On 2009-07-02 16:26:37 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
said:
> S. Fu wrote in
> news:2009070215141216807-fufunu@fubarorg:
>
>> However, since the will
>> specifically names Mom Jax as guardian, with Diana Ross as
>> backup, I believe it's the duty of the executors to defend those
>> terms, including paying the legal fees to support either in a
>> custody fight. I may be wrong about that.
>>
> Legally speaking, children are *not* property to be disposed of in
> the will. As the parent, his wishes will be considered, but the
> court's responsibility is to look to the welfare of the *children*
> first, foremost, and only.
Uh, I've already covered that. What I'm saying is that the executors
are, essentially, "servants of the will." If MJ wanted his mom to be
the guardian of the kids, the executors can reasonably serve the will
by paying the legal fees in order to get Mom Jax named permanent
guardian.
Or not. Really, the executors are mostly supposed to wrap up the
settling of the assets. They also have a fiduciary duty, as
representatives of the estate, to the kids directly since they're
minors. Plus there could be conflict of interest in aiding one
beneficiary to the financial detriment of three other (minor)
beneficiaries.
And you know what? If the estate is tight on immediate liquidity then
it's gonna be, "Fine, we nominated you Grandma, the rest is up to you."
> Did the children's mother formally give up her parental rights? (Not
> give him custody, mind you, but voluntarily terminate her parental
> rights.)
Believe me, I know the distinction. Apparently she did waive rights,
then got it undone. Not that uncommon, not totally a black mark
against her.
> If not, she's got the firmest legal claim, very difficult to
> challenge unless there's damned good proof she's unfit. (And perhaps
> there is, I have no idea.)
It's not that automatic. If MJ had sole legal and physical custody of
the kids all these years, and Rowe didn't keep up with the visitation
schedule, her claim wouldn't be very strong. It's explicit in CA
custody law that the birth parents should be preferred, but latitude to
override that preference is specifically allowed elsewhere in the
statues. Practically, this scenario comes up all the time and there's
tons of precedence supporting a judge deciding, "Well, you've been out
of the picture for years, Mom/Dad, and the kids are happy with
Grandma/Aunt Jonie/whoever, so I'm going to give them custody. You can
work on reestablishing a parental relationship with the kids and then
come back and petition for custody again."
What if she has nominal shared custody and has been keeping up regular
contact? That would be a different story.
I did note that Rowe says she's going to ask for a restraining order
against Grandpa Joe--a significant shot across the bows of the
Jacksons. It will be very difficult for Mom Jax to get her
guardianship confirmed if she co-habits with a known child abuser.
|
