Blogs and Stories
Who's Best for the Kids?
AP Photo
Their doting grandmother is almost 80. Their biological mother has sold them twice. Their allegedly abusive grandfather wants to take them on tour. Will the legal system protect Michael Jackson’s children? From Joe to Katherine to Janet to Diana, The Daily Beast’s Marcia Clark renders verdicts on the custody contenders.
At 79 years of age, actuarial tables say a woman is likely to live another 9.74 years. Which means if Katherine Jackson gets custody of her late son Michael’s children, Blanket is likely to lose his primary caregiver—again—by the time he hits his teens. Apart from statistics, common sense dictates that an octogenarian will be very challenged to raise three children between the ages of seven and twelve.
And what about the children, who’ve lived a strange life already, under veils, behind closed doors, often on the road, and under the care of a father who was reportedly addicted to prescription drugs—don’t they deserve some stability now? What will the legal system do for these children?
Rowe claims she’s not asking for more money, she’s only asking for the payoff she was originally promised but never got. Oh, I get it. Since she’s only asking for the original selling price that makes her June Cleaver.
First, know that in California, custody is determined based on the “best interests of the children.” That means custody of Michael Jackson’s children will go to the person who’s had the most ongoing involvement with their upbringing and who’s most capable of giving them a nurturing, stable environment. Figuring out who that person is—especially where you have multiple potential caregivers—is no easy thing.
According to veteran California lawyer Peggy Garrity, who’s handled her share of high-profile custody cases, “The first thing the court should do is appoint a lawyer to represent those children. Right now, all the lawyers are representing the potential contenders for custody—they’re going to fight for their clients, not the kids.”
What about the kids, do they get a say? “You bet. By the time kids are ten and twelve years old, they get to say where they want to go and the courts have to take that into account. If the kids come up with a choice that makes sense, that’ll carry a lot of weight with the court. And that will determine where Blanket, the youngest one, goes because the courts won’t split them up,” Garrity says.
Still, the choices aren’t limitless, and the kids couldn’t and certainly wouldn’t just pick a name out of a hat. Although possible contenders for custody have been discussed, none of the reports explain how any of them would actually fare in court. Below is a rundown of what the courts would see in each of the possible caregivers and who’s likely to wind up with custody. Here’s a hint: blood ties aren’t everything.
Katherine Jackson: the first choice, not because she was listed in the will, but because she’s been closely involved with the children since birth. FYI, custody isn’t determined by what anyone puts in their will. Kids aren’t silverware. Katherine’s been involved with the children since birth, and there’s no question of her devotion to them. Will or no will, she’d be first in line anyway.
But she has some downsides, too. Age has its limitations and no one’s in doubt about the fact that she’ll need plenty of help with these kids. Especially when they hit their teen years—she’ll need the emotional stamina to deal with what I called the “Three R’s” of teenhood: rebelliousness, recklessness, and righteousness. It’s disaster soup, and it would be hard to handle for a woman in her 50s, let alone one in her 80s.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Is Polanski the New O.J.?
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
The Lost Polanski Transcripts
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
Polanski's Lost Alibi
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
Marcia, you're a former prosecutor. Why isn't this disgusting business by Debbie Rowe (more likely, by her attorneys) considered extortion? And let's hope Joe Jackson follows his son into the afterlife before he can destroy these 3 beautiful children.
I read that was why the first termination of parental rights was overturned. The court ruled it was essentially the selling of a child.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Give Debbie Rowe what Michael agreed she should have. She should forever agree to cease all interviews, books, etc regarding Micheal and the children. Katherine Jackson, Janet Jackson, Diana Ross, and Grace Rwaramba should show a united front to ensure Katherine is granted full custody. Janet will assist Katherine in raising the children. It should also be stated that Janet would adopt Blanket. Diana Ross should be in their lives as Aunt Diana. As long as it isn't deemd that Grace had nothing to do with stealing from Michaeal and assisting others from stealing and/or bringing mental distress to him she should remain in the children's lives. The children should have ongoing counseling to deal with their dad's death and the sudden changes in their lives. They should continue to be home schooled with other children. It is important that they build relationships and bonds with children their own age. I think a DNA test is warranted to ensure that Debbie is the biological mother or the surrogate. I know the children were born in the marriage and are considered children of that unit. A DNA test should be taken of Blanket and Jackson. Wouldn't it be ironic that Blanket is biologically Michael's son. It is difficult to tell who a child belongs to unless a DNA test is taken. Katherine and her lawyers should tell Joe Jackson to never speak in public again. They should place a permanent gag order on him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And above all things, they should have all the fun in their lives that is possible.
what is truly on Marcia's mind? Is she also seeking publicity?
is she also seeking publicity? Possibly an organic, relevant response to her commentary. Nice that you tapped into what was really important about what she said... a discussion of the future of three young children and you boil it down to what's really on her mind? Isn't the welfare of 3 kids enough?
