[colorado tanker]

What am I missing? We live in an era where it is practically impossible to commit the mentally ill to treatment, but this woman has been restrained by the courts so that she can’t live her own life? OK, she’s quirky, but does that justify depriving her of liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[Veto!]

I actually don’t care one way or the other. I’m a Brittney Who? person. If Cruz cares, that’s OK with me though it seems just a tad inappropriate.

[Jewbacca]

It’s super easy to commit someone if they have the ability to pay massive private care fees.

The private mental health racket is amazing.

Lots of rich kids use it to lock away inconvenient parents.

[RummyChick]

I have had to take care of the finances of a mentally ill person who lived alone.

I could only handle it for a few years. It was a nightmare.

I don’t know who is right or wrong in Britney’s case but it isn’t an easy thing to deal with on both sides.

Had no one stepped in Britney probably would have been broke and dead. She is bad enough that she isn’t allowed around her kids very much. She has no business having another kid.

The boyfriend is rumored to have been seeking advice on how to handle large sums of money.

Whatever happens, he should not be able to touch any of it.

[mmichaels1970]

We live in an era where it is practically impossible to commit the mentally ill to treatment, but this woman has been restrained by the courts so that she can’t live her own life?

My thoughts as well. This is seems equivalent to involuntary commitment.

We either have it, or we don't.

I'd bet if she were just some poor schmo like me, she'd be left to her own devices. Maybe out on the streets, maybe in jail. But there's money to be spread around here.

At the very least, she should have the choice between voluntary commitment where she can receive treatment and be evaluated impartially or remain in conservatorship. I bet I can guess what she'd choose.