Britney Spears, #FreeBritney, and Why the Conservatorship is a Big Deal

As attorneys, it’s always interesting when the media closely follows a legal matter. With social media, armchair reporters have taken active roles in amplifying narratives and reporting backstories behind legal filings. The court proceedings involving Britney Spears are particularly unique, because Spears is at the center of a case where she is not accused of doing anything wrong.

Unless you’ve been away from every social media and news source in the country, chances are you have seen, heard, or read about the #FreeBritney movement and the conservatorship controversy surrounding Britney Spears. The online campaign to #FreeBritney was started way back in 2009 after a fan believed Spears was being unfairly controlled by the court-ordered conservatorship, which at the time was just a year old. The #FreeBritney gained momentum in 2019 and 2020, and most recently after her June 23, 2021, statement to the court.

To briefly recap, Britney Spears’s conservatorship was granted by the court in 2008 after a series of personal struggles, incidents, and hospitalizations. As a major celebrity, Spears’s actions were closely scrutinized by the press, including run-ins with paparazzi, a series of traffic offenses, and visits to rehab facilities. In January 2007, over the course of a difficult few days, Spears lost her aunt to cancer, went to Eric Clapton’s drug rehabilitation center in Antigua for less than a day, and famously shaved her head at a Los Angeles hair salon.

Spears’s situation escalated in January 2008, when she refused to give custody of her sons to her ex-husband’s representatives. Police came to her home and she was hospitalized. In an emergency hearing, her visitation rights to her children were suspended, and her ex-husband was given sole physical and legal custody of her sons. She was committed to UCLA Medical Center and put on a 5150 involuntary psychiatric hold. The court placed her under a conservatorship led by her father, Jamie Spears, and attorney Andrew Wallet.

Spears is not the first celebrity to be under a conservatorship. Nickelodeon star Amanda Bynes has been under a conservatorship since 2013. Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys, singer-songwriter Joni Mitchell, DJ Casey Kasem, and famous Hollywood actor Mickey Rooney were all at one point under a conservatorship. Mickey Rooney’s assets were permanently handed over to a conservator in 2011, and his arrangement was reportedly so controlling he wasn’t even allowed to buy food or carry identification. However, Rooney was 90 years old when he was placed under conservatorship, a stark difference from Britney Spears.

According to an article published in AARP in October 2018, an estimated 1.3 million adults are under guardianship in this country, perhaps 85 percent of them over 65. While conservatorships are common enough, it is rare to see someone in their 20’s or 30’s under a conservatorship, while continuing to successfully make substantial income. In the last 13 years of her conservatorship, Britney Spears released albums, judged The X Factor and brought in an estimated $137.7 million performing in Las Vegas from 2013 to 2017. News outlets even presented the narrative that Spears was thriving under the “unusual” conservatorship. In 2016, the NY Times reported, “The business of being Britney Spears is booming. And the pop star can seek a change in her conservatorship status — if she chooses to make a move.”

On June 23, 2021, Spears finally spoke to the court, asking to end her conservatorship, saying “I just want my life back. The conservatorship should end. I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive.” Although she had never spoken on it publicly before, Spears has opposed the conservatorship privately for years. In her statement to the judge, Spears alleged she was medicated with lithium and prohibited from removing a birth control device which would allow her to possibly have more children.

As attorneys, we know that what is reported in the news is often not the full story. In conservatorship and guardianship cases, a lot of evidence is withheld from the public. Despite the amount of news coverage and media interest, we only get small snippets of a complicated situation, as many of the statements, confidential records, and testimony are not made public. We do not know the specific reasons why Spears’s conservatorship has lasted this long.

While Spears’s request to the court on June 23 was amplified by her loyal fans who have steadfastly supported her, they only know part of the story as well. The lack of knowledge and perceived secrecy has led to rumors and conspiracy theories about Britney’s life.

Ultimately, we have no way of knowing if Spears needs the conservatorship. Her statements to the court are concerning, of course, but the public is not privy to ANY of the medical records and/or testimony regarding the rationales for the conservatorship. However, with any guardianship or conservatorship situation, there is a concern about potential conflicts of interest. According to Forbes, Britney Spears has paid her father Jamie Spears $16,000 a month as a salary for managing her estate. It is impossible to argue that he has not financially benefited from his role.

Despite her comments to the judge in court, as of July 1, 2021, Spears has not yet filed a petition to end her conservatorship. Although she did request to have her father removed as conservator, the judge did not take her June 23 statement into account when evaluating her request to have her father removed, because she had not filed a formal petition to end the conservatorship. It remains to be seen what will happen next. We will be following the outcome of this case and hope for the best possible outcome for Britney.