I think the bio mom is just about the most slandered person in the greater E media systems of today. She acted as a surrogate for Jackson. Marrying him made it easier for him to be legally the father. She stuck to her agreement with him, never going for the 50% property jugular when they divorced. She only entered the scene when there were charges he was a pedaphile, then naturally she came forward. Of course, now that MJ is dead who was a loving parent, she is concerned about how these kids will be raised. The Jacksons may love these kids but MJ's family was very very dysfunctional. She should have a say and be given more credit.
She chose not to take up a fight for her children while Michael was alive. She fought for money instead. A real Mother would have moved heaven and earth to have her children. She's just an egg donor.
This user is no longer registered.
she was never hired to be a real mome -- that's because you don't hire that out. Real moms know that and so do their kids. She was paid rent on her womb. The space has long been vacated.
Because the so-called bio mom (who some are claiming was a surrogate) sold these children. She has only shown interest in the financial benefits that carrying these children have reaped. So as you pass judgement on the function of the Jackson family but you want to give this woman a pass, why is that? Would complexsion be a factor in your judgement?
I also think that Rowe is being unfairly mocked. It does not appear that her intention was ever to be anything other than a surrogate to produce children for MJ. So to call her a mother who sold her children seems wrong: She did what surrogates do. If not for Jackson's mother insisting that they marry (rather dishonestly), that role would have been clearer and she wouldn't be so scorned now.
My recollection is that she only stepped back into the picture during the child molestation brouhaha. It's hard to tell what she's up to now because there are conflicting reports.
Perhaps she only has tossed her hat in in the hopes that she can sway matters in favor of whatever caregiver she feels will be best. And it's possible that, as someone who was supposedly once a very close friend of Jackson's, she may have detailed knowledge that makes her particularly concerned about proximity to Joe Jackson (who, frankly, sounds like he's gone round the bend too far to be much of a danger to anyone...picturing little Blanket giving him an indulgent pat on the head and then running off to play while old Joe fumes helplessly at talent wasted...or, who knows, maybe these kids will melt his hard heart and he'll find redemption).
Gracie99 ... I completely agree with every you said in response to this post.
Why more credit? And if she wants to be criticized less, she should stop trying to extend her 15 minutes, shut up and accept that being a celebrity's surrogate does not qualify you for media attention or a spot on America's got talent.
What about the kids, do they get a say? "You bet. By the time kids are ten and twelve years old, they get to say where they want to go and the courts have to take that into account. If the kids come up with a choice that makes sense, that'll carry a lot of weight with the court. And that will determine where Blanket, the youngest one, goes because the courts won't split them up," Garrity says.
It fascinates me when I hear lawyers say this, that the kids get to choose. I have multiple friends whose children have tried to go to court to change parenting agreements that the find unreasonable. In every case the judge has refused to hear, even from a 16 yr old, what they want to say. In the case of one judge, 'If I let every teenager who wanted to decide where to live come into the court and change their status, we'd be swamped'. As far as I can tell it's an urban legend that kids actually get a say in the decision.
Every state is different. California is much more liberal than most states. So a judge in Alabama might not take a childs opinion into consideration but a judge in California will call the child into chambers, if the parents can't reach an agreement. Usually in California a Judge will make the parents have fifty/fifty custody. As this being Michael Jackson's children and the exchanging of money has taken place, then this situation is much more difficult to untangle.
the judge's comments are right, no parent can or should be held hostage by a kid's whim or the "if you don't raise my allowance (or whatever) I'm going to live with my dad!" threat. BUT it is not urban legend that kids' desires, once they are able to voice them, play a part in custory decisions.
This user is no longer registered.
