What can Britney Spears do now? Buy a house. Get married. Sue those who controlled her life

Free Britney supporters celebrate in Los Angeles after hearing the conservatorship has ended.

(Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times)

By Richard Winton, Maria L. La Ganga

She now has control over her checkbook and her uterus. She can buy a house, get married in that Versace gown she posted about on Instagram, decide when — and when not — to work.

With Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Brenda J. Penny terminating the pop star’s high-profile, nearly 14-year conservatorship, Britney Spears can sue her parents. And there are indications she just might.

But perhaps more than anything, her public travails have highlighted how a legal tool designed to protect vulnerable people can harm as well as help.

“Britney’s case illustrated a number of clear problems that have and will impact conservatorship cases for years to come,” said Christopher Melcher, a key member of Katie Holmes’ legal team in her divorce from Tom Cruise and a prominent family and probate law expert.

“This case has highlighted the lack of due process for the person in a probate conservatorship for adults,” Melcher said. “Britney did not even know about it. The first hearing lasted 10 minutes and no testimony was taken. This was a proceeding that led her to be forbidden from removing her IUD, accessing her cell phone and remarrying.”

Melcher, who is also Kanye West’s divorce lawyer, said the process was meant for those most seriously disabled and yet Spears performed nearly 250 shows during the 13 years of conservatorship.

“It also highlighted the power of the public,” he said. “Without the Free Britney movement, none of this would have changed. It shone a spotlight on these very secretive proceedings.”

Spears’ fight for personal freedom captivated the country for months.

“This is a monumental day for Britney Spears,” Mathew Rosengart, her attorney, said when the Friday afternoon hearing ended. “Many people have asked about whether we will continue to investigate Mr. [Jamie] Spears. The answer ultimately is up to my client, Britney.”

It was a point Rosengart made repeatedly Friday, talking to reporters outside the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles while surrounded by the star’s cheering fans: “What’s next for Britney — and this is the first time that this could be said for about a decade — is up to one person, Britney.”

Cardozo School of Law professor Leslie Salzman, who has extensively examined conservatorships and elder law, said it remains to be seen “whether Britney’s case makes long-term change to conservatorship. But this case raised the consciousness of the fundamental problems with this approach.”

Spears’ case is unique, Salzman said, because “she was out there making millions of dollars.” But it went on too long and was too restrictive, she said, when other, less inhibiting protections were available. It also showed how there is little incentive to end conservatorship of people with considerable assets.

“People learned that a court can take away the control of the most fundamental parts of a person’s life with little scrutiny,” Salzman said. “It is a system that can just roll over people, especially when they don’t get to select their own attorney.”

In fact, under the terms of the conservatorship, which began in 2008, Spears was not allowed to hire her own lawyer. Her father, with whom she had a rocky relationship, was given control over her life. During a hearing in June, she said she’d never even been told she could file a petition to end the legal arrangement.

Legal experts point to two factors that led Penny to do what Spears’ many fans had been demanding for years: Free Britney.

The first occurred during a hearing in June, when she addressed the court via phone and described the torment she had endured. She said she wasn’t allowed to have her intrauterine device removed; she wanted to have a baby and she was told no. She was forced to work grueling hours, she said, and was drugged when she disobeyed.

“OK, I’m not happy,” Spears told Penny. “I’m so angry it’s insane, and I’m depressed. I cry every day.” Instead of protecting her, she said, all the state of California seemed able to do, was hire people using her money to complicate her life.

The second factor was Penny’s decision in July to allow Spears to hire her own lawyer.

“That was the critical moment,” said Andrew Mayoras, an attorney and author who has followed Spears’ case. “One of the basic, most important rights of a conservatee is the right to hire their own attorney. She was denied that right many years ago. I think it scared her. You saw, once Mathew Rosengart was brought in, everything dramatically changed.”

In October, Rosengart asked to depose Spears’ father and made a number of discovery demands, including all documents showing “electronic surveillance” of the singer while under her father’s power, according to a 110-page court filing.

Exhibits attached to Rosengart’s filings lay out what has unfolded since the Sept. 29 hearing in which Jamie Spears was suspended as his daughter’s conservator. On Oct. 1, Rosengart requested documents and communications pertaining to “the electronic surveillance, monitoring, cloning, or recording of the activity of Britney Jean Spears’ personal telephone.”

So the Spears family saga is by no means over. But for the 39-year-old star and her lawyer, Friday was a day to celebrate.

“I’m proud of her because not only did she shine a light on this conservatorship, she shined a light on conservatorships from California to New York,” Rosengart said. “If this happened to Britney, it can happen to anybody.”

Spears did not appear at the hearing Friday, either in person or via telephone. But on Instagram, she called it the “best day ever.”

And she summed it up in a single hashtag: #FreedBritney. 

