Sara Luterman must admit that she wasn't a big fan of Britney Spears' music. I was sucked in to the idea Britney Spears was shallow. As I grew older, I realized how absurd and misogynistic that notion was. Luterman: She is now a Britney-Spears expert. Luterman is a disability rights specialist and has watched the Britney Spears fandom organize, advocate, and pressure California courts to release Britney from a conservatorship, which controls her finances, as well as much of her life.AdvertisementThis legal arrangement was not something that anyone knew about until last week. Britney Spears testified about the matter in open court. The audio was almost immediately leaked. Britney Spears spoke for over 20 minutes in what felt like an endless run-on sentence. She claimed she didn't have control over her finances and couldn't make her own reproductive decisions.AdvertisementAdvertisementLuterman was not surprised by any of these. She says that conservatorship is sometimes called civil death by some in the disability community. Legally, you cease to be a person. Your guardian has all of your civil rights.AdvertisementLuterman spoke to me on Tuesday's What Next episode about Britney Spears's case. This is not only for her but also for the many thousands of others like her who don't have a social media campaign that aims to set them free. This conversation has been edited for clarity.Mary Harris: It's all very personal to you. You are autistic and partially-blind. Britney Spears' testimony in court before people with disabilities kind of made you shrug.Spears spoke of being forced to attend therapy with people she didn't trust or liked, and sent to offices where she believed paparazzi were watching. That was something I heard, and it made me wonder if therapy is really worth the effort. Trust is the foundation of mental health care. You say this is a great example of the two types of psychiatric treatment in America. One for regular people and one for those with severe mental illness.AdvertisementAdvertisementSara Luterman These are real fears that I have had and others like them. Thank God I wasn't under guardianship. But when people believe you are crazy, everything you say can be disproven. Every thing can be undermined.Britney Spears' main point of testimony was that Britney wanted to end her conservatorship and not be evaluated. Can you please explain what that means?It is very difficult to end conservatorship or guardianship in any circumstance. Ryan King is a young man. He's no longer a young man. It's been many years. Ryan King graduated high school with an intellectual disability. His parents were informed, as many parents are, that Ryan King has an intellectual disability. They were required to place him under guardianship. He was a functional and independent adult who surprised everyone. For ten years, he worked in a supermarket. He was responsible for his rent. His parents examined the situation and spoke to him. They said that they didn't think he needed guardianship. They decide to take the guardianship off their son's record and go to court. Everyone agrees in this instance. Ryan and his parents are the guardians. Ryan agrees. The court disagreed.AdvertisementAdvertisementWhy?It is because once someone is placed under guardianship, it can be removed or reversed. It is very rare for a guardianship order to be lifted or reversed. It is because guardianship is imposed only when someone is fundamentally incompetent. Then, being able prove you are capable after you have been declared fundamentally incapable is like a Catch-22. It is not possible to prove your competence.Britney Spears' request is double-hard because she is asking to be released from guardianship. This seems extremely difficult and she is also asking to be released without any approval.AdvertisementThe evaluation is also kind of pointless.She would not be deemed fit by the evaluation.Yes.It is impossible.This would be very unusual. Britney Spears is a unique person because of her wealth and who she is. However, I can understand why she does not want to undergo an evaluation. I also don't believe that it should be required. Based on every guardianship case I've seen, I am skeptical that she would be treated fairly by the evaluation.AdvertisementWas there any progress in the case you were discussing with the man whose family wanted him free from guardianship? Was he ever able to get out of it?AdvertisementYes, they took 10 years. They also needed lawyers.Many people write about Britney Spears' testimony and how remarkable it is. Many writers also talk about how these arrangements are often made for the elderly and infirm. It begs the question: Would you disagree with this?It is my opinion that people who write about arrangements in this way miss the point. It's complex, just like everything else. Some people struggle to make the right decisions about how they want to live their lives. Right now, for example, Nichelle Nichols (the actress who played Uhura in the original Star Trek) placed her under conservatorship. However, her conservatorship was granted because she was being financially exploited by a friend. They did this to protect her. That's a noble goal. Families should be able to provide protection for the people they love. Problem is, the guardianship system is not regulated. We don't know how many Americans are under guardianship.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementIt was over a million. That was more than I had expected.This is just an estimate by the AARP. We don't know the truth because there are no federal reporting standards, and state records are very poor. There are no guidelines about what records should be kept or how they should be recorded. We don't know how many Americans are under guardianship. We don't know the number of guardianships that have ended. Although we have stories and anecdotal evidence, statistics are not available. We haven't kept track of those numbers so they don't exist.Talking about guardianship is difficult because each arrangement is unique, has its reasons for existence, and has its own person in control. Britney Spears is in control of her guardianship, particularly her father. There are also cases when the state intervenes and takes control, even if the family does not want it to. One such case was in Maine. William Dean is a genius and suffered from a mental illness after his mother's death. Although