I thought this was the same Marcia Clark, she still sounds angry as ever...fifteen minutes are not enough for some. Marcia wants thirty minutes.
Huh? Where did you get that? I thought she was funny and right on in her assessment of the "contestants" in the competition that the media is covering as though all parental candidates are equally viable. (sure keeps the Insider, ET, Access, etc. full every night) I'm glad she finally put some of the red herrings to rest. And you know, I don't recall Clark insisting there be cameras and media coverage in the courtroom, in fact, I recall her motioning from the very beginning that they NOT be there. By the way, when you weren't rorschacking the "tone" of her article, what'd you think of its content?
This isn't our business.
First the court should establish who the father(s) are. There may be a guy out there who is not part of this freak show who could take up the kids- that should be everybody's first option and hope.
There is no seperating Joe and Katherine. They live in the same house. So awarding the kids to her is the same as giving them to him.
Michael Jackson was a drugged addled, delusional pedophile for 30 straight years who cooked the children up in his lab as playthings when he got bored with Bubbles the Chimp. If he hadn't died they would be spending the rest of their lives under blankets and drop clothes. And they still haven't had a day in a classroom.
Its time for "none of the above". No crazy family. No delusion show people. No grasping nanny or other assorted hangers on. The Court should find these kids a foster home and let them sink into merciful obscurity, safe from the Norma Desmonds and the fake tv Reverends.
Usually courts are concerned with keeping the family intact. In this case they should treat it like Jeffery Dahlmer's apartment building- bulldoze it, cleanse the area and leave no memorials. No more their being a mad man's play things.
Shut up, I can tell you do not know anything about the profile of a pedophile. Maybe you can ask the site for my email so I can give you a personal acct of what a pedophile is ... I have plenty of experience of being traumatized. Get a life and stop putting labels on a situation that the media states as facts.
As far as knowing who the biological parents are ... you are being vey noozy ... trying to dig further into the lives of people to destroy it more than the media has already.
Go help yourself because all you spill is hate.
Hey Lordegg, why do you think Katherine never divorced him legally? He's the problem, in terms of all kinds of settlements. With all the lawyers who on the front lawns of various Jacksons, why do you think they never got a divorce decree signed or, for that matter, permanent termination of parental rights from Rowe? Just curious about your insights.
Why didnt Karla Homolka.divorce Paul Bernardo? Because they were both in on it.
What goes on with the Debbie Rowe situation? Two possibilities- she doesnt want to give up the right unequivocally because of the same reason a blackmailer doesnt want to give up the negatives.
As far as MJ, he has always had a large retinue but frankly they are a bunch of odd balls themselves attracted to the freak show. eg. someone who agrees to sign up to be MJ's live in doctor probably didnt have the greatest practice going in the first case. Excepting Tom Mesereau I dont think the guy has had first rate staff. And MJ probably wasnt sentient enough to know what things need to be followed up on. So maybe people report back to MJ that things have been handled but they leave little loop holes and things unchecked on so that while the situation drops off the radar, there is still an opening for Rowe to peruse a future claim along a different avenue a few years later.
Lord Egg.
What makes you think Debbie Rowe is such a crook?
The ONLY thing I have seen or heard about her in the press, besides that nasty experience with the paparazzi, showed that far from what people think, she is now living like 35 minutes outside LA, in some lower income class town in the Desert.
And BROKE.
Hey, but what am I saying?
Shame on me!
Debbie Rowe, it's my guess, received a substantial settlement for the services she provided for MJ.
No?
However, does anybody know what her exact contribution was to his life, besides bearing his children? I don't even know...
Does she have a biological stake in the children? Did she use her genetic material to seal the deal? If she did, then I'd say she is entitled to custodial rights.
Lots of people, however, are vehemently opposed to that, and see her, as I did, at first... I posted my reaction to the news (?) about something about her and money. And I called her essentially a gold-digger on facebook.
Which I'm kind of disappointed in reacting the way I did, cause I didn't really know anything about their private businesses or contracts or agreements, or lives.
How could something like that come out of MY mouth?
I thought I was the Princess of Beauty and Truth?
That's what Keats taught me in college.
RED FLAG
HYPOCRISY * HISTORY *
HYPOCRISY NOTICE
So I don't know what's true and what isn't true about her.
