Britney Spears’s conservator condemns singer’s father for ‘misrepresenting’ conversation about placing star under psychiatric hold

Jodi Montgomery asked Jamie Spears, once again, to step down from daughter’s conservatorship

Britney Spears says 'things are better than expected' amid conservatorship legal battle

Britney Spears’s conservator, Jodi Montgomery, has condemned the singer’s father Jamie for allegedly “misrepresenting” a conversation the pair had about the star’s mental health.

Jamie had claimed that Montgomery had described his daughter as “mentally sick” and told him she wanted to place Britney under a 5150 psychiatric hold. 5150 is the number of the section of the Welfare and Institutions Code in the US, which allows a person with a mental illness to be detained against their will for a 72-hour psychiatric hospitalisation.

Now, in a statement obtained by Variety, Montgomery has defended herself over Jamie’s claims and asked him, once again, to step down from his daughter’s conservatorship and “work on a healthy, supportive father-daughter relationship”.

“Ms Montgomery implores Mr Spears to stop the attacks,” the statement said. “It does no good; it only does harm. We all need to focus on one thing, and one thing only – the health, well-being and best interests of Britney Spears.”

Jamie is the conservator of Britney’s estate, managing all financial decisions, while Montgomery is the singer’s conservator of her person, managing all personal and medical decisions.

An attorney for Montgomery, Laurieann Wright, also told Variety: “Ms Montgomery does have concerns about Ms Spears’ ‘recent behaviour and overall mental health’, as set forth in Jamie Spears’s Declaration dated August 6, 2021. Due to medical privacy, Ms Montgomery cannot go into those concerns with any further detail except to say that having her father Jamie Spears continuing to serve as her Conservator instead of a neutral professional fiduciary is having a serious impact on Ms Spears’s mental health.”

Montgomery denies claims that she suggested the singer be placed under a psychiatric hold.

“Mr Spears’s declaration misrepresents what Ms Montgomery said to him in relation to a potential 5150 psychiatric hold for Ms Spears,” the statement said. “At no time did Ms. Montgomery express to Mr Spears that Ms Spears would currently qualify for such a hold.

“The concern that Ms Montgomery did raise to Mr Spears during their telephone call is that forcing Ms Spears to take the stand to testify or to have her evaluated would move the needle in the wrong direction for her mental health.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in