The Custody Saga of MJ’s Kids Continues

Michael Jackson died and everyone immediately started talking about custody of his kids. That’s pretty normal I think, when anyone passes away. And I think it’s even normal that everyone should want the children to go to them. Add to that the fact that these children come with millions of dollars attached to them, and the custody battle becomes even more heated. We’ve heard of just about everyone becoming potential guardians of these children, from his mom, Katherine, to Diana Ross. And let’s not forget the biological mother of two of the children, Debbie Rowe. No one really knows where she stands on the issue. But now there’s another name being tossed into the custody ring and it’s none other than Michael’s sister, Janet.

Apparently, Michael spoke with his sister and told her that should something happen to him, he wanted the kids to go to her. Being that the children are so close to her already and the family seems to be behind her, it might just be a good fit. Unfortunately, Michael did not change his will before he died to reflect his new wishes. So, what’s the lesson here? If you want to change your will, change it. From Pop Crunch,

“Pop legend Michael Jackson wanted his baby sister, R&B diva Janet Jackson, to take care of his three children, according to a scoop featured in Britain’s Grazia Magazine on Tuesday.

The “Thriller” star — who died last month at 50 — had reportedly discussed his wishes for his kids - Prince Michael I, 12, Paris, 11, and Prince Michael II, 7 — to be raised by his single sis in the event of his death and was even planning to draft a new will to reflect that wish.

“There was a lot of rifts in the family, but Janet was the one person he spoke to regularly and he made sure the children kept in touch with her too,” a source said. “Ultimately, he wanted Janet to look after the children, with help from his mother Katherine, and was planning to draft a new will to reflect those wishes. He trusted Janet implicitly.”

So will Janet get the kids? I guess only if his mother is willing to give up her legal guardianship. As it stands, I don’t really know why we’re even discussing who will get custody. If Michael’s will states that he wants his mom to get them, shouldn’t that be the end of it? Isn’t that the entire point of a will? There is also the issue of the biological mother, Debbie Rowe, and many stories have been floating around about her as well. The latest says that she accepted millions of dollars from Katherine, in exchange for the promise that she would stay out of the kids’ lives. This latest story however, has been proven untrue as Rowe’s attorney has made a statement saying that no such thing happened. From US,

“No deal has been reached between Michael Jackson’s mother and his ex-wife Debbie Rowe over the custody of the late singer’s children, a lawyer for Rowe says.
Eric George - who represents Rowe, the biological mother of Jackson’s two oldest children - is slamming a New York Post report that she has agreed to take $4 million not to challenge Katherine Jackson for custody.

“Ms. Rowe has not accepted — and will not accept — any additional financial consideration beyond the spousal support she and Michael Jackson personally agreed to several years ago,” George tells the paper in an open letter sent to Usmagazine.com.

A child custody court hearing, which had been set for this week, was delayed until next Monday at the request of lawyers for Jackson and Rowe, a court official said.”

So, is this latest statement setting the stage for Rowe to fight for custody? It sounds sort of to me like she’s making a point of saying that she doesn’t want any money, so that maybe she’ll come across as just a caring and kind mother. It really is anyone’s guess at this point. Her attorney has also made a public statement saying that Debbie Rowe has not decided whether or not she will fight for the kids.

I don’t really get the point of all this fighting over the kids. As I said before, a will is a will. What more is needed and what the heck is the point of having a will if it’s not going to be followed? I’m thinking a judge is going to say the same thing. Therefore, my prediction is that Debbie Rowe does not stand a chance at custody, if that’s a road she decides to take and that Janet might be a suitable guardian. But only if Katherine agrees to it. I don’t know, to me it all seems to be pretty cut and dry. But I suppose when there’s that much money involved, and when the deceased parent is Michael Jackson, it don’t matter if it’s black and white.

Custody Case of MJ’s Kids Postponed

I’m not really too sure what’s going on with the custody case of Michael Jackson’s kids. I’m not too sure anyone is. Last I had heard, Michael Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson, was given temporary custody and it was to remain that way until another hearing in August, when a more permanent decision would be made. Maybe when Michael Jackson’s will was found, and in it he deemed his mother as the guardian of the children another hearing was scheduled to make that legally permanent. I’m not sure what happened really but apparently, there was going to be a hearing on Monday, July 13, and that has now been postponed to the following Monday, July 20. When the July 13 date came into play is where I get confused.