But I bet the Jacksons are gonna have to argue a hard case against her, if she is genetically related to those children.
The children are really beautiful..if that's your standard of Beauty.
But the little one, Blanket, looks a whole LOT like his dad!
That's from the little I've seen of him.
That's just the way the Courts swing.
Hm.
I'm gonna have to work on that....
(can't stop mumbling that)
Man, honey.
I just ran across a few of your words in the last paragraph.
That sure is creepy and twisted thinking.
LordEgg,
I can see you refer to a classic flick. Wow. Norma Desmonds. That was an incredibly DARK movie.
Anyway,
Just by reading your first paragraph, you seem to have struck the Panic button. You've already laid out the plan in your head.
Got it all figured out, do you?
And you're sure Michael Jackson did all those things you say he did?
Man.
That's incredibly imaginative!
with all the comments - let me ask does anyone here know debbie rowe?? does marcia? no one hear knows the back story. would you have wanted the children taken away from michael because he was a flaming drug addict??? when debbie had paris, she found out she could have no children. she wanted michael to have the kids - but he is no longer in the picture. so you would rather have the kids with a known drug addict than with their mother you don't even know. get real.
I wonder, if anyone question your statement about Debbie Rowe because I have heard about this before, what could have caused her to have 2 healthy children then not be able to have anymore after them. Make you want to question the maternity of these children.
Once Michael died it changes everything. If I were Debbie I would at least ask for visitation every other weekend, being that way she will know that the numb nut of a father will not be involved with the children. I would worry about that. Than they should look at maybe Janet taken primary custody.
Debbie does not deserve visitations, she was a surrogate not a mother. Read the facts and her interview to deduced what she actually was in this process. She should be kept away has she has always been since Paris's birth.
By golly.
(To quote an old English professor, for whom I worked while a student.)
If she in fact, provided NO genetic material, then her interest in the children would be superficial.
All about money, in other words.
what if she doesn't want it? You're assumming that this woman had the children for the same reason you or (wife - I don't know your gender, sorry) would have. Rowe is on tape and in court records saying that she did NOT have these children to be a parent. No kidding. You wouldn't do what she did, I wouldn't, but she's was a womb for hire.
isn't there another older, non-famous sister. She's probably sane. Why isn't she mentioned. I believe she has grown kids of her own.
There is an older sister, Rebi, I think. She got out and married pretty young I think. What does that say about your desire to run from you family? Joe Jackson's a piece of work, isn't he? And one more woman, wrapping herself in the Lord while someone beats her children. Doesn't she know that the Lord intended for her to protect them HERSELF! He has his hands full
I don't know about your last sentence...
Don't think I agree with that.
I mean, I have no idea what He is all about?
But I agree with you that that is one twisted family and probably all them are highly dysfunctional.
When I hear about families like that, I can't help but wonder...
How can the parent who is aware of the abuse NOT call the police, and throw the bastard out the front door?
I just don't get it.
Unless it's some sort of vicious cycle, as abuse tends to be, shrouded in secrecy and shame.
I despise that Rowe woman who has discarded those lovely beautiful children but Paris is her spitting image.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
The Katherine Jackson/Grace Rwaramba combination will probably get custody. Rwaramba has basically raised the kids. It was said that Katherine Jackson contacted Grace Rwaramba right after Michael died so it is likely she will back Katherine Jackson's bid to get custody with custody to her if something happens to Katherine Jackson.
There are enough family members to help Katherine raise those kids. When Michael died, nothing changed. She should never be recognized as their mother because like Blanket's surrogate, she herself was supposed to be a surrogate, he only married her b/c he respects his mother's spiritual teachings about what a traditional family is suppose to be like. Marrying her and making her have his children was the biggest mistake of his life and I believe he truly regretted it that is why he made sure Blanket was born outside of the country to a surrogate who would not talk and I am glad he did have Blanket because it makes Debbie less of a contender for getting custody .... No judge would separate those kids. Debbie used his generosity against him even though she claimed him to be her best friend. He should have followed his first sense when he did not want her to have those kids for him, but instead she insisted and look what happened as a result of this, she spoke to the press, she filed to get her parental rights reinstated during his second molestation charges. What a betrayal and then she milked him for more money to stay away. No good friend would do such a thing to another friend.