Swimming Safety: New Report Reveals Children’s Swimsuit Color Can Greatly Improve Visibility

For many families, swimming in pools and lakes is a great way for children to beat the heat and cool off on hot summer days. If you have a young child who will be hopping in a pool or lake this summer, you may not give much thought to the color of their swimsuit. However, a study released this year revealed some swimsuit colors were much more visible than others in pools and lakes. The most difficult colors to see were white and light blue. Most visible choices were neon yellow, neon green, and neon orange.

Increasing your child’s swimsuit visibility can be compared to donning reflective gear which increases visibility on the road as a jogger or cyclist. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports that more than 350 children are tragically killed in backyard swimming pool accidents each year, with the majority of deaths occurring in June, July, and August. The lawyers at GB Law have had the privilege of representing drowning victims’ families and have seen first-hand that while these tragedies are heartbreaking, they are often preventable. Swimsuit visibility is one consideration to make a child easier to see for the visual observer supervising the child.

swimsuit color test results
Source: Aquatic Safety Connection
swimsuit color test results in lake
Source: Aquatic Safety Connection

Of course, the color of a swimsuit alone will not keep your child safe in the water. Your child should always be supervised by an adult. According to Aquatic Safety Connection, participation in formal swim lessons can reduce the risk of drowning by up to 88%. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that most children ages 4 and older are able to learn to swim and many children ages 1 to 4 are able to learn to swim. Swimming lessons, while highly recommended, are still not a substitute for undistracted adult supervision.

If you are a parent, you should know that drowning is quick, silent, and it can happen to anyone. For more resources, visit the American Academy of Pediatrics Drowning Prevention toolkit.

If you or someone you know has questions about swimming pool safety or drowning incidents, call GB Law for more information.

Be Careful When You Wave: Understanding the Possible Legal Implications of Waving Other Drivers to Turn in Front of You

The issue of crashes happening when one motorist waves to another to make a turn has come up in lawsuits and court cases in recent years, raising questions about liability.

Here is how the scenario frequently comes up:

You’re driving down the road and stop for traffic. A car traveling in the opposite direction stops in front of you waiting for an opportunity to make a left turn. You check your rearview mirror to see if anyone is coming up next to you in the curb lane. You don’t see anyone so you motion to the driver to proceed with the left turn by waving your hand. Unfortunately, there was a vehicle in the curb lane approaching that you didn’t see. The other driver proceeds with the left turn and collides with the car in the curb lane.

All of us at one time or another have waved a fellow driver to turn. In some areas of the country, like Hawaii, it is common practice for drivers in the opposite direction of traffic to stop in the road and let another driver turn left in front of them. This may seem like a polite gesture in stopped traffic, but there can be consequences to seemingly polite acts that deviate from normal and predictable driving and basic right-of-way laws.

If you’re in a rural area and the “go ahead” waving interaction is solely between you and the other driver, there is no issue.

But the problem occurs when other drivers are sharing the road, and they can’t predict your unpredictable behavior, which allows another motorist to violate your right of way.

Waving and liability

What most of us don’t know and don’t even consider when we wave another driver “to go ahead” is whether you can be found responsible (or “liable”) if an accident happens. Your vehicle may not even be involved in the direct collision, but the motorist that turned into the path of another vehicle may tell law enforcement that you assured him it was safe to turn. Unfortunately, that question of whether you may be liable isn’t easy to answer and may just depend on where in the state you are, as well as the specific chain of events.

Who is considered liable in Ohio?

Appellate Courts in Ohio have addressed the issue, and unfortunately, are not in agreement. One school of thought is that the driver who motions the other driver to proceed is not liable. This view rests on the premise that a signal to cross can be interpreted as no more than a yielding of the right of way. Thus, the person signaling the other motorist is not responsible for any accidents that might occur when the crossing motorist enters into a different lane.

The other view is that under some circumstances, a signaling driver may act negligently when signaling another driver to cross his path. Liability rests on the view that sometimes a signal may be interpreted as an indication that the way is clear and it is safe to proceed. Therefore, if the signal is reasonably viewed as an “all clear” indication to the turning driver, the person signaling can be found liable.

Be careful about waving someone to proceed

So next time you find yourself about to wave someone to proceed, be careful. It’s not your duty to assure other drivers that their path is clear and doing so could cause you to assume that duty. If you’re not 100% sure there is no traffic coming, don’t put yourself at risk by signaling to the other driver that it’s all clear. Put your safety first, above your good intentions.

