The Superior Court of Los Angeles (USA) suspended the father of singer Britney Spears as her legal guardian on Wednesday, a position he has held for more than 13 years.
Judge Brenda Penny’s decision represents a victory for the artist, who last June ruled against her father for the first time, although the guardianship will remain in the hands of a California state official on a temporary basis.
After the media scandal caused by Britney’s statement, the father changed his mind and asked to end the custody immediately, something that the singer’s legal team opposed, which by taking the reins of the guardianship will be able to access all documentation of the same to investigate possible abuses of power.
“I believe that the suspension of Jamie Spears (father’s name) as guardian is in the best interests of the ward,” the magistrate said before adding that the order had immediate effect.
The session, which lasted for almost three hours, featured a harsh exchange of positions between Britney’s lawyers and those of her father.
The legal representative of the artist, who was hired this summer thanks to an authorization from the judge, defended a strategy by which he wanted the parent to be suspended to transfer guardianship to a public employee, John Zabel.
In this way, the lawyer and the new guardian will have access to all the pertinent documentation regarding the 13 years of guardianship managed by the father and will be able to investigate the alleged illegalities that he is believed to have committed.
However, Jamie was drastically opposed to this point and unsuccessfully requested an immediate end to the guardianship, without further action.
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 testimonies, the former security employee claimed that the father had microphones placed at Britney’s house, whose calls and messages were intercepted, including communications with his own lawyer and his children.
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.