Update: Katherine Jackson Given Temporary Custody of MJ’s Kids.

- By Bossip Staff Categories: Babies, Baby Mama Drama, For the Children

deborah rowe

We just received word that Katherine Jackson has been given legal guardianship status of Jackson’s three children. Round 1 goes to the Jackson family.

Pop the top for more

Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson’s mother, has been granted temporary guardianship of Michael’s three kids.

A hearing is set for next Monday on the matter.

Source

You all knew this was going to get uglier than it already is, didn’t you? Deborah Rowe is trying to take the meal tickets/kids away from the Jackson family.

Michael Jackson’s mother, Katherine, is taking care of the singer’s three children and the family will go to court…… Monday in part to protect her rights to custody, the family’s spokesman said Monday. Londell McMillan, the Jacksons’ attorney, said the family hasn’t heard from Deborah Rowe, the mother of Jackson’s two oldest children, about custody. “I don’t think there will be anybody who thinks that there is someone better” than Katherine Jackson to have custody, McMillan said on NBC’s “Today” show. “She is a very loving host of other grandchildren.”

Jackson left behind three children: Michael Joseph Jackson Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, 11; and Prince Michael II, 7. The youngest son was born to a surrogate mother.Given the secrecy surrounding Michael Jackson’s children throughout his life, it’s no surprise that there are lingering questions about who will care for them after his death. What is almost certain is this: Their fate will be decided in a courtroom. Experts say the person who has the strongest legal claim to Jackson’s two oldest children is Rowe. As for the youngest child, Jackson’s wishes will be more influential. It remains unclear who Jackson designated as potential guardians for his children. Those details — likely contained in the 50-year-old singer’s will — have not been released.

Rowe’s attorney, Marta Almli, wrote in a statement Saturday that “Ms. Rowe’s only thoughts at this time have been regarding the devastating loss Michael’s family has suffered. Ms. Rowe requests that Michael’s family, and particularly the children, be spared such harmful, sensationalist speculation and that they be able to say goodbye to their loved one in peace.”

Jackson never told his family who he had in place to handle his business affairs, a person close to the family told The Associated Press on Friday. The person, who requested anonymity because of the delicate nature of the situation, said they were told by the singer’s phalanx of advisers that he likely had a will, but it may be many years old. Prince Michael II’s mother has never been identified, and while she may surface, it is likely that she signed away her rights, said Stacy Phillips, a Los Angeles divorce attorney who has represented numerous high-profile clients.

Jackson was by several accounts an attentive and loving father. “He was a great father,” said Raymone Bain, Jackson’s former publicist and general manager. “Those kids knew three and four languages. Even the little one. They were well mannered and sweet. I can’t imagine these children without him.” He was extremely protective of his children, who weren’t often seen in public, and were photographed wearing veils, masks or other items covering their faces when they were.

Rowe, a former nurse for Jackson’s dermatologist, married Jackson in 1996 but filed for divorce in 1999. She later gave up her custody rights to the children, but petitioned to have those rights restored in 2003 after Jackson was arrested on child molestation charges, and an appeals court sided with her. Jackson and Rowe apparently agreed in 2006 regarding her rights, but the terms have never been disclosed. The couple’s divorce case that was heard in Los Angeles Superior Court remains closed. Phillips said if her parental rights remain intact, she’s presumed to be first in line to receive custody of her two children. “That could still be contested,” she added. Rowe would have to undergo an evaluation by the court to determine if she’s the best person to care for Jackson’s children. So, too, would anyone else who applies to become the children’s guardian — some of whom may have Jackson’s blessing. “If he did indicate a preference, that will be given great weight, but that will not be determinative,” said Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred. “Children are not property, they cannot be willed to another person.”

Allred agreed that Rowe has better legal standing than others who apply for custody of Jackson’s eldest children. “She’s definitely going to have an advantage.” But judges in California often take into account who is left in the children’s lives with a strong bond, said Charlotte Goldberg, a family law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “It’s really a balance between continuity and stability and a biological relationship,” Goldberg said. A judge deciding the matter may even seek input in chambers from Jackson’s children about who they feel comfortable with, she said. But a court will also take into account with whom the children have a relationship bond, and that may not work in Rowe’s favor. She wrote in a 2001 petition to sever her parental rights that she thought Jackson was doing a good parenting job.

“Michael has been a wonderful father to the children, and I do not wish to share any parenting responsibilities with Michael because he is doing so well without me,” Rowe wrote. She also indicated in court filings during the 2006 custody struggle that she had not seen the children since 2005, shortly after his trial ended in acquittal on all charges and Jackson moved the children overseas. It is unclear how often Rowe has seen the children since Jackson returned to the Los Angeles area in recent months to prepare for a 50-show concert engagement in London. It is also unclear what role the children’s godfather, British child actor Mark Lester, may play in the proceedings. Whoever wins custody of Jackson’s children won’t automatically gain control of their inheritance, Phillips said. “For many people, the person or persons who are taking care of their kids are not necessarily taking care of their money,” Phillips said. “There’s a benefit to that — a sort of a check-and-balance.” Rowe, or whoever is designated the children’s guardian, will receive payments based on Jackson’s estate, Phillips said.

More clarity about the fate of Jackson’s children will likely come once court proceedings start. Phillips said the custody issue will now be handled by a probate court. If it is filed at Los Angeles’ main downtown courthouse, Phillips said it will be handled by judges with significant family law experience. Phillips said the looming custody fight could be unlike any other. “In all the cases I’ve read all over the country,” she said, “I’ve never seen a fact pattern like this.”

