The legal guardianship that has controlled the life of Britney Spears for more than 13 years could come to an end this Wednesday, when the Superior Court of Los Angeles will hold a hearing to respond to the requests of the lawyer and the artist’s father.
Both the singer’s legal representative, Mathew Rosengart, and her father, Jamie Spears, have requested in recent days the termination of the guardianship, although with huge differences that must be settled by the judge who supervises this media case.
No one knows if Judge Brenda Penny will decide that the time has come to free the artist from the legal control mechanism to which she was subjected in 2008, after a period of erratic behavior for which she lost custody of her children.
If you do so without further ado, the image of the California court system would be seriously damaged.
When Britney came out of rehab that same year, she went back to work on records and shows that brought in millions of dollars even though she was still under strict legal guardianship, a provision reserved for people who are severely disabled or in an advanced state of physical impairment or mental.
In addition, the abrupt end would give the reason to the artist, who in her explosive statement on June 23 said that the guardianship was a framework to “pay the salary of many people” who took advantage of their work.
Nor is that what Rosengart, the first attorney she personally appoints, wants.
According to the latest documents delivered to the court, the lawyer favors a staggered end in which responsibilities will be clarified and what went wrong will be analyzed.
Rosengart is convinced that Britney’s father and a diverse group of businessmen and lawyers have taken advantage of the legal guardianship to enrich themselves thanks to the success of the singer, subjected to a tight control in which she had no access to her accounts or the power to decide your projects.
In his last written statement, the lawyer believes that Father Britney has an “obvious” and “selfish” despair: “He wants to escape justice and responsibility (but he will not do it) and evidently he will do or say anything to avoid it,” he said. .
The case took a new turn this weekend after The New York Times published a report with statements from three people who have worked for Britney during her guardianship: a security employee, an assistant and her wardrobe manager.
Among the thorniest statements, the former security employee claims that the father had microphones placed at Britney’s house, whose calls and messages were intercepted, including communications with his own lawyer.
It is unknown if the California court knew about these practices, which if they had been done behind the backs of the courts would put his father, who is ultimately responsible for the guardianship, against the ropes.
“The unauthorized recording or monitoring of Britney’s private communications, especially attorney-client communications, which are a sacrosanct part of the legal system, represent an unconscionable and shameful violation of her privacy rights and a striking example of deprivation. of their civil liberties, ”said Rosengart.
For his part, the father now opts for an abrupt end to guardianship, always in the “best interests of his daughter.”
Jamie has defended that with his tutelage he saved the artist from falling into bad influences that would have spoiled his assets of 60 million dollars and that everything else is rumors that do not correspond to reality.
The judge will have the last word in a case that could drag on.