[Bayard]

I’m gonna say no. It’s the other way around, I understand you have family circumstances. But burden of proof about someone who should have freedom taken from them should not be to prove that they are sane. The burden of proof should be rightly on those who legally desire conservatoship.

[Varda]

They are beyond that point. Whatever she's done in the past has convinced her relatives, psychiatrists and a court that she's not able to take care of herself. That's why there's already a conservatorship.
Now she has to reverse the process but now she only really needs to convince the psychiatrists. The court will side with that opinion. My guess is she's angling for the court to give her another psychiatric team for a new evaluation.

[ScubaDiver]

I think we’ve all forgotten the death spiral she was in. She had NUMEROUS encounters with police that ended with her on 5150 holds. And, these encounters often involved incidents where she was acting unpredictably with her children in her home. There’s a reason that even before this conservatorship was initiated, she had already lost custody of her children and in fact, was only allowed SUPERVISED visits. She was in real danger of being institutionalized on a more permanent basis. The conservatorship was a way to allow her to avoid institutionalized care.

Britney Spears has profound mental health issues. Those issues don’t remediate themselves. They’re life-long. While I agree there is ample evidence that stewards of her conservatorship may need additional oversight from the court or changed altogether, I don’t think anyone should forget how she got where she is.