He was using her fortune to argue for the right to control her fortune.
Durante trece años, Britney Spears ha vivido bajo una tutela legal que entregó el control de su vida y su fortuna a su padre, Jamie Spears. Los documentos judiciales revelan ahora que él utilizó más de 1,7 millones de euros del propio dinero de su hija para defender legalmente ese control, mientras ella recibía una asignación mensual mínima de su propio patrimonio de más de 50 millones. En junio de 2021, Britney habló ante un juez en Los Ángeles y describió una existencia marcada por la depresión y la rabia, poniendo en palabras lo que los documentos confirman en cifras: una estructura de protección que, en la práctica, funcionó como una forma de sometimiento.
- Jamie Spears gastó más de 1,7 millones de euros del dinero de su hija para pagar abogados que defendieran su derecho a seguir controlándola, una paradoja que la administradora Jodi Montgomery calificó abiertamente de 'irónica'.
- Britney declaró ante el tribunal en junio de 2021 que lloraba cada día, que no podía dormir y que se sentía profundamente deprimida, poniendo rostro humano a lo que los documentos legales describen en términos financieros.
- La administradora Montgomery desmontó la narrativa de que actuaba de forma independiente: cada gasto requería la aprobación del padre, y algunas de las angustias de Britney provenían directamente de peticiones denegadas.
- En cuestión de días, el abogado de Britney, su mánager de veinticinco años y la firma de inversión Bessemer Trust abandonaron el caso, señal de que el andamiaje de la tutela comenzaba a desmoronarse.
- La tutela, que parecía inamovible tras trece años, enfrenta ahora una presión creciente desde dentro y desde fuera, con múltiples actores retirándose en señal de respeto a la voluntad expresa de la artista.
El 23 de junio de 2021, Britney Spears compareció ante la jueza Brenda Penny en Los Ángeles y describió su vida con una franqueza que resultó devastadora: depresión, insomnio, llanto diario. Lo que estaba describiendo era el coste humano de una tutela legal establecida en 2008 que había entregado el control casi absoluto de su vida y su patrimonio —más de 60 millones de dólares— a su padre, Jamie Spears, quien cobraba 16.000 dólares mensuales por ello mientras su hija tenía acceso a apenas 2.000.
Los documentos presentados por Jodi Montgomery, la administradora encargada de los asuntos personales y médicos de la cantante, revelaron una dimensión adicional de esa paradoja: Jamie Spears había utilizado más de dos millones de dólares del propio dinero de Britney para financiar su defensa legal y así mantener el control sobre ese mismo dinero. La abogada de Montgomery lo señaló sin rodeos ante el tribunal: resultaba 'irónico' que Jamie Spears invocara los deseos de su hija cuando llevaba años siendo, precisamente, lo que ella quería alejar de su vida.
Montgomery también refutó la idea de que hubiera actuado de manera autónoma. Los documentos dejaban claro que ningún gasto podía realizarse sin la aprobación del padre, y que algunas de las preocupaciones expresadas por Britney tenían su origen directo en peticiones que él había rechazado. La administradora añadió que Britney deseaba elegir a su propio abogado sin someterse a una nueva evaluación médica, un deseo que, después de trece años bajo supervisión judicial, aún requería ser litigado.
El contexto en que llegaron estos documentos resultaba elocuente. En pocos días, el abogado de Britney había renunciado, su mánager de veinticinco años se había retirado alegando el deseo de ella de alejarse de los escenarios, y Bessemer Trust —la firma de inversión que co-supervisaba su patrimonio junto al padre— había pedido ser apartada del caso para respetar la voluntad de la artista. Una estructura que había parecido inamovible durante más de una década comenzaba, por fin, a ceder.
