{"id":195988,"date":"2021-07-22T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-22T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/?p=195988"},"modified":"2021-12-13T12:16:50","modified_gmt":"2021-12-13T20:16:50","slug":"britney-spears-conservatorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/_ko\/justice\/2021\/07\/britney-spears-conservatorship\/","title":{"rendered":"The Britney effect: How California is grappling with conservatorship"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t

\uc694\uc57d\ud574\uc11c<\/strong><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t

As the pop star\u2019s court case raises alarms and prompts legislation, here\u2019s an explanation of how conservatorship is \u2014 and isn\u2019t \u2014 working in California.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\n

\uc774 \uae30\uc0ac\ub294 \ub2e4\uc74c\uacfc \uac19\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4. <\/em>\uc2a4\ud398\uc778\uc5b4<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However improbable, this has become the summer we talk about conservatorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the latest developments in Britney Spears\u2019 13-year conservatorship dominate the headlines, questions long debated by advocates have suddenly become dinner table conversation. When is it OK to strip people of their rights to protect their welfare? Can we trust the legal system to protect against abuse? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 39-year-old pop star gave explosive testimony at a June hearing in a Los Angeles <\/strong>probate court, saying her conservators have kept her from removing a birth control device, forced her to take medications and required her to continue performing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt makes no sense,\u201d she told the judge. \u201cThe laws need to change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even before Spears\u2019 situation captured the public\u2019s attention, state policymakers have debated<\/a> changing California\u2019s conservatorship laws for an entirely different reason: The increasing visibility of people living on the streets with untreated serious mental illnesses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposed legislation that would change the state\u2019s \u201cgrave disability\u201d standard to make it easier to conserve people with serious mental illness has been tabled this year. Meanwhile, a bill inspired by the Spears case that requires increased transparency and stricter accountability continues to move through the Legislature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These seemingly incongruous conservator situations in California have generated a lot of confusion. Is it too easy to put people on conservatorships \u2014 or too difficult? Does the process violate people\u2019s rights \u2014 or keep them safe?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People on all sides of the conversation agree change is overdue. But their visions of what the problem is \u2014 and where the solutions lie \u2014 often vary.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is a conservatorship, anyway?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A conservatorship is a legal arrangement in which a court appoints a representative to make decisions on behalf of the \u201cconservatee,\u201d a person deemed so cognitively impaired due to dementia, intellectual disability or serious mental illness that they cannot make decisions independently. These include everything from the rights to make medical and financial decisions, to control of basic life choices, like where to live and whether to have sex or marry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As is true in Spears\u2019 case, conservatorships can sometimes be split between two parties. The \u201cconservator of the person\u201d manages personal affairs, while \u201cthe conservator of the estate\u201d handles financial matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In some states, such arrangements are referred to as \u201cguardianships.\u201d In California, though, that term is reserved for arrangements involving children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How does conservatorship work in California?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the Golden State, there are two types of conservatorship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 2008, Britney Spears has been on a probate conservatorship. These are primarily designed for individuals who have intellectual disabilities or dementia. They are granted indefinitely by a county probate judge, though the conservatee can petition to end it. A subset of probate conservatorships are known as limited conservatorships, which are reduced in scope and reserved for adults with developmental disabilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By contrast, Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorships are designed for people with serious mental illnesses who are so \u201cgravely disabled\u201d they cannot provide for food, clothing and shelter. These conservatorships, which are also decided by county judges, must be renewed annually. They get their name from a 1967 law, proposed by Republican Assemblyman Frank Lanterman and Democratic Sens. Nicholas Petris and Alan Short, that established strict criteria for involuntary treatment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two types of conservatorship are in many ways distinct systems, said Alex Barnard, an assistant professor at New York University\u2019s Department of Sociology, who is researching conservatorship in California. But because they share the same name, he worries the public is currently conflating \u201capples and oranges.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both types of conservatorships can involve public guardians, private professionals or family members. But private conservators are much more likely to be involved on the probate side, especially in situations like Spears\u2019 in which a lot of money is involved, said Scarlet Hughes, executive director of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPublic guardians would never get appointed on a case with that kind of money,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How many people are on conservatorships in California?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

No one knows for sure. And most people agree that\u2019s a real problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a big thing to be put under a conservatorship,\u201d said Zoe Brennan-Krohn, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union\u2019s Disability Rights Project. \u201cYou\u2019re losing your civil rights, your liberties, your autonomy. It\u2019s a really big problem that there\u2019s so little data about something that\u2019s so major.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That doesn\u2019t mean there are no statistics. According to the state Department of Health Care Services, data self-reported from counties showed that 1,459 people<\/a> were on temporary Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorships in 2019-20, and 3,672 were on permanent conservatorships. But some experts say the data is inaccurate \u2014 for instance, last year many counties, including Los Angeles, the state\u2019s biggest, didn’t report at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assemblymember Evan Low, a Democrat from Campbell, is carrying Assembly Bill 1194<\/a> this year to address this apparent lack of transparency, calling for a report that would explain what is working with California\u2019s conservatorships, what isn\u2019t, and how many people are affected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe want to pull back the curtain,\u201d he said. His legislation also includes provisions to preempt conflicts of interest \u2014  preventing courts from allowing conservators to pay companies in which they have a financial stake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A push for more transparency and accountability is also underway nationally. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It’s a really big problem that there’s so little data about something that’s so major.”<\/p>zoe brennan-krohn, american civil liberties union’s disability rights project<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this month, prompted by Spears\u2019 testimony, U.S. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Merrick Garland, the attorney general, asking for nationwide conservatorship data<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMs. Spears\u2019 case has shined a light on longstanding concerns from advocates who have underscored the potential for financial and civil rights abuses of individuals placed under guardianship or conservatorship,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House Republicans called for a hearing on the issue in the spring, and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz weighed in on his podcast, calling himself \u201csquarely and unequivocally in the camp of #FreeBritney.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it too easy to get someone placed on a conservatorship? Or too difficult?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

