What the Britney Spears ruling means for others under conservatorships - YouTube

the conservatorship that controlled britney  spears every move for 13 years is no more

thanks to an la judge's long-awaited ruling the  case gained international attention through the

hashtag free brittany movement and centered  around a legal arrangement first created in

2008 which put her father in control of both  spears finances and her personal life from her

ability to travel to where and when she could  seek medical and mental health care but as her

lawyer said after the decision was made this was  not a victory for spears alone she helped shine

a light on not only this conservatorship but  she helped shine a light on conservatorships

and guardianships from coast to coast activists  for senior citizens and people with disabilities

have pointed to the million-plus  people living under conservatorships

in the u.s at any given point many of whom like  spears have lost basically all of their personal

freedoms with questions about whether such  drastic steps are necessary in all such cases

i'm joined by attorney jonathan martinez he's the  senior director for law and policy at syracuse

university's burton blood institute it advocates  for people with disabilities and he was the lawyer

and the successful justice for jenny litigation  he's also spoken at free brittany rallies over the

years jonathan martinez good to see you thanks so  much for being here thank you so much for having

me what's the likely impact of the spears case  let's say for the that portion of the million

plus conservatorships that have gone too far  to be determined but i can tell you what i hope

i hope that like mr rosengard said britney's case  does in fact shine a light and inspire others he's

correct there are by some estimates between 1.2  and 1.5 million people in guardianship right now

by one study over 90 percent have lost all of  their rights and if britney spears can be a beacon

for them to say like she did i want my rights  back it will have a great impact we should be

clear here you're not against all conservatorships  or guardianships which i think are essentially

the same thing your view i believe  is that in situations like spears

she may have needed help with some issues  but she didn't need her life totally taken

away from her is that a fair summary of  where you are on these issues absolutely i

never say there should never be guardianships my  sister is the guardian of my godson and thank god

for it because she empowers him to live the best  life the concern i have like you said is with

people who can manage or direct their own lives  having their right to do so being taken away it's

why i say before putting someone in a guardianship  the most important question we can ask

what else have you tried because if something  could empower them and let them maintain their

rights that would be a far better option what  supported decision making what does that mean

well you just did it you absolutely just did  supported decision making because you didn't know

something and you asked someone who you thought  does or advice and information and that is what

supported decision making is it is something that  each and every one of us does each and every day

and in fact think about the cliches we have about  decision-making don't go off half-cocked make an

informed choice don't make a snap judgment get  a second opinion all of these mean get support

to make the decisions you make and people without  disabilities or temporarily able-bodied people as

i call them are praised for doing that  so people with disabilities not so much

here's what i understand you've told us you've  been on the radio with us you've told us 14 states

most recently new hampshire i believe plus dc have  laws about supported decision making and by the

way there have been bills filed in massachusetts  in the last few years and they're pending but

as of the moment they're not going anywhere what  i don't understand about the need for those bills

is my understanding is virtually every state  statute around conservatorships or guardianship

says the judge if he or she decides they're  appropriate should take the least restricted route

to protection of that individual well if the  least protected route is supported decision

making why don't they just do that why do they  need a separate statute you're right in theory

and in practice it just doesn't happen we  know again we know that 90 of guardianships

are plenary and take away all rights and even in  states and i've been published on this i think

it's something like 48 of the 50 states plus dc  have specific laws saying exactly what you said

guardianship cannot be entered unless  a person is unable or incapable or

put in the least restrictive option all of these  encompass supported decision making the problem

what we know again from data collection and  from studies it's just not happening so adding

specific recognition for supported  decision making as a less restrictive

alternative might just mean a judge looks it  up might just mean an attorney gives it a try

and might just mean that some people could keep  their rights you know the two things about the

spears case that put me over the edge one that she  was unable to pick her own lawyer i want to get to

that in a second with you and two that she didn't  even know until late in the game that she could

petition a court to end this thing speaking  of the lawyer thing correct me if i'm wrong

a person in a guardianship doesn't have the right  to choose his or her lawyers that is that correct

some judges have said that and here's the reason  why and i'm not saying you i agree with this

