Who Should Have Custody of Jackson's Kids?

Who Should Have Custody of Jackson's Kids?

Friday, June 26, 2009

filed under: celebrity logic

We were concerned about the well-being of Jackson's kids before the King of Pop died. Now we're REALLY worried.

We didn't see their actual faces for years. Covered in masks or, in the case of the youngest, dangled over a Berlin hotel balcony -- the Jackson kids have led cloistered lives shrouded in secrecy.

Now, with their father Michael Jackson dead at 50 -- the fate of Prince Michael, 12, Paris, 11 and Prince Michael Jackson II aka Blanket, 7, is as mysterious as why the pop icon insisted on sleeping in an oxygen chamber -- and just as strange.

According to reports from TMZ, Debbie Rowe, Micheal's ex-wife, and the mother of the two eldest children, could take custody of the kids she had with Jackson. TMZ says rumors Rowe waived all of her parental rights to her children are false. The site reports, "During the custody fight that Rowe had with Jackson in 2005, she attempted to give up her parental rights, saying Michael was the greatest father ever. Retired Judge Stephen Lachs, who presided over the hearing, initially ruled her rights were terminated ... but then Lachs reversed his decision."

So who will most likely get custody of the children?

Ultimately, says Robin Sax, a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, it will be what a family court determines is in the best interest for the children and what instructions Jackson left, if any, in his will.

However, if Rowe does attempt to get custody, she would most likely be challenged by the Jackson family. That, says Sax, is when the battles would start.

All of their histories will come out. If it's a choice between Joe Jackson, who has been accused of physically abusing his own children or a gold digger who some say 'sold her kids' to Jackson for an $8 million settlement, says Sax, "neither look like stellar choices."

Those suspicious of Rowe's intentions for wanting custody can rest assured she would not get a huge windfall of money from the Jackson estate -- if there is any. "Child support is not for use of the caretaker," clarifies Sax, "it's for them to use for the kids so they'll have to maintain the life they've been accustomed."

Yet another scenario is if the surrogate mother of Blanket suddenly shows up. "The kids could be split, but the preference would be to keep the kids together. If all of sudden the surrogate comes forward, the question is going to be whether that person was at all involved in the children's lives."

Sax hypothesizes Jackson could very well have tapped his nanny to be the children's guardian. But, just because Jackson chooses a custodian, doesn't mean his wishes can't be contested. "It can be easily argued," says Sax, "that he didn't make the decision in 'sound mind and body.'"

Robin Sax is a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes against children. She is the author of six books including "Predators and Child Molesters: What Every Parent Needs to Know To Keep Kids Safe." Robin is a regular legal commentator on Larry King Live, Nancy Grace, Fox News and has a weekly radio show, "Justice Interrupted." Robin lives with her husband and three children in Los Angeles, California.

filed under: celebrity logic

| Bookmark | Permalink |

Email | Comments (22)

22 comments so far | Post a comment now >>

I think a PATERNITY TEST should be done on ALL three of those children to PROVE they are actually Michael Jackson’s. And before all the DNA is lost and most importantly before they get a dime. There mothers already got millions. MAKE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THEY ARE HIS FIRST, NOW PLEASE!!!!!

- Dora

Posted 06/26/09 05:53 PM

According to the LAW he is their LEGAL FATHER regardless of paternity they are his heirs u dimwit. He claimed them as his own and signed their birth certificates case closed. Goodness people are so ignorant when emotional.

- Nina Simone

Posted 06/26/09 06:50 PM

Dear Dora; You’re no dimwit. You are so right - I never thought of that before. There’s a possibility that they share NO DNA w/ Jackson. I don’t know that it would matter, thought, cause they’ve only known him as a parent, poor things. I would hope that Rowe would get at least shared custody with the nanny. Let’s face it, the nanny in these situations is more parent than the parents; they’re the ones doing the actual parental WORK, feeding, taking to school, dr’s visits, taking care of them when they’re sick, playing w/ them, helping w/ homework, etc. It’s a tough situation, any way you look at it. Let’s hope madonna doesn’t try to buy them…

- sue

Posted 06/26/09 08:34 PM

There’s two mothers involved - Debbie Rowe, mother of the first Prince Michael and the daughter. It’s an “unknow” women who is the mother of the second Prince Michael whom Michael Jackson referred to as “blanket”. It’s unlikely the the unknown mother would get custody as she was a surrogate and I assumed signed away all parental rights. Debbie Rowe fought and won in court for her parental rights but because MJ moved out of country and been living over seas and in the middle east in or most of the last seveal years, she was not able to actually enforce her visitation rights. At least now the children have a better chance of being given a normal life.

