What’s Wrong with Britney?

i just want say that brittany through her life in the story and her kids will not forgive what you have done please forgive me for not saying these things before sincerly sonia ill be on tommorow

i really feel bad for brittany i was such a fan i wish i could show her what she could have done sorry brittany

It's not the California Mental Health Code(there is no such thing) It issection 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Doesn't anyone fact check any more?

All I know is I support her and I hope that she gets the help she needs for her kids sake. ALSO I was glad to hear paparazzi was arrested or givin a ticket for chasing Britney! AND Im very upset to see KFed in my FAVORITE TV show One Tree Hill. Im just glad hes playing a bad guy, Britneys responsible for her own actions but I feel he did a good job in helping her bring down her life!

Children not in danger? Supposedly she had "snapped" or was ready to. If this was the scene, and there was guns inthe house, obviously the children WERE in danger!

Having been previously married to someone who was diagnosed from before I met him with bipolar (aka manic depressive disorder), I don't feel Britney necessarily has it. Even though my ex-husband was in and out of mental institutions for most of his childhood and adult life and, when in "treatment" was given potent pharmaceutical cocktails including lithium, I am not convinced this is yet another so-called disorder concocted by the pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs. I think in my ex-husband's case, if he lived a healthy life such as ate something besides twinkies (almost all sugar and no nutrients)--which is what he ate for dinner during his childhood since his mother worked full time-- and when he hit a sugar low, drank alcohol, drugs and/or chain-smoking cigerettes (starting as a pre-teen again because his mother left him alone after school because she worked); but instead simply exercised and ate foods that gave basic nutrients to his brain and body, then he'd be normal. I noticed when I forced him to eat a healthy meal did these healthy things, especially when he ate fatty fishes, he acted completely normal. But, when he took all the medications the mental institutions told him to take, he acted crazy and over time crazier and crazier. I think medications developed by chemical engineers who will admit they don't fully understand the inner workings of the human brain is dangerous--at best. I am not opposed to drugs for mental illness. I do believe some brain chemistries do need to be treated--just like we are forced to treat high blood pressure, etc. once a person is at the point of no return. But, having had first hand experience with a so-called manic-depressive (or bipolar) and spending almost 20 years reading on almost a daily basis about various mental illnesses in a desperate attempt to help my "crazy"-acting ex-husband, I don't believe based on what I read in the newspaper and the videos I've seen that Britney necessarily has it. Nowadays lay people through around all these terms without fully understanding what they mean and without having enough information about a person even if they did have the education to make a correct diagnosis. Let's be careful about labeling people if we are not qualified to do so. I don't respect people like Dr. Phil although I do respect the Psychiatrist who said he and we do not have enough information to properly diagnose Britney with any mental illnesses without a full evaluation. What we do know is that when she was forced into an inpatient environment, they did not determine she was mentally ill or dangerous enough to be held any longer than she was. That is all we know from a professional evaluation. The gossip columns present people in whatever way will sell papers and extremes sell papers--extremes such as presenting a person as "all good" or "all bad" or "all crazy" or ... No one should use gossip columns to make a diagnosis of someone's mental abilities or disabilities.

Thank you to Newsweek for giving an excellent synopsis of the "3 day involuntary commitment". It is one of society's best methods to get help to people who truly need it. They are the people, who a lot of the times, do not even know they need help. They are simply much to sick to be able to figure it out on their own. In many cases, these people have either suicidal depression, bipolar or a form of schizophrenia.

That's what I had in 2002 when I was placed on a "3 day involuntary commitment" in the state of Colorado under the similar Colorado laws there.

I was committed because I was "a risk to myself" at the time. I was administered the drug Zyprexa and it worked incredibly well. It stopped the loud, nonstop, command voices in my head and the intense paranoid delusions running through my mind. At the time, I thought I was being controlled by a top-secret military satellite in the sky. It is hard to believe that the mind can get so sick like that and play such tricks on people.

I was given the diagnosis of "depression with psychotic features". Since then my diagnosis has been revised to "schizo-affective disorder" (S.A.D.) which is a severe form of bipolar with psychotic features. Basically it is a mix of bipolar and paranoid schizophrenia. It is some pretty rough stuff and I am not one to scare easily.

As a way to compare it to other things you might be more familiar with, I also have a shattered C-5 neck vertebrae from a high school football injury, which still gives me chronic neck pain.

I also had Lyme disease for 6 months and was using crutches before I was hospitalized for two weeks and given intravenous antibiotics to cure it.

These two things are like "nice walks in the park" compared to S.A.D.

This "involuntary commitment" was one of the best things which ever happened to me in my life. I now am able to live a pretty full and productive life by taking my medication every day (Zyprexa and Lithium).