What confuses me even more is that there’s conflicting stories on the side of Debbie Rowe, two of the children’s biological mother. While it looked at first that she was going to fight for ‘her kids’, her attorney has also come out with statements that she remains undecided as to whether or not she wants to pursue it. Add to that the fact that Rowe has told a close friend - a close, named friend - that she does want the kids, and who knows what’s going on or what’s going to happen! See if you can sort it out for yourself. From People,

“A custody hearing for temporary guardianship of Michael Jackson’s children scheduled for Monday has been rescheduled for July 20 at the request of Katherine Jackson and Debbie Rowe, according to court officials.

“All prior orders remain in full force and effect, with Katherine Jackson as temporary guardian of the children,” according to a Los Angeles Superior Court statement released Friday afternoon.

Michael Jackson’s kids – Prince Michael I, 12, Paris, 11, and Prince Michael II (Blanket), 7 – have been living with their grandmother, Katherine, and staying at her Encino, Calif., home since the death of the pop icon on June 25.

Rowe, who is the biological mother of Prince and Paris, has not filed a petition for temporary guardianship, says a courthouse spokesperson. Blanket’s mother has never been identified.

Last week, Rowe’s attorney Eric George, said, “The truth is that Debbie has not reached a final decision concerning the pending custody proceedings.”

This came on the heels of Rowe telling her former attorney and close friend Iris Finsilver that she intended to pursue custody. “Frankly, she won’t have to fight for them, ” Finsilver told PEOPLE. “She is the children’s biological mother. She loves her children.”

But Jackson’s mother, Katherine, was named the guardian of his three children in his will, which was revealed last week. A source close to the family says of the Jacksons: “They will fight.”

There are many problems with this. The fact that anyone considers Debbie Rowe a fit mother for those children disturbs me. People who make good mothers don’t sell their children for millions of dollars, which is what she did when she signed away her maternal rights for a lump sum. The fact that anyone would think that Debbie Rowe actually loves these children also disturbs me. How can you love children that you don’t even know and have had no contact with over the past 10 years?

Another disturbing thought that I’m just throwing out there - Katherine Jackson will most likely be made the permanent and legal guardian of these children. Debbie has no case and it was in Michael’s will, which seems to seal the deal for me. But what no one seems to be questioning is whether or not Katherine will make a good guardian. Every time I hear about it, I can’t help but think that this was the same woman who allowed her own children, Michael especially, to be abused by his father - her husband. She never left him and obviously, she allowed these things to happen.

There really is no good answer. Unfortunately, I think that these kids will be screwed up for a very, very long time.

Michael Jackson’s Mom Gets Temporary Custody

The question of who will get Michael Jackson’s kids has been quickly, if only temporarily, resolved. The children, Prince, Paris, and Blanket, have been being looked after by Michael Jackson’s parents, Katherine and Joseph Jackson and Katherine had made a request to the courts that she be granted custody. The courts granted her wish yesterday by giving her temporary custody until the next hearing, which will be held on August 3.

What this mostly means is that the children will not be going to Debbie Rowe, who is the biological mother of Prince and Paris. Even though Debbie accepted a massive payout 10 years ago to give up all maternal rights, she had still expressed interest in taking the children to live with her now. I had originally thought that Debbie may be the best choice simply because Katherine is an elderly woman and may not be able to care for small children, even in just a couple of years.  But, I stand corrected. The woman has obviously proven that she can take care of the kids and of course, no one wants to make them any more unsettled than they already are. From US,

“Katherine Jackson was granted temporary guardianship of Michael Jackson’s three children today in Los Angeles Superior Court, Usmagazine.com has confirmed.

A hearing is set for Aug. 3 to determine if she’ll become their permanent guardian.
Judge Mitchell Beckloff rejected Katherine’s request to serve as the temporary guardian of the children’s estate.

TMZ.com first reported the news Monday.

Katherine Jackson filed a petition Monday asking the court to appoint her as guardian of Jackson’s three children. The petition states the kids have “no relationship with their biological mother,” Debbie Rowe, according to the site.

Michael has two children with ex Rowe –Prince, 12, and Paris, 11. His third child, Prince Michael II, 7, was born to a surrogate (the mother’s identity was never revealed). The court filings Monday list her whereabouts as “unknown.”
Us confirmed last week that the children have been staying with Katherine at the family’s Encino, Calif., estate since their father’s June 25 death.

On Monday’s Today show, the Jacksons’ attorney Londell McMillan said there isn’t “anybody who thinks that there is someone better” than Katherine Jackson to have custody.

Said McMillan, “She is a very loving host of other grandchildren.”

