Exploring the ongoing legal battle between The New York Times Presents investigative series and is produced and directed by Samantha Stark.
The feature-length episode delves into the legal challenges Spears has encountered through her conservatorship, which leaves her almost entirely controlled by her father Jamie Spears, as well as the stunningly misogynistic world of the late 1990s and early 2000s when the star’s career was rising. It also shines a light on the mounting #FreeBritney movement of fans who believe the singer is being held captive by her family and management team.
One of the major components of the documentary, even outside of Britney herself, is the look at the concept of conservatorship in general, its legality, and the near-impossible process of ending one. While this documentary will hopefully bring more attention to Britney Spears’ situation and the clear injustice of her specific conservatorship, it may also be highlighting the need for reforms to the US law surrounding the process itself.
For many years, Britney Spears has been protected under a legal process known as a conservatorship. This set-up is intended to provide protection for people who are very ill and therefore cannot make decisions about their own wellbeing, basically someone who is not mentally lucid and can’t take care of everyday basics like paying their bills, buying groceries, maintaining doctors appointments, etc. In most cases, conservatorship is used for people near the end of their lives, living with dementia or severe illnesses, or for people with significant developmental intellectual disabilities who cannot care for themselves.
There are cases in which a temporary conservatorship can be granted in the case of a severe illness that the person is expected to recover from, but most of the time, the legal process is designed to be lifelong. Because of this, for Britney Spears, and in other rare cases of a full conservatorship process being used outside of severe illness, it’s incredibly difficult for people to get out of a conservatorship once it's begun.
Furthermore, the legal burden is on the person being protected to prove their self-sufficiency, rather than on the conservator to prove that their dependent still requires their care. In Britney Spears’ case, Framing Britney Spears shines a spotlight on the financial burden of the conservatorship system. The way the system is set up, Spears pays for her attorney, who was appointed for her, for her conservators and for her conservators’ attorneys. It was estimated last year that she’s paid about $1.2 million in legal fees for this case, for her lawyers, her father, and her father’s lawyers. In an interview with Variety, producer and director of Framing Britney Spears Samantha Stark said,
“It seems like a Catch 22 because in order to get out, it’s your burden of proof, so if Britney wants to get out of the conservatorship, she has to prove that she is capable of managing her own life and handling her own money — but how do you prove that if you’re a under a conservatorship where you can’t handle your own life and your own money?”
This perfectly highlights the glaring injustice of the entire situation, in which, not only is Britney Spears paying to be held captive without access to managing her own life and her own finances, in order to be freed, she has to provide proof that she can manage her own life decisions and money without access to those resources. Britney's situation is not only deeply heartbreaking, but also serves as a shining example of the inherent problems with the entire legal process of conservatorship. With the rise of the Framing Britney Spears documentary, it’s likely that there will be increasing not only for Britney Spears herself, but also for reforms to the laws surrounding conservatorship.