in fact to me this is awful but the argument  that comes from some is that for a person in

a guardianship that person must be declared to  be legally incompetent and unable to contract

retaining a lawyer is a contract and  here's the problem with that point of view

just like you said it dooms people to  never having someone to advocate for them

consider britney spears the analogy i always give  is this everyone celebrated when britney spears

got to choose her own lawyer after 13 years in  a guardianship but what that meant is this if 13

years ago britney spears had committed  murder with an axe if she was an axe murderer

she could have picked her own lawyer then so  what happens to people across the country is

people with disabilities especially those in  guardianship have less rights than axe murderers

and it forces us to ask two questions why why  are we treating people with disabilities as

having less rights than ax murderers and two  can we do better and shouldn't we do better

you know the other thing as i mentioned to you  jonathan a second ago is this whole notion that

spears apparently didn't even know that she  had a right to petition a court to end this

this prison-like conservatorship apparently of  her father don't states require that there be some

periodic review or is it just you lie in a  de facto cell until you make a move i mean

what are this what do the laws say some do the  vast ma the vast majority do not and you again

bring up one of the greatest problems and in the  britney spears case it's highlighted even more

i mean she had a court-appointed attorney someone  who was paid from her estate so as long as she

was in guardianship a court-appointed attorney  was being paid by her even though she didn't

want to be in that conservatorship so there  was somebody who at least we have to think

had a vested interest in keeping her in because  that person according to brittany never told

her she could ask to get out that means that  lawyer made 13 years of payments from her estate

and if he never told her that one of her rights  is to ask to terminate the conservatorship then

i don't know what to tell you it's terrifying  isn't it imagine not only not knowing that you

can fight but not knowing that you have someone to  fight for you or even have a right to have someone

to fight for you is it too radical to suggest that  one of the things legislators should contemplate

since the current system is not working is  rather than periodic review which is honored

in the breach that these things be sunset so the  rebuttable presumption is that after a period

of time that the judge determines up front  that can be no longer than x that person's

uh being under a guardianship terminates unless  the state or whoever is the appropriate player

demonstrates again that he or she needs to be in  a guardianship is that absurdly radical reform

i don't think so and in fact i've been involved in  cases and consulted with cases with just that has

happened where the idea is i mean the most common  and most frequent person going into guardianship

according to the national council on disability  are 18 to 24 year olds with intellectual

disabilities who has a better opportunity to  grow and learn and develop than 18 year olds

so i've proposed that in a number of cases where  if someone who's 18 mind you might not be ready to

run his or her own life guilty as charged by the  way and there should be someone who's able to say

i can help or i'm and part of my guardianship is  going to be teaching you and working with you to

develop those skills unless it's proven like  you said that the guardianship is still needed

it should terminate i completely agree with you  sir you know at the beginning of this i mentioned

jenny hatch and i think most people probably have  heard the name and knew the case in 90 seconds i

know this is a tall order can you briefly tell us  about the case of jenny hatch and how she is today

yes well one jenny is and was a person with down  syndrome at the time jenny went into guardianship

she had had her own job for five years her own  apartment neither one of those a supported or

disability-based job or apartment she had her own  life friends she hung out with politics uh that

she was involved in a church she went to after  getting into a car an accident she was hit by a

car that caused no cognitive limitations she was  put into a guardianship where she literally walked

into a courtroom in newport news virginia with all  her rights all the rights that you have walked out

three hours later with nothing and when i met  her she was living in a group home even though

she wanted to live with friends she was working in  a sheltered workshop making less than minimum wage

even though she was welcome to go back to her  job she was told she had to go to a different

church than she wanted to what we did with jenny  was showed exactly what we talked about about

support decision making jenny's perfectly capable  to do the things all of us do jenny might need a

little more support to make decisions but in the  same way that i need support and you need support

when we get them she does it and after a year of  litigation six days of trial uh jenny was freed

jenny is now living free and has been since 2013  she is working she is living and she is very happy

jonathan martinez thanks so much for your  work and i really appreciate seeing you

here tonight thanks for your time it's  been my honor sir thank you so much