Out of Control

Paris Hilton’s parents enrolled her in the best schools. Not all of Hilton’s schooling was conventional: she attended a finishing school for New York socialites; and, until she turned 18, she was incarcerated in the exclusive Provo Canyon School, whose long list of special services included ‘transportation’, a practice in which two ‘transporters’ abducted enrollees from their homes and delivered to Provo troubled teens who would not willingly attend Provo.

As a parent of two (one of each) I have frequently questioned my parenting skills over the last 24 years. Paris Hilton's story has made me look closer at the subject of parental control.

Parents and schools have been taxed by troubled teens for millennia. From Plato’s The Republic: ‘The father accustoms himself to become like his child and fears his sons, while the son likens himself to his father and feels neither shame nor fear in front of his parents, so he may be free…such trifles do add up: the teacher, in such a case, fears his pupils and fawns upon them, while the pupils have in low esteem their teachers as well as their overseers; and, overall the young copy the elders and contend hotly with them in words and in deeds, while the elders, lowering themselves to the level of the young, sate themselves with pleasantries and wit, mimicking the young in order not to look unpleasant and despotic.’

In 1982, Victoria Gillick began legal proceedings which eventually reached the House of Lords in 1985. Gillick, a Roman Catholic who at the beginning of her action had four daughters under the age of 16 and another daughter not yet born, had written to her local health authority ‘for a written assurance that in no circumstances will any of my daughters be given contraceptive or abortion treatment whilst they are under 16…without my prior knowledge, and irrefutable evidence of my consent.’?When Gillick did not get the assurance she wanted (the reply was ‘it would be most unusual to provide advice about contraceptive advice without parental consent…but the final decision must be for the doctor’s clinical judgement’), she wrote again.?‘I formally FORBID any medical staff…to give any contraceptive or abortion advice or treatment whatsoever…while they are under 16 years, without my consent.’

The local health authority stuck to its position and Gillick began court proceedings which sought declarations, including one ‘that no doctor or other professional person employed…either in the Family Planning Service or otherwise may give any contraceptive and/or abortion advice and/or treatment to any child of the plaintiff below the age of 16 without the prior knowledge and/or consent of the said child's parent or guardian.’

The House of Lords considered three key moments in the life of a teenager. The age of 14 is significant because it is the age at which a child is deemed to be capable of crime. 18 is the age of majority. And the age of 16, perhaps the most troublesome of the teen years, is the legal age of consent for sex in England (this all kicked off because Gillick was incensed when she read government guidelines in a pamphlet which said that contraceptive services should be available to girls irrespective of age).

The age of 16 seems to have held a long significance, especially for girls. The Lords in the Gillick case made passing reference to the Abduction Act 1557 (since repealed) which dealt with ‘the position of heiresses who were sought to be taken in marriage by persons who were after their fortunes.’ It turns out that the forced marriage of teenagers by abduction was common in medieval Europe, especially the abduction of wealthy heiresses, but in 1557, the legislators were concerned not about the abductee, but about the fate of their property. The age of 16 is still a focus of attention today, with an announcement from the government to raise the minimum legal age of marriage to 18 in England and Wales.

Five Lords were handed the difficult Gillick case, one of ‘social issues…entangled with legal issues’. They stuck steadfastly to their task and they reached a decision with a narrow majority of 3:2. As for the majority view, they found that the absurd implication of Gillick’s argument was that a girl (or boy) under 16 had no capacity to consent to ‘medical examination of some trivial injury… or even to have a broken arm set.’ The Lords reassured the public that a child under 18 did not remain ‘under the complete control of his parents’ until 18 suddenly to acquire independence’ and that ‘most wise parents relax their control gradually as the child develops’.

Gillick was left with the hope that none of her five daughters would feel the need to seek medical advice on contraception before they were 16 or that they would feel able to confide in her (or that she would be informed when they failed the Gillick competency test – which had been the result of the Lords’ decision in 1985 – on seeking professional advice without her knowledge). The gift of the Lords’ decision in 1985 became what is known commonly in child services as the test of Gillick competency. Now, the Gillick competency test applies not only to advice and treatment that relates to contraception and sexual health, but also in a wider context to help assess whether a child has the maturity to make their own decisions, to understand the implications of those decisions and applies so that young people can refuse medical treatment as well as request it.

In Hilton’s 2020 documentary film, This is Paris, Hilton and her sister, Nicky, mused over the possible motives for their parents’ decision to pay for their daughter to be transported to and detained at Provo. Hilton acknowledges to her sister that she put her parents through hell and her mother (caught on camera of course) explains that she and Hilton’s father were constantly concerned that Hilton was a target for kidnap (and ransom perhaps) but that, had they known what had been going on at Provo, they would have removed Hilton immediately.

