I also haven't followed her case in detail but I'm aware of the basics at least. I think that the conservatorship should be ended, and there should be serious consideration if she was enslaved, and related criminal investigation if appropriate (I suspect it is appropriate).
The whole conservatory process needs to be overhauled as well. This case proves the need.
That's the thing, none of it is criminal. That's what so crazy, a conservatorship makes all of it legal.
I suspect that a good lawyer could use the 13th amendment to challenge that. When you look at the situation, it certainly seems that she's a slave. The piece that really nails it for me is that she's been working. If she wasn't able to work, then that would support the argument that it's for her own good. But she's been working and earning money, and lots of it.
As I understand it, a conservatorship essentially makes almost anything (barring physical or extreme mental abuse) legal. As I understand it, she wasn't quite forced to work. That's my impression based on teh fact that recently she came out and said she will not work again until she is free from the conservatorship, which certainly gives the impression she has been able to say that all along. Now, perhaps she was persuaded or threatened. ("If you don't perform every single night of your contract, even if sick, then we won't let you see your boyfriend, we will take away all social media, etc.). When I asked a lawyer friend about that, she said even that may well be legal under the conservatorship. They are allowed to control her social media access "for her own good". So barring true abuse (and again the "mental/emotional/financial abuse" bar would be very, very high for someone who has been deemed incompetent, essentially) I'm not sure what would rise to the level of criminality. Frankly, even if we discover proof in writing that her father wanted the conservatory only to gain access to her money, if he was able to convince the courts her case met the standard for granting a conservatorship, I still don't see how it would be criminal or anything else. Unless he lied to get the conservatorship granted.
So it seems very unlikely that unless they lied to the courts, there is much of a case for anything criminal having happened. It's impossible to say for sure without know all the ins and outs of who did what, but the entire problem, which this case has highlighted beautifully, is that rights as we tend to think of them apply to people who have agency. Once the court removes agency, those rights look very different. They can force her to be on birth control, for example, which is something that can't be done to a person with agency. Her rights shrunk the moment the court gave someone else control over her.
I think that, at a minimum, conservatorships need to be subject to annual review, with the same burden of proof, if the person in question requests that, and that the person needs to be able to have their own representation (and access to the funds, if they exist, to pay that person. Perhaps a standard that at least as much money must be available to pay that lawyer as is used to pay the conservatorship's council.).
There's a special place in hell for someone who starts selling his daughter for money when she's a young girl and keeps at it, with dramatically escalating means, even after seeing all the ways it screwed her up in the first place. To call him a leech is offensive to leeches.