Court Voids Rowe\'s Loss of Parental Rights

[EuphoricNostalgia]

Court Voids Rowe's Loss of Parental Rights



By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Wed Feb 15, 8:21 PM ET


LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson's ex-wife, Deborah Rowe, won a round Wednesday in her battle over their two children, with an appeals court ruling that her parental rights were not properly relinquished under the law.

The ruling by the California 2nd District Court of Appeal set the stage for further litigation between the former couple. Jackson could appeal the ruling further.

While acknowledging that Rowe initiated the proceeding to give up her parental rights in 2001 and made it clear she wanted Jackson to have sole custody, the appellate court said the judge presiding over the matter did not handle it properly.

The retired judge, Steven M. Lachs, acknowledged in 2004 that he failed to have state officials do an independent investigation into what was in the best interests of the children.

Lachs voided his own ruling even though he had found in 2001 that the arrangement was in the best interests of Paris and Prince Michael, Jackson's daughter and son with Rowe.

Jackson also has another son, Prince Michael II, whose mother has not been identified.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_en_ot/michael_jackson;_ylt=AmJVQvK8NjaLXKBhobmjQ7MXCGYD;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-

 

[HeavenSent]

So this is the judge's fault, and not anything that Michael improperly did under the law.

 

[Anonymous]

How were her rights improperly taken away? She clearly said she didn't want it! Stupid. I read a more in depth article about this and it says that Michael's lawyers warned her that she better not backtrack about her belief that MJ was a good dad if she read something in the media that pointed in the other direction.

Like her thinking that Michael would let the NOI treat his kids like shit?? Come on! THEY were the ones benefiting from Michael, if he decided to chunk out them (which he eventually did), it would be their loss. I bet they didn't even know his kids were half jewish. They said she asked for temporary EXCLUSIVE custody when MJ had them as security. Can you believe this?

What greater punishment is there for two young kids than to stick them with a women they don't know for a set period of time. Then the fact that she has no experience raising kids!

Custody battles are bullshit. It's just so unfortunate that Michael couldn't find some woman that he was deeply in love with to have kids with him.

 

[HeavenSent]

Exactly.

Custody battles ARE bull shit. They hurt the kids. What exactly is this serving? Debbie's unsubstatiated fears about how her kids are being raised?! Um no.

This is serving her selfishness. She shouldn't be trying to take anyone away at this point.

 

[whisperAdmin]

I think Rowe is full of $hit. She doesn't deserve visitation, let alone custody.

I can't give her the benefit of the doubt because there is more than likely a chance that Mike doesn't want HIS children around her for a reason.

Some fans are giving this heffa the benefit of the doubt because she didn't lie on the stand. And I'm like, I don't care if she actually told the truth on the stand! Hell, that's what she was supposed to have done anyway!

But I definitely think this heffa doesn't deserve nor wants to be anyone's mother. If she wants kids, she can go have them by some other guy and move the f_ck on.

You don't say things like this:

Q. Have you communicated with either of the children —
A. No.

Q. — over the past year?
A. Not at all.

Q. Do you wish to communicate with the children?
A. No.

Q. Do you ever have the desire to call the children over the telephone?
A. No.

Q. Do you have a desire to send any cards or letters to the children?
A. No.

And

A. …These are his children. I had the children for him. They wouldn’t be on this planet if it wasn’t for my love of him. I did it for him to become a father. Not for me to become a mother. You earn the title parent. I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title.

And

Q. Talking about “understand,” do you understand that in the future you will not be able to go back into court to reinstate your parental right?
A. I understand that.

Q. Have you ever considered the possibility if Michael should die, what would happen to the children?
A. I’m sure he’s — he has a wonderful person in mind to take care of them.

Q. You understand that you will not have the right to take care of the children?
A. No. And I don’t want to. And — not that I don’t love them. I do. I think they’re adorable. They’re his kids. They’re his kids. They’re not my kids. They’re his kids.
(pg 8-9, 22-10)

..if you want to be the mother to Michael's children.

These aren't wishy-washy statements. These aren't "mistakes" or slips of the tongue. She didn't wanna have a damn thing to do with these kids.

As a matter of fact, SHE is the one who filed for divorce. She's the one who removed herself from the picture.

 

[Shannon]

Very well said, whisper.