<\/strong>It depends on whom you ask \u2014 and the type of conservatorship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some believe it\u2019s too easy to get someone on a probate conservatorship, as Spears is. And once the decision is made, there is no annual expiration and renewal process for the arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHaving a situation with very little oversight where one person has extraordinary control over another person is just a recipe for abuse,\u201d said Brennan-Krohn of the ACLU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, she wants to see more resources for less restrictive treatments that address trauma and the need for housing. She also wants the law to outline less restrictive options that must be attempted prior to conservatorship, including a process called supportive decision making. Nine states have that in their code, she says, though California isn\u2019t among them.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics of the probate system, in particular, have long warned of abuse. In 2005, the Los Angeles Times published an investigation highlighting widespread abuses within the conservatorship system<\/a>.  In response, the Legislature passed a series of revisions in 2006. But many of the promised changes and increased oversight were never funded due to the 2008 economic recession, Assemblymember Low said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most experts agree it is more difficult to get someone onto a Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship, in part because those can curtail rights more severely \u2013 often involving locked placements and use of involuntary psychotropic medication. To put someone on a probate conservatorship requires \u201cclear and convincing evidence.\u201d But to put someone on a Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship requires the stricter standard of proof \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Randall Hagar, legislative advocate and policy consultant for the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California, says it is \u201cextraordinarily hard\u201d to get someone onto a Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship. The standard of proof is \u201cvery high,\u201d he said, and the amount of information required to meet that standard is \u201cvoluminous.\u201d Court investigations take close to 30 days, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of this, many family members<\/a> who are trying to get loved ones with serious mental illness onto such conservatorships want to see standards loosened. In recent years, several bills in the Legislature have sought to modify the law, focusing on expanding the definition of who can be considered \u201cgravely disabled.\u201d A 2020 state audit<\/a> disagrees with this premise, and bills that would change that definition have been tabled for this session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teresa Pasquini<\/a>, whose adult son Danny has been under a Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship for 20 years, said she watched him suffer through arrests and homelessness and violence for years, and worried he would eventually die. She fought for the conservatorship that she says has allowed him to stabilize and get the care he needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201cBecause of the conservatorship, he was saved,\u201d she said. \u201cThat was again just luck and heroics and relationships. That\u2019s not policy. That\u2019s not standards.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Is Britney Spears\u2019 conservatorship the exception, or the rule?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Again, it depends on whom you ask. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most people on conservatorships, Low agrees, \u201care not 39-year-old multimillionaires. There\u2019s only one Britney Spears.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But he, like some disability rights advocates, thinks her case points to problems within the system. Since he introduced the bill, he said, he\u2019s had \u201ccountless calls\u201d from family members and individuals in similar circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s that much of an outlier,\u201d said Brennan-Krohn of the ACLU.  \u201cOf course there are parts that are \u2013 the attention, the wealth, the fame, the talent. Why I\u2019ve been following this case closely, why the ACLU got involved in this case, is what we see in it that\u2019s really, really familiar.\u201d The Spears case is a \u201cvery good catalyst\u201d for reform, she said, because \u201cit actually happens to people all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But others caution against conflating Spears\u2019 situation with that of someone who is homeless and living with serious mental illness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAny sort of reform that\u2019s based on meeting the needs of Britney Spears seems to me to be really hazardous,\u201d said Barnard of NYU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So how should the system be improved?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Many people who work within the conservatorship systems argue that the process works\u2014it just lacks resources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMy fear is that people aren\u2019t going to trust the courts to do the right thing,\u201d said Judge Mary Thornton House, who worked in Los Angeles County Superior Court for 22 years, including eight years in probate court. \u201cAnd that would be a tragedy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House said she thinks the public should worry less about the mechanics of the process, and more about budget cuts. It would be wonderful if probate courts could review cases more frequently, she said, \u201cbut where do you find the court resources to do that?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hughes, of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators, said most of her colleagues are \u201cfervent supporters\u201d of self-determination rights, and don\u2019t conserve anyone unless it\u2019s absolutely necessary to meet that person\u2019s basic needs.  But she said \u201cthere\u2019s a desert of options\u201d for placement of people on Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorships, including a shortage of board-and-care homes<\/a>, locked facility beds and other types of care. Next year\u2019s state budget includes $805 million<\/a> for counties to invest in buying, building or fixing up board-and-care homes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s absolutely a crisis,\u201d she said. \u201cPeople are sitting in acute care hospital beds much longer than they should because there\u2019s nowhere else to put them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A shortage of funding for conservators is also a problem, she said. Due to staffing issues, many public conservators can\u2019t check on their clients as often as they\u2019d like, she said. For three years in a row, Hughes said, her organization has asked the state for money to address that issue without success.<\/p>\n\n\n\t\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Breakdown:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Breakdown: California’s mental health system, explained<\/a><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t

With fresh political attention on mental health, advocates are hoping California embraces humane and effective ways of averting some problems and solving others.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\uc544\ubc14\ud0c0 \uc0ac\uc9c4<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tby<\/span> Jocelyn Wiener<\/a><\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t