Britney Spears has been fighting to dismantle a legal arrangement that has governed her life for thirteen years. On June 23, 2021, she stood before a judge in Los Angeles and told the truth about what that arrangement had cost her. "I'm not happy, I can't sleep. I'm very angry and depressed. I cry every day," she said to Judge Brenda Penny. What she was describing was a conservatorship—a legal structure that had placed nearly complete control of her life and her money into the hands of her father, Jamie Spears.
The conservatorship, established in 2008, gave her father authority over an estate worth more than $60 million. He received a monthly salary of $16,000 for this work. His daughter, meanwhile, was restricted to spending $2,000 per month. Every significant financial decision, every use of her own money, had to pass through him. It was a relationship of total financial dependence, dressed in the language of legal protection.
Now, court documents filed by Jodi Montgomery, the administrator overseeing Britney's personal and medical affairs, reveal the full weight of what her father spent to keep that arrangement intact. According to the filing, Jamie Spears used more than $2 million of his daughter's own money—roughly €1.7 million—to pay for his legal defense in the fight to maintain his guardianship. He was, in effect, using her fortune to argue for the right to control her fortune. Montgomery's attorney, Lauriann Wright, presented the documents to the Los Angeles court with a pointed observation: it was "ironic" that Jamie Spears wanted the conservatorship to "reflect his daughter's wishes" when, as Montgomery noted, "it is no secret that Ms. Spears has desired her father out of her life for years."
Montgomery's filing also pushed back against suggestions that she had been making decisions without Jamie Spears's involvement. The reality, she argued, was the opposite. Every expenditure that touched the singer's funds required his approval. "No expenses can be incurred without going through Mr. Spears," the document stated. But not all requests for spending had been approved, Montgomery added, and some of Britney's stated concerns stemmed directly from those denials. The administrator also noted that Britney wanted to choose her own lawyer without undergoing another medical evaluation—a reasonable request after thirteen years under court supervision, but one that required fighting for in court.
The timing of Montgomery's filing was significant. Just days earlier, Sam Ingham, Britney's attorney, had resigned from the case. Before that, Larry Rudolph, who had managed her career for twenty-five years, stepped down, citing her stated desire to step back from performing. Most tellingly, Bessemer Trust, the investment firm that jointly supervised her estate alongside her father, had asked to be removed from the conservatorship entirely, saying it wanted to "respect" the artist's wishes. The structure that had seemed permanent was beginning to crack. Each departure was a small signal that the people around Britney Spears were finally listening to what she had been saying all along.
Notable Quotes
I'm not happy, I can't sleep. I'm very angry and depressed. I cry every day.— Britney Spears, testimony to Judge Brenda Penny, June 23, 2021
It is no secret that Ms. Spears has desired her father out of her life for years.— Jodi Montgomery's filing, through attorney Lauriann Wright
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did it take thirteen years for anyone to seriously question whether this arrangement was serving her interests?
Because conservatorships are supposed to protect vulnerable people. Once one is in place, there's an assumption of legitimacy. It takes the person inside it—and people willing to listen to them—to break that assumption.
But her father was spending her money to defend his right to control her money. How is that legal?
It is legal, technically. The conservator controls the estate, so they can draw from it for legal costs related to the conservatorship itself. But legality and ethics aren't the same thing. That's what Montgomery's filing was really saying.
What changed in June 2021 that made her speak up so directly?
We don't know exactly. But sometimes people reach a breaking point. Thirteen years is a long time to live under someone else's control, especially when that someone is your parent. Her testimony was raw—she wasn't performing, wasn't filtering. She was just telling the truth about her suffering.
If so many people were withdrawing—the lawyer, the manager, the investment firm—why was her father still fighting to stay?
Control is its own logic. Once you have it, letting it go feels like losing everything, even if what you're controlling isn't really yours to begin with.
What happens next?
That's the question everyone was watching. With her own lawyer gone, her manager gone, and the investment firm stepping back, the conservatorship was suddenly exposed. The judge would have to decide whether to end it or find new people to run it. Either way, the structure that had seemed unshakeable was finally being questioned.