his family wanted to be conservators, the state intervened and the results are quite disastrous.AdvertisementAdvertisementThat case is still a nightmare. Although it was a highly unusual case, everything that occurred was legal. He was a genius who loved music and instruments. The state bought all his collection of historic organs. They also sold properties his mother owned for a fraction of the market value.He also owned waterfront property.They also euthanized the cat.Did the state ever explain why?They insist that they did the right thing and it was necessary. William Dean and his family brought a lawsuit to seek to have the state give them something after having virtually destroyed their lives. It was found that all that occurred was legal. Dean was killed before any justice could have been done.AdvertisementThis is a point you make that I believe is very important when discussing conservatorship and guardianship cases. Nondisabled adults can make bad decisions all the time and don't risk losing their civil rights. A disabled adult, however, is in a unique position where someone, a family member or the state can step in and claim all aspects of their lives. This was a great framing. Conservatorship is often viewed as a form protection. But if you frame it from the perspective of a disabled person, you can see just how dangerous it can be.AdvertisementAdvertisementAlthough it is difficult to say, as there isn't any data, I believe that most guardians and family conservators are well-intentioned and care deeply about their relatives. That is something I don't dispute. Problem is, if you have a system which relies on the unchecked and unsupervised benevolence o someone who has more or less absolute power over another person, it's dangerous. William Dean was able to have all those things done by the state because it was legal. There is a concept called the "right to eat too many donuts and take a break" in disability service provision.I'm all for it, right?This is the problem: A person who decides to skip work to go out for a few drinks, eat a lot of doughnuts, and then sleep on it won't have their fundamental rights removed. This is something that all people can do. If you are disabled and do these things, it is considered evidence that you are unable to manage your life responsibly.AdvertisementAdvertisementAre conservatorships ever necessary?It is a fact that proxy decision-making will always be necessary. Some people are simply unable to communicate their preferences in a way that is meaningful to others. One example is a friend who has a son under guardianship. They don't really have any other options. He is non-speech and has an intellectual disability. He may have preferences like his food and swimming, but it would not be possible for him to consult about his tax situation. This is something I struggle to write about. The state creates a situation in which parents don't have any other options for people with these kinds of disabilities.AdvertisementWhy?Power of attorney is the more flexible option. This can be used for older people. An elderly person can name another person to make their legal decisions. However, they retain all their civil rights. You can't do this with someone with a significant disability such as that. They are considered incapable of consenting and fundamentally incompetent.AdvertisementAdvertisementThey couldn't agree to be together in the first instance.The state says yes. Some families have to choose the restrictive environment in order to keep their children safe.Many disability rights advocates refer to Buck v. Bell as a case that was heard by the Supreme Court. Is it worth discussing that case? How does it frame the larger issue you are referring to, not only conservatorships but also how the legal community has viewed people with disabilities?AdvertisementBuck v. Bell was an early 20th-century case. It is the eugenics matter. This case determines whether or not the government can legally sterilize citizens in this country. Carrie Buck was a woman and her mother were institutionalized. Her child was born out of wedlock. This was interpreted as her being fundamentally ineligible. She was then institutionalized. The institution wanted to sterilize Carrie Buck because she was considered dysgenic and would not produce offspring that would be degrading to the human race.AdvertisementShe was white.Yes. Eugenics was very popular at that time. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority decision.AdvertisementBuck v. Bell was not overturned.It was not overturned.I wonder if there is an alternative for disabled Americans. These are people who may need assistance but don't want to give up their civil rights. What would that look like?Yes, supportive decision-making is a new legal concept that's becoming more popular among the intellectual and developmental disabilities community. It is also being used by seniors. The idea is that instead of losing their civil rights, they retain their civil rights. They then have advisers, either informal or formal depending on how the pilot program is set up. These advisors help people make big decisions. They will help the person understand all aspects of moving to a new place. If the person needs help, they can turn to their friends.AdvertisementIs it possible for them to train their support staff? Is it just their friends and family?AdvertisementAdvertisementYou can have both. There are some states that have more formal supporters like money managers and people who work through non-profits. In some cases, they may have turned to their parents, siblings, or friends.Britney Spears' trustworthiness is something I keep returning to. In her testimony, she mentions that her entire family is people she could sue. It's hard to see the good in this for her. For so long, she has been around people she doesn't trust. She wants the whole system to collapse. Then, the question is: What will replace it? What do you think?It seems to me that she may not need a system. Britney Spears' family gets to decide what is best for her. Britney Spears' family gets to decide what is best for Britney. If she loses this framework, and has another mental illness, why is she not allowed? Why can't she struggle, have problems, make poor decisions? These are all normal things that people do all the times.Subscribe to the What Next Apple PodcastsEvery weekday, Mary Harris brings you more news.