For more information, contact GB Law by calling us at 614-222-4444.

The Importance of Keeping a Physical Emergency Contact List

A GB Law client recently shared a frightening experience that happened while traveling out of state. After his cell phone was destroyed in a serious crash, he arrived at the hospital, injured and alone. He was in shock and unable to think clearly. Despite his best efforts, he simply could not remember the phone numbers of even his closest family members. In this day and age, we store everything in our phone.

Although Americans collectively check their smartphones upwards of 8 billion times per day, many people do not even know the phone numbers of their spouses or their close relatives. This can be a problem if your phone is lost or destroyed. Even if you have information memorized, if you are incapacitated, or you find yourself unable to remember your phone’s password, others need a way to locate emergency contact information to help you.

In an emergency situation, an Emergency Contact Card can be an important resource or reference, either for yourself or others caring for you. Everyone should carry something in their wallet with loved ones to contact in an emergency.

By their very nature, emergencies are unpredictable events, but with a few simple steps, you can help yourself in advance. The American Red Cross offers a free Emergency Contact Card that you can print out, fill out, and carry with you. You can also purchase a customizable emergency card on Amazon with similar information that is waterproof and laminated. This information should be easily accessible in your wallet, clearly identifying people to call or text in an emergency. You can also note things like “I have pets at home alone” that need care, to notify any caregivers that someone should be sent to your address.

If you are involved in a car accident and find yourself facing an uncertain future, you are not alone. In the past three decades, the Ohio personal injury lawyers at GB Law have represented thousands of our neighbors and friends in Ohio and have recovered over $200 million for our clients. Our focus is to advocate for and compassionately serve the people and families we represent and the communities in which we live.

Call us for a free consultation at 614-222-4444.

GB Law Supported Berkshire Triathlon Event at Mallway Park

The Columbus personal injury attorneys at GB Law recently donated $2,500 to the Berkshire Triathlon, an entry-level triathlon and kids fun run to raise money for charity. Proceeds from the event each year go directly to help children living with serious illnesses and their families. The event was held Sunday June 9, at Mallway Park in Upper Arlington, and included a Kids Fun Run, Duathlon and Triathlon.

The two beneficiaries of the Berkshire Triathlon are Flying Horse Farms and The Ronald McDonald House Charities of Central Ohio. Flying Horse Farms is a medical specialty camp in Mt. Gilead, Ohio, where children who have serious illnesses can enjoy being kids and participate in healing and transformative activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, high ropes, archery, and arts and crafts. GB Law has proudly supported Flying Horse Farms with various donations and sponsorships since 2012.

The second beneficiary of the triathlon was Columbus Ronald McDonald House.  The RMH houses over 4,500 families each year, giving them a safe, clean and comfortable home away from home, and keeping them close to their children being treated across the street at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.
To learn more about the Berkshire Triathlon event and its beneficiaries, visit https://www.berkshiretri.org/.

Verdict Forces Insurance Company to Take Responsibility and Pay $100,000

An active, avid amateur hockey player’s life was turned upside when she was struck by a motorist who ran a stop sign while on her lunch break. With the insurance company disputing even the most basic medical care necessary to repair her injured neck, attorneys Mike Geiser and J. Scott Bowman were willing to force the insurance company to take responsibility and took the case to trial. After five days of teamwork between client and the attorneys at GB Law, a verdict of $100,000 was rendered and justice finally obtained for the client.

Relentless Investigation Locates Key Witness in Disputed Liability Crash.

A driver who refused to accept responsibility for causing a crash at a major intersection in the Polaris area of Columbus, Ohio was forced to settle with the Plaintiff, represented by GB Law, after her attorneys located a witness to the collision months afterwards.

Relying on their decades of experience handling auto accident cases, GB Law attorneys were able to locate a witness to a crash many months after it occurred. This witness, now living out of state, agreed to testify about what she saw. As a result, this disputed liability case resolved at mediation with a $225,000 settlement for GB Law’s client who had sustained a severe fracture to her ankle in the collision.

$1 Million Dollar Settlement for Motorcycle Accident Victim

After a long battle with a large local corporation, GB Law secured a $900,000 settlement with the employer of the negligent driver who pulled out in front of a motorcyclist. This money, combined with the driver’s $100,000 insurance policy limit, finalized the $1 million dollar resolution for our client.

Attorney Michael Geiser successfully litigated a complicated case in Delaware County, Ohio against the employer of the negligent driver arguing that the employer was liable for the acts of their employee under agency principles of law. The $1 million dollar settlement provided substantial compensation for the injured victim who sustained spinal cord injuries in the motorcycle crash.