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 >>

Regardless of the biology, those 3 children knew and loved Michael as their father. They should stay with the Jackson family where they are comfortable and loved by a large family. Katherine Jackson should have custody just as Michael wanted. Despite her age, she is in good health and wants the children. She will obviously have the help and support from Janet, LaToya, and all the brothers. They all love the kids and are part of their family. Giving custody to someone else would cause them to endure further trauma. They are surrounded by a large family who loves them and they have lots of cousins to play with also. I think the nanny that they also loved should have some visitation rights. The Jackson’s would probably not object to that and would probably encourage visits without any formal court orders. Debbie Rowe should back off entirely and should not even have visitation rights. The children don’t have any relationship with her and I don’t think it would be in their best interests to bring her into the situation at all. No one should worry about Joe Jackson being abusive to those kids. He lives in Las Vegas, is much older now, and isn’t pushing to get his family out of poverty. When he does visit, I’m sure they’ll be plenty of family around and they would be just fine. Also, it will help them through the grieving process and feel safe being around their Dad’s immediate family who loved him and will undoubtedly help them through it, share intimate stories, etc. that will help them to heal better and feel closer to him. They are where they belong and I just pray that the judge will feel the same way. I think any other outcome will cause them irreparable harm and emotional distress that would affect them in so many negative ways. They need to feel safe, part of the family, and close to their Daddy. Keep the kids with Katherine Jackson. Michael obviously loved his mother and wanted his children to be with her and have her influence in their lives. That should be respected.

- Lauren Reale

Posted 07/13/09 04:03 AM

Debbie Rowe for the following reasons. She’s the mother plain and simple and it’s a known fact that children that are not raised by their mother or father feel abandonment issues throughout their life. There is still time to reverse what happened. Debbie didn’t have the money to fight Michael in a custody battle. It was a losing battle for her. When Michael was accused of child molestation she again fought for custody. This time she had a little more money, but not all that Michael promised her. He kept her in a financial cocoon. She did not relinquish her rights to the children because it was not fully completed and exhausted by law. Michael could not sustain an adult relationship because he was immature, thus he could only sustain a relationship with his young children. He did an excellent job as evidenced by the children. Katherine Jackson and Diana Ross are too old to raise the children. There is too much greed and instability in the Jackson family. The children will be ruined. Michael was too drugged out to make a good decision regarding custody of his children. He based his decision on emotions and not what was good for the children. I question where the Jackson family was at this time. They should have gotten a court order to have Michael detoxed. Michael had no feelings for Debbie, thus she was never considered for custody of children that are not biologically his. Debbie should keep all 3 of the children together. I say Debbie Rowe. Give the mother back her children. She has suffered enough.

- Sally

Posted 07/26/09 04:36 PM

Comment Page: << 1 2 >>