You hear others here pooh-pooh this medical device and psychiatric diseases which require it.

That's because they have never had the disease and never had the 3 day lock-down.

Hopefully this procedure will help this lady out and help awaken her from her living nightmare.

Jimmy Stevenson

A well-respected, educated and competant mother who went through a custody battle with children the same age as Britney's, I think a lot of what Britney has been criticized as "proof" that she's a "bad mother" is incorrect. Most of what Britney has done with her children is what even the best of mothers could do. If I were being chased by hundre ds of low-life, unethical, potentially violent photographers, I would instinctively hold my baby close to me and get away--rather than strap him into a car seat in a place where I could not see him and where one of these crazy people could break a window and harm him. I think stapping a child into a back seat is a recent American culture thing that was created intellectually---not considering the instinctive response of a mother. Sure, 99% of the time, I strapped my child into the back seat but it never felt "normal" to me and I had to get used to it. I think Britney's response to hold her baby to her chest and get away from those crazy people--even if that meant drive a block or two with her baby held close--could very well be considered a normal response of a loving mother.

I think any normal mother who loves her children--more than her reputation--would instinctively lock herself in with her children (even in a bathroom, if necessary) rather than hand them over simply because some judge told her to hand her children to someone who she probably feels is not the best parent for her babies. The American family court system is flawed. In this case, this judge obviously makes his decisions based on lies published in the gossip columns. A competent judge would have assigned a guardian ad litem or similar professional to observe BOTH parents. A competent judge would have assigned BOTH parents to random drug testing, including "hair follicle" testing which goes back 3+ months, especially since Kevin clearly has had substance abuse issues in the recent past. Britney is a victim of a flawed custody battle and inadequate legal representation and an incompetant judge who would rather do what makes him look best rather than what is truely best for the children. It is far easier to simply respond to the popular opinion as exhibited in the papers (more interested in making money than getting to the truth and doing what is best for those kids) rather than going against the grain and insisting on finding out the trust and who should be parenting these kids.

I believe most of whats in the papers are lies about Britney. I think Britney is NOT using drugs and any irratic behavior is normal given that she is followed by 100s of people 7/24 and she is the mother of 2 babies which is enough to make even a woman act crazy. I think she has not had a good role mother in parenting so parenting classes are good for ANY new mother.

A well-respected, educated and competant mother who went through a custody battle with children the same age as Britney's, I think a lot of what Britney has been criticized as "proof" that she's a "bad mother" is incorrect. Most of what Britney has done with her children is what even the best of mothers could do. If I were being chased by hundre ds of low-life, unethical, potentially violent photographers, I would instinctively hold my baby close to me and get away--rather than strap him into a car seat in a place where I could not see him and where one of these crazy people could break a window and harm him. I think stapping a child into a back seat is a recent American culture thing that was created intellectually---not considering the instinctive response of a mother. Sure, 99% of the time, I strapped my child into the back seat but it never felt "normal" to me and I had to get used to it. I think Britney's response to hold her baby to her chest and get away from those crazy people--even if that meant drive a block or two with her baby held close--could very well be considered a normal response of a loving mother.

I think any normal mother who loves her children--more than her reputation--would instinctively lock herself in with her children (even in a bathroom, if necessary) rather than hand them over simply because some judge told her to hand her children to someone who she probably feels is not the best parent for her babies. The American family court system is flawed. In this case, this judge obviously makes his decisions based on lies published in the gossip columns. A competent judge would have assigned a guardian ad litem or similar professional to observe BOTH parents. A competent judge would have assigned BOTH parents to random drug testing, including "hair follicle" testing which goes back 3+ months, especially since Kevin clearly has had substance abuse issues in the recent past. Britney is a victim of a flawed custody battle and inadequate legal representation and an incompetant judge who would rather do what makes him look best rather than what is truely best for the children. It is far easier to simply respond to the popular opinion as exhibited in the papers (more interested in making money than getting to the truth and doing what is best for those kids) rather than going against the grain and insisting on finding out the trust and who should be parenting these kids.

I believe most of whats in the papers are lies about Britney. I think Britney is NOT using drugs and any irratic behavior is normal given that she is followed by 100s of people 7/24 and she is the mother of 2 babies which is enough to make even a woman act crazy. I think she has not had a good role mother in parenting so parenting classes are good for ANY new mother.

The children should be allowed to see their mother, period. Brit is a big girl now she's doing her thing. The visits should be supervised by the grandparents who hopefully are not drugged up and are sober. Stop giving publicity to this family and it will all settle down but I guess the media can't exploit them financially if they are quiet and private. In any case, get the kids back in contact with mom.