Blog Topic

Video Commentary on Michael Jackson Custody Situation
Posted by: Mary Ellen Waller
July 06, 2009

The custody issues surrounding the children of deceased pop star Michael Jackson were prominent topics this past week in Los Angeles as national and international news media sought family law analysis and commentary on the Michael Jackson custody situation. The family law offices of Feinberg & Waller, APC, fielded numerous queries from the media with regard to the complex custody issues that could potentially arise for Jackson’s three children, Prince Michael, Paris-Michael and Prince Michael II. The media sought Marshall Waller’s observations on family law matters, as he is a family law textbook author and a certified Family Law Specialist through the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California with more than 27 years of legal experience. He does not represent any of the parties in this custody situation.

A video interview of California Certified Family Law Specialist Marshall Waller focuses on potential legal questions surrounding custody of the Jackson children. The topical video addresses some interesting custody issues that pertain to the general public as well as the Jackson family. The Jackson situation gives rise to issues that can face every-day families coping with the death of a parent. Video topics include the following: Is it possible that Debra Rowe will be given custody of the children? How difficult is reunification with their mother if she has been out of the children’s lives? And, What happens if Katherine Jackson becomes incapacitated or passes away? The video can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Q92c-TQSY.

Permalink

Who will get custody of Michael Jackson's children?
Posted by: Marshall Waller
June 30, 2009

The custody issues surrounding the children of deceased pop star Michael Jackson were the prominent topics today in Los Angeles as national and international news media sought family law analysis and commentary on the complex Jackson custody situation. The family law offices of Feinberg & Waller, a professional corporation, fielded numerous queries from the media with regard to the custody issues that could potentially arise for Jackson’s three children, Prince Michael, age 12, Paris-Michael Katherine, age 11 and Prince Michael II, age 7. 

A Los Angeles judge placed the children under the temporary guardianship of Katherine Jackson, their paternal grandmother. Among the potential custody issues looms one of primary significance: with whom should these children be placed? Complicating this analysis is the fact that while we know who the mother of the two older children is, that matter is unclear regarding the youngest child. As we know, while the mother of the two older children has been identified (Deborah Rowe), this information is lacking regarding the youngest child; in other words, we don't know who the other biological parent of the youngest Jackson child is, and this of course reduces the universe of possible custodial guardians. 

As a practical matter, the courts are going to look to the best interests of the children when making this very important decision.  As of now, the only person who has stepped forward seeking custody is Katherine Jackson. This could change, of course, if Ms. Rowe steps up and asserts her parental rights as the mother of the two older children.  The reader may recall that Ms. Rowe and Mr. Jackson entered into a contract at the time of their divorce that terminated Ms. Rowe's parental rights.  After Michael's legal troubles surfaced, however, Ms. Rowe asked the court to set that agreement aside, claiming that it was a violation of public policy for two parents to simply stipulate, without government involvement, to terminate parental rights.  The Court of Appeal agreed with Ms. Rowe and set that agreement aside, thus restoring her rights as the biological parent of Prince Michael and Paris Michael.  Thereafter, Ms. Rowe and Michael Jackson settled the custody situation between them, leaving the children in Michael Jackson's full care and custody.  Of course, now that Michael has died, things are indeed different. 

As stated above, Michael's mother, Katherine Jackson successfully petitioned the Court for temporary guardianship of all three children, an altogether predictable event. She was also given partial control over the children's estate (they are the presently presumed heirs to the Michael Jackson estate).  A follow up hearing has been scheduled for August 3, 2009, at which point the Court will consider any objections to Katherine Jackson's request as well as any other Petitions for custody (for example, if Ms. Rowe chooses to request custody). Should Ms. Rowe request custody, she will most likely turn to California Family Code section 3041, which essentially provides a standard of review that states that before custody of a child can be given to a non-parent over the objection of a parent the Court must find that placement with the parent would be "detrimental to the child" and that granting custody to the non-parent is "required to serve the best interests of the child." Family Code section 3041(b) instructs that these findings must be made pursuant to "clear and convincing evidence," which is by no means a "slam dunk."  If Ms. Rowe asserts this section there will indeed be quite the trial on these issues and it will be up to the Jacksons to meet this test regarding their objection to Deborah Rowe as the custodian of the children.  Interestingly in the context of this particular case, the Court has the discretion to hold these hearings in private. 