This goose needs to take what she has and fall back. Michael already payed her for her services and put her white @ss up in a house for poppin’ out two of his three test tube babies. These gold diggers just don’t know when to quit. SMH

Source

More Stories From Bossip

Comments

  • whoozdat

    ..

  • whoozdat

    Katherine should definately raise these children

  • K.C.

    He’s not even in the ground yet and ppl are clownin

  • 360

    What is her nationality, caucasian and cow? LOL!

  • http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Site%20Index.htm We "Blacks" Are The REAL Hebrew Israelites

    What an unfortunate looking woman.

  • I go deep yes you fill it in ya stomach just relax

    Bottom line the Jacksons got money and in the end money will win and they will have the children because they can provide a better living for the children .

  • WOO!

    @360,

    That’s funny!

  • CAT EYES

    How dare this woman come forth to try to get those children,She’s the same one who signed them over for money.She’s a sorry excuse for a woman.I heartd MJ had a will and wanted the nanny to have the children so I hope it goes that way.

  • The Bear-

    The bottom line is that as their mother if she wants the kids she will get them because it has never been alleged or proven that she is an unfit mother.

  • Hannibal

    Wait…so that’s not Hulk Hogan?

  • Resurrected

    MJ Should have left a Will and this would not be a problem… I read a statement form the mother saying that she does not want the kids and never had a motherly connection with them in the first place, but Katherine is older now and she may not be around long either so they need to have a plan B for these children…

  • Resurrected

    Well a lot of the Jackson Family Mixed kids looked more white then black… Remember Tedo Kids 3T when they came out the looked more white then black as well…MJ just wanted kids he did not care about the color of them…

  • ME 2

    I loved Mike just like anyone else that gew up on the 70’s/80’s/90’s…(lol), however, I cannot honestly say that those kids are his. Although you can alter the color of your skin, hair, nose, nails, lips, etc., DNA doesnt lie, give the woman her kids.

  • http://bossip.com This some shhhh...

    No will, and no termination of rights from the mother, means she is almost guaranteed custody of the 2 kids. The youngest, no one knows who the mother is.

  • sepia830

    Definitely not Debbie Rowe. BUT I don’t think Katherine Jackson should raise them either. She is really up in age and Joe Jackson would be exposed to those kids on a daily basis. He would have them forming a rock band the day after MJ’s funeral. I think Reebie has always come across as stable. If she would be willing, I think she should raise the kids. But then again I don’t know these people personally. Hopefully MJ had a will and someone in mind (and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Debbie Rowe’s money-hungry ass).

  • Simply Lovely

    @ ME 2 – WTF do you mean give the woman her kids. Did ya miss the part where she SIGNED them over to MJ and SEVERED her parental rights? WTF? Shoot, I can see if you needed a break but severing your parental rights? Um, no! I’m a mom and I’d never do some shyt like that to my children. She clearly doesn’t want these children.

  • brnhornet

    For the record she did not give up her parental right. She deffered to let Michael raise them as opposed to her. Mabye she thought he was a better parent than her.

    However now that Michael is dead she has every right to reclaim her children. She trusted him to raise them not his mother. Unless she has abused them in some way there is no court in the world that will not give her custody. And I happen to agree.

  • ME 2

    @ sepia830
    Thanks for “correcting” me, I would love to just be able to state my opinion, and let everyone else state theirs, I can respect that……I can read other peoples comments and although I dont agree with them all, I can respect that they have a mind of their own, so, please, respect mine.

    @ Simply Lovely
    Kudos to you for being a good mother and doing the right thing, I wish there were more like you in the world, however, everyone isnt cut from the same cloth, and once again, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine, I can respect yours and every one elses on here because I realize that people are individuals and we dont all have to think alike…….if I can respect you, please do so for me, thats all I am saying.

  • ME 2

    And just because Michael was raising them doesnt mean that his parents should get them, because we all know what kind of father Joe was……

  • interesting

    was mj close with his mother and father? i thought mj barely spoke with his parents or with his siblings. I bet mj was probably closer with his nanny and people who worked for him. I feel bad for those kids, i think the kids are old enough to decide WHO they want to live with.

  • ME 2

    @ brnhornet
    My thoughts exactly, and I have said before, I will ALWAYS be a huge fan of Mikes, had the jacket and all (lol), but its amazing how when tragedy strikes, people tend to forget things, and all they want to remember is the good….Joe wasnt your ideal loving father and Katherine stood by and let a whole lot of things happen, and thats the truth but for some reason people tend to get selective memory at times like these.

  • L

    She did give them up….correct?

  • be

    Just goes to show she is only thinking of herself. MJ has not even been buried and she is thinking of causing the kids more drama..smh

  • hope4more

    Can anyone tell me if Katherine and Joe are still married? I thought that she kicked him out a while back and didn’t Janet buy him a house in Las Vegas?

  • Divine

    @hope4more

    Can anyone tell me if Katherine and Joe are still married? I thought that she kicked him out a while back and didn’t Janet buy him a house in Las Vegas?
    ————————————————————-
    According to CNN, Michael was talking about how he all the brothers and sisters and the entire family was in Vegas recently celebrating their 60th Wedding Anniversary. I thought they weren’t together. But apparently they are.

1 2 3 4
blog comments powered by Disqus