How does England approach the problem? Short of criminal or medical legal intervention, the law in England prevents a parent from consenting to a ‘placement that deprives a young person aged 16 or 17 of their liberty’ (which would contravene Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights). As to the fate of a child of under 16, the law isn’t so clear, but the existence of the Gillick competency test would suggest that a parent cannot override a child’s decision and authorise confinement.

Hilton made a nervous (televised) appearance before Utah’s Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee in February 2021. Hilton had been ascribed an inmate number at Provo, 127, and, by coincidence, the Senate Bill supported by Hilton, was Senate Bill number 127. Hilton was one of several witnesses who gave moving testimony to the Committee that concerned their abuse at the hands of organisations in the ‘troubled teen’ or ‘tough love’ industry in the US, a mostly unregulated industry that involves for-profit companies who promise parents and care authorities to fix drug addiction, mental illness and attitude problems.

Hilton is now 40. She has suffered recurring nightmares that appear to stem from her abduction by and detention at Provo, where she was subjected to abuse that included strangulation. Just as troubling is Hilton’s inability to break the stranglehold of her own brand (at the end of This is Paris she considers what it would cost to end that ‘relationship’). Hilton was brought up in a conservative family, but one that controlled the direction of her life, quietly at first, then loudly, and publicly, when Hilton discovered a passion for nightclubbing at the age of 13, followed by 11 months of silence when, aged 17, she was finally taken to Provo, where she remained until she turned 18. Hilton’s involvement with the Utah Senate hearing is one part of her ongoing campaign that lends her considerable social media weight to the Break Code Silence movement, which aims to expose abuse in the troubled teen industry in the US.

The theme of control has pervaded Hilton’s life story. Hilton thought that she had regained control of her life at 18 when she created a brand that has made her worth a reputed $300 million. But she has evidently fought ever since to strike a balance in her private life (of which there is very little). There is a scene in This is Paris in which Hilton takes her new boyfriend to Belgium on a working trip (Hilton is making a lucrative DJ appearance at the Tomorrowland music festival). They have a huge bust-up and their relationship is over. Evidently, the boyfriend had been trying to help Hilton carve out some time for herself, by encouraging her to turn down work, but pushing that agenda didn’t go well for him, moments before Hilton walked on stage for her DJ set. Hilton controls and is controlled by her own brand.

Control is also at the centre of Britney Spears’ life. 39 year old Spears is close in age to Hilton, and has been on public display for as long as Hilton. Spears addressed a Los Angeles courtroom on 23 June 2021 about a conservatorship in place – an arrangement concerning her financial and medical affairs that has controlled her life since 2008. In 2018, Spears was being threatened by her own management to force her to participate in a tour followed by a new show at Las Vegas. Spears snapped. She had been working solidly for four years at this point. Her management suggested she get legal advice but, in a Catch-22, the existence of the conservatorship meant that, in parallel, she was under the control of a court-appointed lawyer, with a vested interest in prolonging the conservatorship.

Spears, who described herself in her statement to the court as ‘powerful’ was powerless to prevent the control of a father who supported therapies and medication (including lithium) forced on her. The work schedule imposed on Spears left her little time to see her children or her boyfriend.

In her statement, Spears referred to Paris Hilton’s account of her abuse at Provo. Spears didn’t believe the Hilton account and therefore didn’t expect anyone to believe Spears’ own account.?Whether or not people believe everything Spears has to say in her statement, the fact is plain: she has worked as a cash cow for 13 years, controlled by her conservator (her father for most of that time apart from a period during which he was ill). Spears pointed out the blindingly obvious to the court when she said: ‘…it makes no sense for the state of California to sit back and literally watch me with their own two eyes, make a living for so many people…and be told, I’m not good enough. I would honestly like to sue my family’. Spears was asking the court for permission to speak to the press (something the conservatorship prohibited); she wasn’t even aware that this statement to the court, made by telephone, would be heard by the public.

Spears also explained to the court that she wanted to end the conservatorship without further evaluation. Spears had apparently done her own research (her court appointed lawyer since 2008 had not been very forthcoming about her options and by now had resigned from his appointment) and believed that the court had the power to help her. Spears expressed a willingness to attend therapy on her own terms and she wanted the freedom to get married and have another child.

The terms of Spears’ conservatorship are not public. Because of the press interest in her life we know that Spears suffered a breakdown in 2008 and went willingly into psychiatric care twice for mental health evaluation. As to exactly what has happened in the 13 years since 2008, perhaps Spears will be one day be free to tell us.

With a 17 year old daughter about to leave home for university, I will continue to look on, with equal amounts of fascination and horror, as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears fight to regain control of their lives, but I am convinced I was right when I decided that, from the moment my children demonstrated the maturity to make their own decisions, I would let them.?

Andrew Carrier

27 June 2021???