The Jackson's will no doubt look to Family Code section 3040, which sets out the statutory preference in awarding custody: both parents jointly, either parent, a non-parent "in whose home the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment" or finally to any other person deemed by the court to be "suitable and able to provide adequate and proper care and guidance for the child."  As has been asserted by the Jackson family, there is a long history and a strong relationship between the Jackson grandparents and Michael's children, and placement with the paternal grandmother also eases a conundrum that presents itself in the form of the youngest Jackson child, Prince Michael II, sometimes referred to as "Blanket." In his case, no biological parent seems to be known who can come forward to claim custody as Ms. Rowe can do with her children. As such, there seems to be no other alternative than Katherine Jackson, which gives rise to a prediction that Ms. Jackson will indeed end up as the custodial parent of young Prince Michael II.  Were this to happen, and should Ms. Rowe raise a request for custody of the other two children, the Court will grapple with the prospect of separating these children from each other. 

In our opinion this is extremely unlikely. There is a strong precedent and policy for keeping siblings together in circumstances such as this, and under the circumstance that Ms. Rowe is believed to have no relationship whatsoever with the children, it is highly unlikely that she will end up winning custody of the two older Jackson children, especially were that to mean that they would be separated from their younger brother. 

Finally, of course, is the question of the finances: someone needs to manage Michael Jackson's estate. Michael's mother Katherine has requested to be so named, and for now at least appears to be unopposed in this request.  She has alleged that her son died without a Last Will and Testament, which opens the door for her to make this request.  There is speculation in the news, however, that a Will does indeed exist. If so, then there may be a nomination of Guardian as well as a scheme for managing and distributing the Michael Jackson fortune. 

At this point it appears that there is much to transpire in this complicated and tragic situation. The upcoming days and weeks will no doubt prove to be very interesting. It seems that even in death, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, continues to provide much to talk about.

Permalink

Australian Man Accused of Throwing Daughter to Her Death
Posted by: Marshall Waller
January 29, 2009

The Associated Press reported this morning that a Melbourne, Australia man was accused of throwing his four-year old daughter to her death off a 190 foot (58 meter) eight-lane freeway bridge over the Yarra river in Melbourne. In a moment that can only be described as sheer insanity the man apparently unexpectedly stopped his SUV on the West Gate Bridge shortly after 9:00 am in the middle of rush hour. Stunned commuters phoned police to report seeing the man drop his child off the bridge.  The police pulled the child from the river about ten minutes later, nearly dead.  She was rushed to a nearby hospital where she died approximately four hours later. 

The man had just spent the previous two days in an Australian family court where the issue of custody of the girl and her two brothers (who are speculated to have been sitting in the SUV while their sister was being murdered) was being determined. Interestingly, Australian court officials reported that the hearing ended on Wednesday without a ruling because the parties had come to an agreement to share access to the children. The father was apprehended about one hour later sitting in the SUV with his two surviving sons in front of the family court building.

We have observed and discussed before in this forum the potential for insanity and tragedy that may arise in custody litigation, and this recent case underscores the stresses involved in custody litigation and the tragic consequences that often befall these innocent victims. This comes on the heels of the tragedy in Wilmington, California where a recently unemployed man killed his wife and five children and then himself in an apparent murder-suicide, as well as the discovery this morning in Columbus, Ohio of a family of four who were killed in what appeared to be a murder-suicide (the children were 8 and 5 years old).  

Clearly we are unable to predict with absolute accuracy these kinds of tragedies, but there are indeed warning signs, if we will only look for and pay attention to them.  Too often people who suffer these horrific lapses in sanity are described by their friends and neighbors as "decent and quiet folks," "good neighbors" and "good parents," when obviously they are enduring horrific suffering.  It is time for us all to engage our friends and neighbors, befriend them and interact with them and be willing and courageous enough to discuss their problems and our own with them and our extended network of friends so we can see the warning signs and offer assistance.  For too long society has shrouded mental illness and emotional lapses in a cloak of secrecy and shame so opaque and impenetrable that those who so desparatly need help are either too uninformed or too afraid to seek it out.  

How many more innocent victims will it take before a strong and effective mental health outreach program can take hold in this society? There is much talk these days of the need for a "grass roots" movement to improve America and its economy, and I applaud that effort.  Let us now do the same to address the mental and emotional crisis that is so obviously upon us. 

Permalink