- Chrissy

Posted 06/27/09 06:02 AM

Are you kidding? A ‘normal’ life for these children???? Wow..these kids will NEVER have anything even resembling a ‘normal life’ with the way our world is today. NEVER!! Media will not leave them alone. People will fight for custody of them for a nickle and attorneys will be struggling with our wonderful legal system on this for years!! They will be OLD before it ever gets any settlement..if it ever does. OLDDDDDDDDDDD!!

- Tina

Posted 06/27/09 05:26 PM

I think Debbie Rowe should get custody of all three. I know she’s not the biological mother of the youngest but it would be very sad to see them split up but more than likely she will get custody of the older two since she is their biological mother.

- mercaties

Posted 06/28/09 04:12 AM

Most likely the two oldest will go to their biololgical mother Debbie Rowe but I’d like to see her take custody of the youngest one also. He allready lost his dad he shouldn’t have to be seperated from his brother and sister also.

- mercaties

Posted 06/28/09 04:16 AM

Paternity tests need to be done on these 3 kids. It does matter who a biological parent is (or is not), if only from the stand point of these kids KNOWING the truth. If not now, someday they will want to know. These children have NO Michael Jackson or even African American features what-so-ever!

- AJ

Posted 06/29/09 08:57 AM

Seriously people. I does not matter who the biological parents are. They are Michael’s children legally. If the children want to know then I am sure that there is paperwork with the answers for them. But the children should go to whomever Michael has stated that they should go to. There is no way a person in his position does not have a will stating his wishes. He is there father and I am sure he would appoint the best person to take care of them.

- EF

Posted 06/30/09 11:53 AM

As if these children, who, btw, are CLEARLY not of his DNA,didn’t have a bizarre life BEFORE - NOW, look where they are. Isn’t that the same environment that began mj’s descent into ‘neverland’? The only reason those kids are there is MONEY. Just ask sharpton, who has ALREADY ensconsed himself into the family circus, and probably helping them ‘look for the suitcases’. Those sad little faces (I’m talking about prior to jackson’s death)already show a struggle to have any sort of normalcy. I pray for them.

- min

Posted 06/30/09 08:34 PM

I don’t think Michael’s Children should stay with Katherine Jackson or any of the Jackson’s family. They have not given the late Michael Jackson the warmth and love which he deserves since his birth. While MJ will always remain in our memories as the King of Pop and one of the most talented musicians in the world, he has a sad, tragic life. He has been a good and kind man who happened to be unfortunately born into a family (who has emotionally abused or made use of him till his death). MJ’s children are as innocent as MJ himself. For the sake of their wellbeing and better upbringing (to avoid heading into the tragic life of MJ in their adulthood), they must not live with MJ’s family. Either their nanny or Debbie should take custody of MJ’s children.

- Anne

Posted 07/02/09 05:15 AM

Did you guys know that MJ’s scum father Joe Jackson has been left of MJ’s will? While he was beating MJ in his childhood, he called MJ “big nose”. What a father…goodness sake??!! Katherine allowed her spouse to abuse her children emotionally and take their sanity away. His father might have been really very harsh, most to MJ. But if you’re MJ as a child, how do you feel being called “big nose” while your father hit you with a switch or belt even for the slightest mistake that he thought you committed?? This is a form of emotional scarring in one’s life - this was what prompted MJ to have excessive Plastic surgery. His skin disease was making matters worse. Though we don’t know what kind of person Debbie is, but I am sure she is definitely more sane with MJ’s money digger Parents. And she could give the kids a normal life. Janet Jackson could also be a better guardian than Katherine (who never stop her husband abusing her poor children). I have a strong gut feeling that the will was manipulated or altered not to MJ’s true intention or favour (but more to the benefit of his parents - first for his mother as the beneficiary of the Jackson family trust - the father might even have access to it later on (even though he was never mentioned in the will.) I pray for MJ’s children and hope they will go to the right hands. Whether he is their bio Dad or not, MJ’s fans should also love them as much as they love MJ (since MJ doted on them as his own children). Since he has passed away, they deserve to continue their normal childhood - but with MJ’s parents, they would never. Read recent news - Joe Jackson will be promoting his new record label during the coming BET records which also pay tribute to MJ. He is definitely an opportunistic father and I won’t be surprised if Katherine is not any different.