Like the lies from the Bashir edited interviews, people are buying into the way that Michael felt about his dad and trying to give him the 3rd degree. Look back at some of Michael's album where he thanked his father and look at part II of the Bashir's interview where he states he forgave his father. It is better his father was milking him for money rather than the enabler's around him, who were also using him for money, but no one is talking about them now are they, except for the stoning the rest of the family who are not as successful as Michael and Janet, so they opt to being paid for interviews. As far as the touring thing goes for Michael's children, it is all hearsay because we did not see Joe Jackson say this on camera, so stop reporting bull crap in the press. He is almost 80yrs old, if you all state that Katherine cannot handle them, how much of an abuse can he do to the grandchildren himself when he and Katherine are the same age. Like I have said make some sense and stop trying to vilifying the man the way you guys used one interview and a few unsuccessful (money making schemes) cases to ruin his life. There are plenty of you currently and in the past who are not a part of Michael's inner circle who are making some money by investigating this story and talking about him in the press and on television. Therefore, so what if his family did the same, this is such a double standard.
As for labeling the kids lifestyle as being weird, be quiet about this and look at other celebrity kids. Look at Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's kids, they too live all over the world and are home schooled. Another example is Will and Jada's kids, they are home schooled as well. There is nothing wrong with that. There was also nothing wrong with him shielding the identity of his children until recently when he allowed us to see their faces prior to his death. Geezzz, you people need to make sense when you are pointing fingers and criticizing Michael Jackson. If Jackson's kids were to attend school, yes he was correct in stating that teachers' would probably treat them differently, there is nothing wrong with home schooling as far as I know. I've had relatives who have been home schooled and they are terrific kids.
As far as the 3R's of teenagehood, Marcia, it does not apply across the board. If they grew up in a loving family and maintain the values that their dad and grandma taught them, they will be okay. Look at Diana Ross's kids among other celebrities like Will Smith's kids. Stop labeling children in a group.
As far as you saying that Janet is not a contender, well here this Katherine could change her will after getting custody and put Rebbie or Janet as custodian in case she past into the other life ... no one is talking about what will happen if Katherine gets custody and dies. Look to the future people. Yes Diana may have been named as so in the will but Katherine could make a will of her own and put one of her more stable kids as front runners if she should past.
As for those who wish to know if Michael is the biological father of these children, guess what folks "mind your own business", his life was ruined enough by the courts and the press, no need to destroy his kids life as well. Biology does not make you a good parent or a loving one or even a parent. What is important is that he was named their father, if they choose to know, then probably he told them and they can go searching for this when they become adults. LEAVE THEM ALONE, I don't see how this is helpful to this custody case.
Well said.
How about Debbie Rowe?
Do you know if she contributed any genetic material?
If she did, then the courts will take this into consideration.
And they take these things seriously.
So, who knows?
Did she contribute genetic material, or not?
If she hadn't, they would have thrown her case out of court already, I would think.
That they keep delaying the hearing may be saying one of several things.
Maybe the kids want to stay with the grandparents, but if she is their mother genetically, then she has a right to have contact with them.
Regardless of agreements and contracts drafted in the past.
In that case, I would think the Jackson clan is worried if that is the case.
Why?
Cause it really seems like they want to have no connection with her.
It seems they would like to ignore her if they could, but if she has custodial rights, then they are going to have confront her in court eventually.
So why the continuations?
Seems like her lawyers may be working on their arguments, and they may have been the ones, who requested the continuations.
At least on the legal level....
It could be viewed this way.
Debbie Rowe elected, for a princely sum, to deliver unto Michael Jackson, a man with rumors of pedophilia swirling around him, two babies. Total craziness. Now they are, along with another paid-for child in the hands of the dysfunctional Jackson clan. This whole story is sickening.
Just give the kids to Diana already...Grace and Kathering can visit at her house. :) I hope it all works out for the best in the end. The kids appear be well raised, and MJ was a kind person in person.