 

Full Article & Source:

What can Britney Spears do now? Buy a house. Get married. Sue those who controlled her life

National Council on Disability (NCD) Report Examines “Civil Death” of the Rights of People with Disabilities and the Elderly under Guardianships, Calls on Department of Justice to Ensure Full and Fair Due Process Rights

Baltimore, MD – The National Council on Disability (NCD) – an independent federal advisory body – today will release and discuss the findings and recommendations of a seminal national report that thoroughly examines guardianship – the process through which an adult can be found legally incapable of making decisions for him or herself and another adult appointed to make decisions on behalf of that individual – in view of the estimated 1.3 million Americans subject to guardianship and the goals of longstanding national disability rights policy. The report release presentation will occur in Baltimore, Maryland at the Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium.

“Former Congressman Claude Pepper famously said of guardianships, ‘The typical [person subject to guardianship] has fewer rights than the typical convicted felon… It is, in one short sentence, the most punitive civil penalty that can be levied against an American citizen, with the exception, of course, of the death penalty,’” said Phoebe Ball, NCD Legislative Affairs Specialist who worked extensively on the report. “NCD chose to examine this topic at depth given the implications for someone’s civil rights and liberty under guardianship – that an individual is losing the authority to make decisions regarding where to live, whether to work and where, where to travel, with whom to socialize, and how to manage money and property. We need to explore alternatives to guardianship such as supported decision making that enable people to avoid this civil death.”

The findings and recommendations in the report, Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives that Promote Greater Self-Determination for People with Disabilities, are the product of qualitative research on the experiences with guardianship and decision making alternatives of people with disabilities, their families, and professionals within the guardianship system gleaned through interviews; in addition to an extensive review of relevant scholarship and recent studies.

Report Findings:
Amongst its key findings, NCD’s Beyond Guardianship study found that:

*Guardianship is often imposed when not warranted by facts or circumstances, because guardianship proceedings often operate under erroneous assumptions that people with disabilities lack capability to make autonomous decisions and rely upon capacity determinations that often lack sufficient scientific or evidentiary basis.

*Although guardianship is considered a protective measure, courts often lack adequate resources, technical infrastructure, and training to monitor guardianships effectively and hold guardians accountable, which at times allows for guardians to use their positions to financially exploit people subject to guardianships or subject them to abuse or neglect.

*People with disabilities are often denied due process rights in guardianship proceedings.

*Although most state laws require consideration of less-restrictive alternatives, courts do little to enforce those requirements. Similarly, though every state has a process for the restoration of one’s rights lost through guardianship, the process is rarely used.

*There is a lack of data on existing guardianships and newly filed guardianships, which frustrates efforts of policymakers to make determinations about necessary areas for reform.

"People with disabilities should be given the maximum opportunity to make decisions for themselves and to live the lives that they want to live," said Neil Romano, Chairman of NCD. "At NCD, it is our responsibility to offer policymakers the best information available so that they can make decisions designed to move people with disabilities toward full inclusion and equality in our society and help them fully realize their American birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Report Recommendations:
For each major finding, NCD offers recommendations to federal and state policymakers to address areas of concern.

A small sampling of the report’s recommendations includes:
*The Department of Justice (DOJ), in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), should issue guidance to states (specifically Adult Protective Services [APS] agencies and probate courts) on their legal obligations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

*The Administration for Community Living (ACL) currently funds the National Resource Center for Supported Decision-Making and several demonstration projects at the state and local levels. These grants should be expanded to be able to fund more geographically- and demographically-diverse projects and pilots that specifically test SDM models and use SDM and the court systems to restore people’s rights as a matter of law, particularly for people who are older adults with cognitive decline, people with psychosocial disabilities, and people with severe intellectual disabilities.

*DOJ should make funding available to train judges in the availability of alternatives to guardianship including, but not limited to, supported decision making. This training should also include information about the home and community-based–services system and the workforce development system so that judges understand the context in which decisions are being made by and for people with disabilities.

*A state guardianship court improvement program should be funded to assist courts with developing and implementing best practices in guardianship, including training of judges and court personnel on due process rights and less-restrictive alternatives.

Source:
NCD REport Examines “Civil Death” of the Rights of People with Disabilities and the Elderly under Guardianships, Calls on Department of Justice to Ensure Full and Fair Due Process Rights

READ the report: Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for People With Disabilities

Editorial: Guardianship Secrecy in New Mexico is Ripe for Reform

There is no shortage of things that need to be fixed in New Mexico’s system of guardianships and conservatorships for people who are declared incapacitated, but without question the excessive secrecy that shrouds the system ranks high on the list.

So critics can take some comfort in the fact that a commission appointed by the state Supreme Court to review the system and recommend changes has honed in on the lack of transparency as one of the key issues.

