Jamie has faced scrutiny for years over his role as Britney’s conservator in the legal arrangement, which came into effect in 2008, shortly after she experienced a public breakdown. It was terminated last November following a strenuous battle.
Speaking out against her father and entire family in court last June, Britney made a series of shocking claims about the terms of the conservatorship, including that she’d been forced to have an IUD against her will. “Ma’am, my dad and anyone involved in this conservatorship and my management who played a key role in punishing me — ma’am, they should be in jail,” she told the judge.
At the time, Jamie vehemently denied the allegations of abuse, stating through his attorney that he was “sorry to see his daughter suffering and in so much pain.” He has continued to deny any wrongdoing.
Now, sitting down with the Daily Mail over the weekend for his first interview about the conservatorship in over a decade, Jamie defended himself against ongoing backlash as he explained why he felt the arrangement was a “great tool.”
“Not everybody’s going to agree with me,” he began. “It’s been one hell of a time. But I love my daughter with all my heart and soul.”
Arguing that Britney’s conservatorship was necessary not just for the sake of her well-being, but also for her relationship with her two sons, Jamie claimed that the singer possibly wouldn’t be “alive” had it not been implemented.
“Where would Britney be right now without that conservatorship? And I don’t know if she’d be alive. I don’t,” he said.
“For protecting her, and also protecting the kids, conservatorship was a great tool. Without it, I don’t think she would have got the kids back,” he said, referencing the fact that Britney’s ex-husband, Kevin Federline, was initially granted full custody of their boys, Jayden and Preston, when she was placed under the arrangement.