The lawyers for Britney Spears should have never agreed to a drug test. As soon as ordered by the court, Britney's coucil should have admitted to the judge that Britney would not pass a drug test. That would have been one less thing the court can use against her now! Any ideas?
2007-10-04 11:57:13 · 4 answers · asked by Jessica C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Clearly the judge found credible evidence that she had been using/abusing drugs and that this placed the children at risk. When there is credible evidence (not just rumor/hearsay) the judge can order the tests in the best interest of the child. I'm not certain her lawyers "agreed" to it. She was compelled to follow the court's order or risk the courts deciding that her refusal supported the claims and the children were best not in her custody.
Admission to the use would not have been in her best interest (remember..she had been to rehab, so a blatant admission of use AFTER rehab attempts demonstrates limited rehablitative potential.) The court order was probably used to determine if she was currently using or had used recently and whether her present condition warranted removing the children.
2007-10-04 12:58:14 · answer #1 · answered by ironjag 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The idea is to get her healthy.
The reason they agreed, is that because they recognize that a healthy citizen is a good citizen, and a mother in jail can not attend to the other matters she has to attend to.
And jail seems to be where she is headed, and it won't be a paris Hilton day or a Nicole Richie hour either.
2007-10-04 12:10:50 · answer #2 · answered by Barry C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How would admitting to the court that she would not pass make things better? I believe the intent is to show that she is no longer using drugs.
2007-10-04 12:03:56 · answer #3 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no choice. the problem she is facing in court is the judge. he is getting his evidence from tabloids and other media. they need a change of venue
2007-10-04 12:13:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