I read about this earlier this day and thought it was yet another lie. I don't understand how she can do this. :bs

 

[danaluvsmj]

I'm sorry, but what makes her all of a sudden want to be involved in her kid's lives?I think Prince and Paris are going to resent her for this.

'How come you never sent me a birthday card? Why didn't I ever hear from you?'

They won't consider her their mother.

 

[floacist]

I feel really bad for his children, they are going to be questioning alot of things when they get old enough to understand whats going on around them.

 

[whisperAdmin]

I think they'll resent her more when they know she is/was trying to take them from their daddy.

Mike has raised his kids. They know nothing about her and may not want to really have anything to do with her as far as being any kind of authority figure over them.

And one of the most important factors in this is that Mike didn't leave her and take the children away from her. SHE LEFT THEM on purpose because she didn't want to be a mother or a wife of any kind to him.

She removed herself from the situation, and as soon as that check gets cut off, she wanna be somebody mama.

And I don't buy this Nation of Islam excuse for one minute. Bodyguards who are members of the NOI have protected Mike off and on for years and she never saw a problem with it. Now all of a sudden, she's acting like he's intentionally putting his light skinned kids in the arms of jew-hating muslims and using them as a babysitting service!

 

[HeavenSent]

Thanks for posting those court transcripts, whisper.
How does any one especially his fans, give her the benefit of the doubt? If anything, her current dilemma makes her look that much worse.

Flip-flopping like that. Pfst. When you're dealing with other people's lives, there's no excuse for that.

 

[danaluvsmj]

Those poor kids, I can only imagine how difficult this is for them

I really hope Michael's lawyers will take action against this.

 

[whisperAdmin]

Thanks for posting those court transcripts, whisper.
How does any one especially his fans, give her the benefit of the doubt? If anything, her current dilemma makes her look that much worse.

Flip-flopping like that. Pfst. When you're dealing with other people's lives, there's no excuse for that.

Oh yeah, here's the pdf of the hearing SHE initiated, by the way, where she terminated her parental rights:

 

[smoody]

This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life!! What in the world could I possibly be reading. That a woman who under oath said in her own words out of her own mouth REPEATEDLY she does not want the children and only had them because a man who she again under another oath said was a wonderful father, wanted them, will now try to get some sort of custudy not just visitation because a judge handled the case wrong!?!?!?!? Well I'm done. Who's got the fork?

 

[Anonymous]

How does any one especially his fans, give her the benefit of the doubt?

I did at first...but after reading this news, not this particular article, but another one I'm kinda ticked off. Generally, I always think if there is anything you can do to have both parents in the picture, then you should take it. Because it's not about them but the kids.

But I guess Michael has a valid reason for doing what he's doing and I shouldn't question that. Because if after what she did on the stand...basically begging for him to still be her friend or whatever...if after that he still didn't reach a hand out to her, I assume something must have gone down that we don't know about.

Maybe it was her crying on ET, or maybe just the fact that she asked for a divorce and terminated her rights was enough to hurt him. I'm still kind of confused on the issue because on LWMJ Michael still spoke highly of her and then on Take 2, she spoke highly of him. MJ seemed to understand because he said 'she couldn't handle it.'

But then again maybe he was just being nice. We could also hear him say he wasn't ready for another relationship because he went through two 'bad' divorces.

Maybe it was the interview she gave to police. :idontknow

But I'm not in the middle, so I don't know. I just know she's being irrational. Thinking that Michael would let some group mistreat his pride and joy, especially knowing what a good father Michael is. She was just looking for a reason and that's not good enough.

I think it would have to take a real crazy person to terminate their parental rights to two healthy children in the first place. If she felt like she was intruding, then instead of terminating her rights she should have tried to get the courts to insist that Michael let them spend an equal amount with her. But then that wasn't her goal, "he needed to be a daddy more than i needed to be a mommy' blah blah.

This is so unfortunate. I wish MJ had a family with a pleasant woman. :lol He picked the wrong one.

Personally ....I think that this:

That's what she wants again. To be cozy with Michael. She probably didn't have to lift a finger back then. After she alienated herself she realized she did the wrong thing.

PS: I wouldn't mind seeing that again. Happy families are the best. I myself can't relate.