Retired state District Judge Wendy York, who was appointed to chair the commission, says it is one of the recurrent themes presented during the commission’s first two public meetings. “We are hearing about notice of court hearings, involvement of family members and what is the appropriate line to draw between complete access to information and privacy.”

And it isn’t just aggrieved family members who have complained they are shut out of the information loop at the whim of for-profit, court-appointed guardians and conservators who take control of their loved one and his or her assets. Attorney Brian Vogler told the commission during its May 13 meeting that the secrecy of the process raises “due process concerns.” Vogler says his client needed to get some information from his guardian but the guardian declined to provide it. “It seems there needs to be a window in to see how the court is proceeding,” he said. After the meeting he said his inability to see how judges behave or have behaved in the past prevented him from learning information he needed and he wanted to speak to the commission to provide a perspective that the secrecy “doesn’t just impact families.”

And that secrecy is a thick blanket, with family members and others saying that in addition to difficulty getting information, they have been threatened with fines and penalties for revealing matters they learned in their own cases.

In theory, only a docket sheet in a guardianship case is considered a public record. But many clerks don’t know the law. The docket sheets have not been posted online, as they are supposed to be, and in a recent case a printed copy of a docket sheet obtained by the Journal had a questionable redaction by district court personnel – the name of a paid medical professional.

Source:
Editorial:  Guardianship Secrecy in New Mexico is Ripe for Reform>/a>

Guardianship Abuse Spreads to Pennsylvania

As part of an ongoing series on guardianship abuse, Rebel Pundit will present a three part series on Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 

Taisha Lee said her grandmother’s guardianship case was Kafkaesque, lacked due process, and one she believes was pre-determined.

Lee said trouble for her grandmother, Jannie Myers started, when her grandfather, Isaiah Myers, was near death and both her grandparents moved in with her and her husband in September 2012.

Lee said prior to her grandfather’s death, he changed the will and wrote all his children out, leaving their estate, worth a bit more than $300,000, to Lee and another grandchild.

Her grandparents made Lee their power of attorney at about this time.

Lee’s grandfather died in October 2012. On January 11, 2013, Lee’s aunt, Gloria Myers filed a petition with the Montgomery County Orphan’s Court for her mother to be put into guardianship, alleging she was incapacitated and unable to take care of herself.

A call was left at Bowman’s office but was not returned.

Lee said she knew there would be problems right away when the Judge Stanley Ott refused to allow her grandmother to use her own attorney, instead assigned to her Diane Zabowski.

Lee said in August 2013, her then attorney Saul Langsom emerged from a meeting in the judge’s chambers with Judge Ott, Bowman, and Zabowski, and an area attorney named Erin McDevitt, who’d be named guardian, and informed Lee that a deal had been made to place her grandmother into guardianship.

“I was shocked,” Lee told Rebel Pundit, adding that she expected evidence to be heard before taking away her grandmother’s freedom.

Elaine Renoire, of the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA), said that while such deals are of questionable constitutionality and almost never in the ward’s best interest they are common. In the case of her grandmother, her own lawyer made a deal in a bathroom with the judge to put her grandmother into guardianship.

Lee said the deal only fell apart when her aunt objected to Lee being named guardian of the person, a bureaucratic title which would have allowed Lee to make some decisions though the bulk of the decisions would be left to McDevitt.

Lee said a hearing was finally scheduled on September 17, 2013, but before then Zabowski warned her that if she continued to obstruct the court’s attempts to guardianize her grandmother that Zabowski would attempt to jail her.

“We’ll just say she was always incapacitated,” Lee recalled Zabowski telling her, and suggested she’d get the court to say Lee stole money she spent during the previous year as their power of attorney.

According to the transcripts of the hearing, there were several red flags.....

Full Article and Source:
Guardianship Abuse Moves to Pennsylvania

Colorado Editorial: Judicial Evaluations Need Serious Reform

Colorado's current judicial system must be improved to ensure that all Coloradans obtain the due process they deserve.

Over the last 10 years, the state judicial discipline commission has dismissed 97 percent of complaints against judges. 89.5 percent of complaints against judges are dismissed without any investigation whatsoever. Judges currently make the rules about the discipline of judges. The Honest Judge Amendment would bring both accountability and transparency to the judicial branch by transferring discipline of judges to the Independent Ethics Commission, (already responsible for disciplining executive and legislative branch officials).

A second initiative, Two-Thirds Majority proposes to increase the amount of "yes" votes a judge needs to receive in an uncontested retention election to a two-thirds majority. At present, judges need only obtain a simple majority of "yes" votes in an election where the judge has no opponent. This initiative applies to Colorado courts of record including county courts, district courts, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Clean Up the Courts is a nonpartisan, grassroots issue committee focused on enhancing the integrity of the judicial process through judicial reform. Information and petitions to place these initiatives on the November state ballot can be found at cleanupthecourts.org.