Over the weekend, Katherine was spotted at a Los Angeles Target stocking up on toys, sleeping bags and other supplies.

McMillan added that the family hasn’t heard from Rowe, who gave up her custody rights to the children after she and Jackson divorced in 1999.
In a statement over the weekend, Rowe’s attorney, Marta Almli, said: “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.”

So from the sounds of it, Debbie Rowe may have never even wanted custody rights. I mean, if they can’t even find her, it’s going to be kind of hard to let the kids go live with her. And from her statement, it doesn’t sound as though she’s going after the kids. She doesn’t even mention anything like they should be with their biological parent. I would assume that the next hearing would be to make this decision permanent and that the month’s wait is really just an unofficial waiting period. What I’m most surprised about in all of this is that these kinds of proceedings are even necessary. Did Michael not leave a will? And did he not within that will state where he wants his children to go? I find it hard to believe that someone with so many assets, and so many details that would be left up in the air should he pass, wouldn’t have a will that would specifically state where the children are to go. These are questions that leave me puzzled.

Who will get Michael’s Kids?

Ya gotta know that the coverage on Michael Jackson’s death is going to become nauseating. I’m not saying that he doesn’t deserve the tribute or the respects but like Princess Diana and other huge world news, we will be seeing it fill the headlines for a long, long time to come. The headlines have already been filled with everything from those close to him giving statements to questions surrounding the circumstances of his death. One of the biggest headlines so far to be released is the question over who will get custody of his kids. Of course, this only makes sense as the first thing we often wonder about after hearing such sad news is: what will happen to the children?

Michael Jackson left behind three children. His eldest son is named Prince and is 12 and his daughter is named Paris and is 11. These children he had with Debbie Rowe, who signed away her parental rights but now after the death of their father, wants to be the one to care for these children. She’s also hoping to get custody of Prince Michael II, who is now 7, even though he is not her biological child. If Debbie wants custody though she’ll have to fight for it against Michael’s elderly mother. From Gossip Rocks,

“The mother of Michael Jackson’s two eldest children is preparing to battle the singer’s elderly mother for custody.

Former nurse Debbie Rowe gave away her parental rights in exchange for a £4.2million pay-off ten years ago.

But last night, she told friends she would fight ‘tooth and nail’ for their return.

Miss Rowe has only seen her son Prince, 12, and 11-year-old daughter Paris, who were conceived through artificial insemination, intermittently but believes she is more equipped to care for them than Jackson’s 79-year-old mother Katherine.

A friend said: ‘She understands there will be a vicious legal battle and she knows Katherine will not readily hand the kids over to her. But she is their natural mother and she will do whatever it takes to get them back.’

Miss Rowe, 50, is also expected to try to seek custody of Jackson’s third child, Prince Michael II, commonly known as ‘Blanket’, even though the seven-year-old was conceived by a mystery surrogate mother.

In December, author Ian Halperin, whose biography The Final Years Of Michael Jackson is due out next week, claimed that Jackson was suffering from a chronic lung condition and had just six months to live.

It sent Miss Rowe scurrying to her lawyers in the hope of restarting negotiations with Jackson over the children’s care.

‘I’m their mother and they need me,’ said Miss Rowe, who breeds horses and lives on a ranch in rundown Palmdale, California.

Police congregated outside the Palmdale home of Debbie Rowe, ex-wife of Michael Jackson and mother of two of his children

Police congregated outside the Palmdale home of Debbie Rowe, ex-wife of Michael Jackson and mother of two of his children

Her friend said: ‘At Christmas she just wanted to re-establish contact with them. But now she wants full custody. Michael’s mother is almost 80, Debbie doesn’t want them to lose their father and then their grandmother.

‘She has been slated over the years for giving up her children. But in reality, Debbie has always stayed in touch with them and Michael. It’s an odd relationship but then everything connected to Michael is odd.’”

So what’s the best case scenario here? That the children go live with their mother who 10 years ago thought that getting a huge payoff was better than being a mother? Or is a better scenario that the kids go live with someone who may only have a few years left here themselves. Should anything happen to Michael’s mother, the children would then be uprooted once again, just a short time after their father’s early and shocking passing. And what possible kind of shape could Michael’s mom be in to take care of children at such an age?

I hate to say it, simply based on her actions 10 years ago, but I think that the kids going to Debbie Rowe might actually be the best thing. She is their mother and she is most likely, physically able to take care of them. Whether she’s emotionally able is another matter. Maybe there’s a better option that just hasn’t come to light yet? I certainly hope so because neither of these sound good to me.