The controversy surrounding Wendy Williams deepens as her court-appointed guardian, Sabrina Morisy, files a complaint challenging the recent documentary series about the television personality. Allegations of exploitation and misrepresentation have emerged, prompting a legal dispute over Williams’ portrayal and the circumstances surrounding the documentary’s production.

Williams, who was diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia in May 2023, was reportedly depicted in the documentary as sporadic, confused, and reckless. Despite her medical condition, which affects her cognitive abilities, Williams was credited as an executive producer of the series, raising ethical concerns about consent and representation.

The complaint, filed in the New York State Supreme Court on February 21st, accuses A&E Networks and Big Fish Entertainment, the producers of the four-episode series, of exploiting Williams’ vulnerable state without proper consent. Morisy argues that Williams’ condition prevented her from consenting to the film and asserts that no one acting in Williams’ best interest would have approved such a project for release.

Mark Ford, executive producer of the documentary, responded to the allegations, stating that the production team was unaware of Williams’ dementia diagnosis when filming began. He emphasized that the project was undertaken with the support of Williams’ family and management, believing it would shed light on her struggles with alcoholism, health issues, and financial difficulties following the end of her popular daytime television show.

The legal dispute underscores broader concerns about guardianship arrangements and the rights of individuals with significant health challenges. Wells Fargo, Williams’ bank, had previously raised concerns about her capacity and susceptibility to financial exploitation, leading to her temporary financial guardianship in 2022.

The complaint further alleges that Williams’ guardianship was not consulted or informed about the documentary project, including critical decisions such as relinquishing doctor-patient privileges and controlling the outcome of the film. Morisy asserts that the documentary’s trailer was released without her prior knowledge or consent, portraying Williams in a negative light that she claims does not accurately represent the television star’s true character.

As the legal battle unfolds, the case raises important questions about informed consent, media representation, and the responsibilities of guardianship. Supporters and critics alike await the outcome of this dispute, hoping for clarity and justice in the handling of Wendy Williams’ legacy and well-being.