- Anne

Posted 07/02/09 05:33 AM

I had always thought joe jackson was just excruciatingly hideous because of the trademark jackson nose job(s) and overly groomed eyebrows. He’s pretty difficult to look at for more than 2 seconds. But now I see why he is truly ugly - it comes from deep within his soul. I would love to meet him, alone, just for ten minutes (ever see the ‘Twilight Zone’, in which the nazi, upon visiting Auschwitz, feels all the pain and torture that he put the prisoners through???)Michael Jackson was absolutely no hero, or role model; he was an entertainer, whose heyday was 20 yrs. ago, who may or may not have been a pedophile,but was nevertheless, quite bizarre, in my opinion. Anyone who would in essence, ‘buy embryos’ (who, are now, unfortunate pawns in this nightmarish circle that is mj and friends), is not the sort of person, on top of anything else he’s done, who should be lauded and praised anymore than the other celebrities who’ve been passing as of late. All of them, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, Karl Malden, and Billy May, are just as important to those who loved them, or were fans.Yet, we barely see any print on them. The missing component, I guess, is the abundance of tabloid jackpot nuggets of ‘information’ we have with jackson. To realize, however, what probably made him, and some of his siblings, that way, were the sad excuses for parents,one psychotic, one allowing psychosis, makes me feel pity for him, and maybe relief that his pain is over.These are not ‘people’ you want around children, in my opinion. There’s really no good placement for them, based on the only info we have about all the sick players in this game. I pray for these babies, and I hope they emerge intact.

- mom s

Posted 07/02/09 05:08 PM

Read Linda Stasi’s article in the NY Post (7/2)It is absolutely brilliant, enlightening, and a breath of fresh air in the midst of this suffocating adulation and frenzy

- she got it right

Posted 07/02/09 05:45 PM

What gets me mad is that Debby Rowe has to “think about it” if she wants the children. They are human beings and not some animals or objects. What does she have to think about.

- Sue

Posted 07/05/09 06:10 PM

LEAVE the kids alone,they have lost the man they call DADDY and now everyone want’s to fight over them,LEAVETHEN IN THE PLACE AND PEOPLE THEY KNOW AS FAMILEY

- ROSEBUD

Posted 07/08/09 10:55 PM

Also DO NOT SPLIT the kids up

- Rosebud

Posted 07/08/09 10:58 PM

i say janet shud keep the kids. Did you guys see the way she comforted paris when she was on stage….thts my opinion. If you dnt lyk it……kick rocks!!!!!

- Ekemini

Posted 07/10/09 09:59 PM

I never saw so many hands on a person at one time, like they were competing over who was consoling her more. What a show; it made so so uncomfortable! I couldn’t watch more than five minutes, and that is five minutes I’l never get back.

- terrible

Posted 07/12/09 11:16 AM

DEBBIE ROWE SHOULD NOTTTT TAKE THE KIDS, WILL NOT DO ANYTHING GOOD FOR ANYONE. THESE KIDS ARE HUMAN &&THEY ARE GOING TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING, IF THEY GET TAKEN AWAY FROM THE JACKSON[WHICH IS THEIR CLOSES FAMILY]IT COULD MESS UP THEIR LIFE,&&LEFT FEELING HURT!!!!!!!!BUT I DO THINK THAT JANET SHOULD TAKE THEM, I KNOW SHE CAN BE A GOOD MOTHER TOO THOSE KIDS….P.S LOVE THE JACKSON FAMILY, I JUST PRAY FOR JOE JACKSON

- EMME

Posted 07/12/09 10:37 PM