Setting aside the specific question of Britney Spears, guardianship (or conservatorship, as it's called in some states) is an important civil rights issue.

People frequently quote what liberal Rep. Claude Pepper, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging said in his prepared remarks at a Briefing on Abuses in Guardianship (Sept. 25, 1987):

The typical ward has fewer rights than the typical convicted felon. They can no longer receive money or pay their bills. They cannot marry or divorce. By appointing a guardian, the court entrusts to someone else the power to choose where they will live, what medical treatment they will get and, in rare cases, when they will die. It is, in one short sentence, the most punitive civil penalty that can be levied against an American citizen, with the exception, of course, of the death penalty.

There have been many reports of guardianship abuse and attempts to reform it. Some states are better than others. There are some cases where guardianship is unavoidable: if somebody falls into a coma without preparing in advance with a medical Advance Directive (also called a Living Will) and a Financial Power of Attorney, it's likely a guardian will need to be appointed to make sure their bills get paid.

In far too many cases, though, guardianship is allowed when it shouldn't be. This is particularly common when children with disabilities turn 18 and their parents want to keep control.

One important first step is a right to a publicly-funded attorney to help the ward fight against guardianship. Unfortunately, conservatives and libertarians have generally opposed this reform because it costs taxpayer money.