order from the Clark County Family Court to “remove” them from their home. She would be taking them to an assisted-living facility. “Go and gather your things,” she said.
Rennie began crying. “This is my home,” she said.
One of Parks’s colleagues said that if the Norths didn’t comply he would call the police. Rudy remembers thinking, You’re going to put my wife and me in jail for this? But he felt too confused to argue.
Parks drove a Pontiac G-6 convertible with a license plate that read “ CRTGRDN ,” for “court guardian.” In the past twelve years, she had been a guardian for some four hundred wards of the court. Owing to age or disability, they had been deemed incompetent, a legal term that describes those who are unable to make reasoned choices about their lives or their property. As their guardian, Parks had the authority to manage their assets, and to choose where they lived, whom they associated with, and what medical treatment they received. They lost nearly all their civil rights.
Blockquote
My larger point is that she is given two thousand dollars per week to use. If she is smearing shit on the walls crazy, why is she being given that money?
Maybe her dad could argue that the legal services contract should be invalidated, but would a judge rule that way? I think it very unlikely.
Err…sort of but it is mostly a worthless contract:
Minors (those under the age of 18, in most states) lack the capacity to make a contract. So a minor who signs a contract can either honor the deal or void the contract. There are a few exceptions, however. For example, in most states, a minor cannot void a contract for necessities like food, clothing, and lodging. Also, a minor can void a contract for lack of capacity only while still under the age of majority. In most states, if a minor turns 18 and hasn’t done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided. SOURCE
A quick Google will provide many links that say basically the same thing. A minor can enter a contract but that minor can void the contract at any time (in most cases).
I would guess the same would apply to Spears. She could contract an attorney but given her status that attorney would know she could void the contract at any time. I’m guessing not many attorneys would be happy to do that.
No, what happened was that they didn’t accept the motion for removal without a hearing. The hearing will occur later.
You asked a question. I answered it. My answer remains. There is enough public evidence that it seems unlikely there is further information that would change people’s minds. She is capable of performing, has no apparent memory problems, and has, apparently of her own volition, asked for the conservatorship to be removed. Nothing about her seems like she is so far gone that she needs somebody to control her life.
This is a case of alleged abuse. And I say the same thing I do in all of those: we are not in a court of law. We are human beings who are using the information we have available. We have no obligation not to give our opinions because we may not have all the evidence.
I actually came back to this thread to include a report that Spears’s co-conservator has now dropped her. They state that, now that they know that Spears does not consent to being in the conservatorship, they will not attempt to force her. To do so would (of course) be unethical.
IF new information comes to light, I will evaluate it then. But I will not pretend like I have zero information and thus must remain neutral. And neither should anyone else have to.
Which is where I got my point, above, about some attorney being willing to take the case on with a contingency payment. If I were an attorney, I might be willing to take it on, on the chance that I will collect a sizable fee if I’m successful and nothing if I’m not. My client deciding to play the “I’m an irresponsible minor” card would be a portion of the risk I take on, but a gigantic check would be the potential reward.