~Rosemary Van Gorder
Fort Collins

Source:
Judicial Evaluations Need Serious Reform

Florida Guardianship Ward, Marie Winkelman, Attends Holocaust Remembrance

We are deeply proud of our beloved Survivors and hope that you will cherish this article (Bradenton Herald, April 28, 2014, Page A1) and pass it along to all of your contacts!  Especially significant is the fact that the article features our dear Marie Winkelman, who was placed into an illegal guardianship in Sarasota County via a mediation agreement amongst multiple lawyers (without due process of law), through which she was made a Ward of the State of Florida. 

In truth, Marie is extremely bright and articulate, as we all  witnessed at the AL KATZ Center Yom HaShoah observance on April 27, when Marie was handed a microphone and extemporaneously gave a penetrating, emotive speech to the rapt audience.  Please note that Marie's continued fate in guardianship is before Manatee and Sarasota County Probate Judge Deno Economou on June 3, 2014. 

Please pray for her immediate release from state guardianship and the return of her freedom and dignity, which she feels she has lost due to the legal actions taken against her by her stepson-in-law, Robert Szychowski (of the Rutgers University administration), whose wife and sister-in-law are the primary beneficiaries of Marie's multi-million-dollar Trust (now controlled by the guardianship stipulated mediation agreement, signed by Attorneys Christopher Likens, Kim Bald, Barry Spivey, Gary Larsen [mediator], and Rebecca Proctor, without Marie's knowledge or consent).

~Beverly Newman

See Also:
NASGA:  Marie Lubowski Winkelman, Florida Victim

Texas Guardianship Bill Seeks to Close Current Due Process Loophole

Guardianships limit, even sometimes suspend, many basic rights enjoyed by Texas adults. HB 2600, currently before the legislature, seeks to revise how incapacitation for the purpose of pursuing a guardianship is determined. An analysis by the Texas Conservative Coalition (TCC) discusses this bill’s potential impact on all Texans including the administrative ease with which this rights-revoking status can be attained under Texas’ current Estate Code that includes “no provision for a hearing or due process.” It further notes courts not being required to consider evidence in probable cause determinations. Rather, the code lists two minor items that courts “may” consider.
The Texas Conservative Coalition says this of the bill introduced by Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth:

In most circumstances in which a court appoints a guardian under the Estate Code, the process is governed by Chapter 1101, which details numerous requirements in the application process. Most importantly, the proposed ward is entitled to a hearing, at which the court is required to inquire into the ability of persons to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, care for their own physical health, and manage their own property or financial affairs. The proposed ward must also be present at the hearing, unless the court determines on the record that their appearance is not necessary. Most importantly, the proposed ward may request a jury trial on the determination of their mental capacity. Before appointing a guardian, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed ward is incapacitated, that it is in the person’s best interest to have a guardian appointed, and that their rights and property will be protected.

The provisions in Chapter 1102 – which are addressed by HB 2600 – allow a court to circumvent the protections afforded to proposed wards in the typical process. As written, the chapter includes no provision for a hearing or due process. It does not even require a court to consider evidence when making its determination of probable cause. Rather, the code lists two minor items that the court “may” consider.

HB 2600 closes the current loophole by modifying Chapter 1102 and requiring due process for a proposed ward with a formal hearing wherein that person will be given the opportunity to prove their mental capacity. The United States Constitution prohibits deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A person whom the court determines is incapacitated loses the right to make decisions on where and how to live and how to manage their property and finances. These are basic liberties that HB 2600 is intended to protect.

And nearly three hours of testimony Monday before a probate subcommitee of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence seemed to support this contention.

The divide between those for and against the bill was quickly evident and the testimony helped illustrate the potential power of this seemingly innocuous legislation.

A stream of witnesses told emotional guardianship horror stories alleging total disregard of any due process by the courts, denial of access to loved ones and expensive legal battles stemming from questionable court actions.

Meanwhile, lawyers and several judges testified against the bill including how the 30-day window for scheduling a hearing is too long, the affidavit requirement will deter some interested parties’ participation and this change will throw more cases to Adult Protective Services, an already over-taxed system.

HB 2600 comes down to requiring that courts “must” do some things to determine incapacitation for guardianship, things which now they “may” selectively do. Small words carrying big meanings.
The legal industry maintains the laws in place to protect potentially vulnerable Texans are followed. Many of these cases, however, don’t support that position. It’s unknown if HB 2600 would be the law to make a difference, but after watching people be denied individual liberties, property rights and access to families, supporters of the bill hope they won’t be denied the fighting chance HB 2600 might offer.

To date, HB 2600 is left pending with the subcommittee.

Full Article and Source:
Texas Guardianship Bill Seeks to Close Current Due Process Loophole