S. Fu wrote in
news:2009070218053843658-fufunu@fubarorg:
> 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.
Only to the degree Michael Jackson himself could have while he was
alive. The mother has legal rights equal to his, more or less,
unless that has been changed.
>
> Or not. Really, the executors are mostly supposed to wrap up
> the settling of theets.
Yes. And children are notets.
> 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 it's been "undone," grandma has a tought fight ahead of 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.
Very nearly, it is, unless there's evidence of unfitness.
> 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.
Bullshit.
> 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.
By, basically, proving her unfit. Which is not a trivial thing to
do.
> 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."
Not really. It can be argued such a situation makes her unfit due
to neglect, but it's hardly a slam dunk.
>
> 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.
From what I understand, most of the other Jacksons may well
volunteer to help enforce it. With sharp sticks.
> It will be very difficult for Mom Jax to get her
> guardianship confirmed if she co-habits with a known child
> abuser.
>
Do they live together?
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with morehole. -
David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