 

[wacky_sis]

Q. Have you communicated with either of the children —
A. No.

Q. — over the past year?
A. Not at all.

Q. Do you wish to communicate with the children?
A. No.

Q. Do you ever have the desire to call the children over the telephone?
A. No.

Q. Do you have a desire to send any cards or letters to the children?
A. No.

And

A. …These are his children. I had the children for him. They wouldn’t be on this planet if it wasn’t for my love of him. I did it for him to become a father. Not for me to become a mother. You earn the title parent. I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title.

And

Q. Talking about “understand,” do you understand that in the future you will not be able to go back into court to reinstate your parental right?
A. I understand that.

Q. Have you ever considered the possibility if Michael should die, what would happen to the children?
A. I’m sure he’s — he has a wonderful person in mind to take care of them.

Q. You understand that you will not have the right to take care of the children?
A. No. And I don’t want to. And — not that I don’t love them. I do. I think they’re adorable. They’re his kids. They’re his kids. They’re not my kids. They’re his kids.
(pg 8-9, 22-10)

QUOTE]


Did she really say this?? Where did you get this from???

 

[whisperAdmin]

But I guess Michael has a valid reason for doing what he's doing and I shouldn't question that. Because if after what she did on the stand...basically begging for him to still be her friend or whatever...if after that he still didn't reach a hand out to her, I assume something must have gone down that we don't know about.

That's what I think. Mike has never done anything malciously to hurt anyone, especially someone who would, at one time, be generous enough to have kids as a gift for him.

There has GOT to be other reasons that we don't know about b/c he isn't leaking to the media. I'm sure it didn't help being seen on tv crying and inviting people into her plastic surgery sessions either. I wouldn't want those kids being put in her custody either.

And come to think about it, the reason she got on the stand and didn't lie could have been b/c she couldn't go through with it. I mean she went out to dinner with the prosecution before her testimony, didn't she?

Someone raised a question about visitation at one of the other boards as well. Some fans were like 'oh well she just wants visitation'. But remember what Evan Chandler did with Jordan Chandler?

He took him for his scheduled "visitation" and never returned him, and leveled false allegations against both Mike and the mother. I wouldn't put it past her to do that to Mike. I wouldn't want Michael's children in her presence at all.

 

[whisperAdmin]

Did she really say this?? Where did you get this from???

From the transcript of the parental rights termination hearing. Celebrity Justice got their hands on the documents a while ago and posted them on their website.

Download it from up above. It's an attachment in one of my previous posts.

 

[wacky_sis]

From the transcript of the parental rights termination hearing. Celebrity Justice got their hands on the documents a while ago and posted them on their website.

Download it from up above. It's an attachment in one of my previous posts.

Thanks Whisper.

 

[danaluvsmj]

seriously, I don't get Debbie. I always wanted to think that she respected Michael. She confuses the hell outta me:blink:

I think this a personal matter between Michael and Debbie, and that they should at least try to talk things out for the sake of the kids. If she wants to take away the kids, then I say Michael should get his lawyers and fight like hell.
Anyways, can someone explain this article, I'm confused. What's going on?

Appeals court rules against singer's former wife

Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Posted: 9:31 p.m. EST (02:31 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- An appeals court Wednesday reinstated an order granting Michael Jackson sole custody of his two children with ex-wife Debbie Rowe...

California's 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that Rowe, who in 2001 signed away her parental rights to the 47-year-old performer's two oldest children, Michael Jr. and Paris, had no legal grounds to terminate that arrangement.

Rowe, who was married to Jackson from 1997 to 1999 but never lived with the self-styled King of Pop, persuaded a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to overturn the child custody agreement in 2004 on legal grounds.

After the lower court refused Jackson's request to overturn that order, he appealed to the 2nd District, which ruled in favor of the entertainer and held that the original order terminating Rowe's parental rights should stand.

CNN Law Center
Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/15/ja...ndex.html?sect ion=cnn_latest

 

[whisperAdmin]

seriously, I don't get Debbie. I always wanted to think that she respected Michael. She confuses the hell outta me:blink:

I think this a personal matter between Michael and Debbie, and that they should at least try to talk things out for the sake of the kids. If she wants to take away the kids, then I say Michael should get his lawyers and fight like hell.
Anyways, can someone explain this article, I'm confused. What's going on?

Appeals court rules against singer's former wife

Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Posted: 9:31 p.m. EST (02:31 GMT)

Apparently that CNN article was a mistake. Reuters apparently misunderstood the documents. CNN picked it up from Reuters before Reuters corrected it. CNN hasn't corrected it, or at least I don't think they have.