I always forget how smart, insightful, and funny Marcia Clark is until she opens her mouth again. This was an eye-opening and well-explained glimpse into this tragic and complicated dysfunctional family's mess. After this third (?) article, I am now an addict/fan and look forward to Ms. Clark's future articles on The Daily Beast with relish. I also was doubly impressed when I saw her on Larry King live last night and was reminded how easy she makes saying the right and wise thing at the right time, look. She is poised, clever and looks fantastic -- I can't wait to get my hands on her novel (which I'm sure will be a bigger and better taste of her quick witted style)! When is that coming out??
with all the incest running around in this country and a lot of it is in the court system and in some of these media people who are they to give advice they are nver home who's taking care of their children and how many social workers have been brought up on charges before you agree with a lot of these people think about and take a good lot at some of them that look like they have been on their own person binge
Joe Jackson is no saint, but he most certainly did not hawk his record label at his son's funeral. It was a red carpet interview before the BET Awards. Get your facts straight, please. Speaking of which, Debbie Rowe did not sell her children once or twice. She forsake her privacy, which is priceless, in this arrangement. The payments she's received are a piggy-bank pittance of Michael Jackson's fortune. I wish people would stop maligning her. It's sexist. We don't vilify sperm donors who aren't interested in being involved in the children's lives, do we?
We do when we can. Rarely however, does a guy who makes a... deposit, come back and insist that he is, after all, the biological father. They can contribute more anonymously and tend to do so. However, I think you're right that a greater issue is sexist; if a father went awol for a while and then reemerged in the picture, wanting a bigger part in his kids' lives, the court would throw open its arms and welcome him. If a mother tried that? They'd be excoriated.
I'm starting to feel like Where in The World is...
repeating myself, again and again.
LovelyVelocity, do you know if Debbie Rowe made a genetic contribution to those children?
Aside from being a surrogate?
Any idea?
Why didn't Katherine Jackson legally divorce Joe? You can't swing a dead cat around a Jackson without hitting a lawyer or apparently a dr. or pharmacist. (I love cats, it's just an expression.) And why for that matter didn't Michael's legal team ever obtain a permanent termination of Rowe's parental rights? I also saw on Dateline that Katherine Jackson has 12 (?) grandchildren living with her at the Encino house? Huh? Why? They all have parents, what's the story with these dysfunctional, non functioning Jackson parents? They can afford therapy, anti-depressives, parenting classes, etc. And instead Grandma is raising their kids? No doubt she has nannies and all kinds of help, but at this point, is there really a problem adding three more to the brood? Heck, have the actual parents raise their own children, and Michael's three children, who apparently are quite lovely, will be a walk in the park by comparison. I saw Clark on Larry King as well. She is great at the gig, insightful, experienced, knowledgable, warm and funny. Why was Gerragos there, though? The man's a bad lawyer. He's never won one -- and he rode on Winona Ryder's back making sure he got enough exposure as a "celebrity lawyer." He got her the same deal that she would have had if he'd just taken the prosecution's offer in the first place, but nobody would've known who he was. And bitter about the Scott Peterson verdict much? I guess it sucks when the jury's agenda is to put the guy away. Small consolation that jury nullification can go both ways. (I'm no Peterson fan by the way, I just remember, perhaps quite faultily, that the case was largely circumstantial.) And finally, when does Clark's book come out? If it's out now, what's it called and where can it be purchased?
I think the accusation that she sold her children is a little harsh and possibly not even based in fact - she made a spousal support settlement when they divorced. And until someone can prove otherwise, that is what it was. She had the right to spousal support/community property. She also had the right to allow him to have custody. I am sure there are other women who have done the same thing without having their motives questioned the way Debbie Rowe's motives have been.
She in fact did petition for custody after the molestation charges were filed. They made an agreement regarding his continued custody and so far no one knows what the terms of that agreement were. We do not know if there was any financial settlement. We do not know how often she saw them, although we do know she did see them, nor do we know if they know she is their mother. Gossip is one thing. Fact is another. She has filed a defamation suit against the woman claiming to have emails from her. So apparently she is willing to fight but also willing to do what she feels is right. And to say she is only doing so for more money may be feeding the situation and may cause her to do what she feels is right but may be wrong for the children.
I think everyone is slightly dysfunctional including the nanny. Everyone assumes they are not already harmed. Everyone should assume they are. The only one so far suggested who would probably be able to provide a stable environment is Diana Ross. Her children alone are testament to that. Unfortunately the court can't just force her to take them. And it is doubtful she would file anything since she has no real legal standing. Whatever the court decides, regardless of what the children say, let's hope the court makes sure Joe Jackson is kept at arm's length.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.