Fate of Jackson children unclear, say experts

Posted: 27 June 2009 0503 hrs

Michael Jackson with one of his children, with a cloth over draped his head, in Berlin in 2002

LOS ANGELES - The fate of Michael Jackson's three children remained unclear Friday as reports raised the possibility of a custody challenge from the biological mother of the late star's eldest offspring.

The three children -- Prince Michael, 12, Paris, 11, and Prince Michael II, 7, -- were reported to be in the care of Jackson's mother Katherine at the family estate in Los Angeles as the musical clan mourned the star's death.

Jackson's former wife of three years Debbie Rowe is the mother of the two eldest children, while the third was born in 2002 to a surrogate whose identity has never been made public.

There were conflicting reports over whether Rowe, who separated from Jackson in October 1999, had already signed away her parental rights.

TMZ.com website cited a lawyer familiar with the case as saying that Rowe had never had her parental rights legally terminated, which could clear the way for her to gain custody and win a multi-million-dollar settlement.

However Jackson family lawyer Brian Oxman was quoted as saying that the children would likely be looked after by Katherine Jackson.

"Probably Mrs Jackson will take care of them, she loves them dearly," Oxman told the celebrity website Radaronline.

Gloria Allred, a celebrity lawyer told CNN she was "very concerned" about Jackson's children. "What will happen to them?" she said. "If the mother relinquished parental rights then who's to have custody?"

Scott Altman, a professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in family law, said Rowe's custody claim could hinge on what had been agreed with Jackson at an earlier hearing.

"She signed an agreement purporting to give up her parental rights but then more recently she went to court to seek custody and succeeded having that agreement declared invalid," Altman said.

"Ultimately they settled that legal disagreement, and she did not pursue a final custody decree. She could come forward and seek custody as a legal parent to the children."

If Rowe's custody claims were challenged by Jackson's family and the case went to trial, much would depend on details of the children's relationship with Rowe that remained opaque, Altman said.

"There are a lot of factual details we just don't know about -- how much contact has she (Rowe) actually had with these children over the years? What is the nature of their relationship at a social level? Are the children close to her on a psychological level?

"The answers to those questions may make it more or less difficult for her to get custody."

In the end, the children's own preferences could decide the issue, he said.

"My assumption is that if this gets to trial a great deal is going to turn on expert psychological testimony about the children's relationship with the various caretakers involved and the judge's impression of that and potentially the children's own preferences," Altman said.

Meanwhile, even less was known about the surrogate mother of Jackson's youngest child, Prince Michael II, or "Blanket," who was famously dangled from a fourth floor window in Berlin by his late father in 2002.

"I don't think they know much about who she is and whether she'll come forward," Altman said.

"I gather she was a surrogate but we don't know anything about the legal arrangements or whether she's had any contact with the child."

- AFP /ls

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jackson Cases 'Could Be In Court For Years' (news.sky.com)
• Custody battle expected to land in court (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• What will happen to Michael Jackson's kids? (ctv.ca)
• Debbie Rowe May Get Custody Of Jackson Kids (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jackson's Lawyer Predicts Legal Wrangles (news.sky.com)
• Jackson's kids to live with their grandmother (idiomag.com)
• Battles over Jackson's kids, assets may loom (cnn.com)
• Who Will Get Custody of Michael Jackson's Children? (shoppingblog.com)
• Michael Jackson's children 'ask to stay with grandmother' (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Explainer's Michael Jackson roundup. (slate.com)

New Hampshire House opposes governor on same-sex marriage

At this point, not everyone is already sold to the idea of same-sex marriage. Basing on the survey, it seems that older people are voting against this latest craze of same-sex marriage, while younger people go for it. My opinion, hotter blood needs more room for experimentation, while those ‘who are done with it’ needs time for reflection and penitence. Think so?
----------

Updated 1 hour, 37 minutes ago

Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages.

(CNN) -- New Hampshire's move to become the most recent state to legalize same-sex marriage hit a bump Wednesday, after the state House of Representatives failed to agree to changes made by the governor.

The House and Senate have approved allowing gay couples to marry.

But Gov. John Lynch, a three-term Democrat, said last week he would sign a same-sex marriage bill only if it provides "the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions."

Lynch said any such measure needs to "make clear that [clergy and other religious officials] cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles."

The House on Wednesday fell two votes short of approving Lynch's language, 186-188.

The chamber then voted to send the legislation to a committee to be considered further.

The language would specify that religious organizations can decline to take part in any marriage ceremony without incurring fines or risking lawsuits.

New Hampshire's movement in the gay marriage debate is part of a flurry of recent activity surrounding the issue.

On May 6, same-sex marriage became legal in Maine, as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it.

The District of Columbia voted May 5 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, though it does not itself give marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples.

Meanwhile, New York Gov. David Paterson introduced legislation in April to make same-sex marriage legal in New York. A similar bill died in the state Senate in 2007.
Iowa's Supreme Court ruled unanimously on April 3 that it is illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. The first same-sex marriages in the state took place April 27.

Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. A Vermont law making gay and lesbian marriages legal takes effect in September.

California's state Supreme Court issued a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in May 2008, and 18,000 gay and lesbian couples got married in the state. But California voters in November approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

That state's high court heard arguments earlier this year about whether Proposition 8 was itself constitutional. It has not yet issued a verdict.

A slim majority of Americans are against legal recognition for same-sex marriage, CNN polling found last month. Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, while 44 percent said they should be considered legal.

But there was a huge gap between the opinions of younger and older people, with younger people far more likely to approve of gay marriage. Nearly six in 10 people ages 18 to 34 said same-sex marriages should be legal. Just over four in 10 people ages 35 to 49 agreed, and the number was similar for 50- to 64-year olds. Only 24 percent of people 65 and older agreed.

The survey's sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• WATCH: Over Dinner, The Leffews Remember the Good Old Days of Legal Marriage (queerty.com)
• Polling Shows Growing Support For Marriage Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Same-Sex Marriage Advances in Maine (nytimes.com)
• More Protections For Religion and I'll Sign Lynch Says (lezgetreal.com)
• How the Hate for 8 Hurt my Child... (lezgetreal.com)
• New Hampshire Same-Sex Marriage Bill Defeated (lezgetreal.com)
• And then there were five (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal (nytimes.com)
• Maine State House Votes in Favor of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples (lezgetreal.com)
• Two marriage items: Back to committee in New Hampshire and California ruling delayed by Gavin Newsom (bilerico.com)

‘Homosexuality is not neutral’

Letter from James Ray

04:02 PM May 08, 2009

I REFER to “Don’t skirt the issue by shielding children,” (May 6).

It seems Mr Joseph Wong has missed the main point of “conservative” parents’ concerns.

As a conservative parent who has worked with and counselled teenagers for more than 20 years, I am not against my children learning about sex in general and homosexuality in particular, once they are old enough to understand such issues. Sex and homosexuality are not “taboo” topics to be avoided.

However, they must be addressed carefully, and parents such as myself are concerned about who is teaching our children and what is being taught.

I do not know any of Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) trainers, so I cannot comment on whether or not they are “experienced professionals”. But I have seen a copy of Aware’s CSE training materials pertaining to sex. The fact that homosexuality is listed as “neutral” is of concern to me. Considering the physical nature of sex, the sexual union of a man and a woman has the potential to create another human being. This is natural. As such, I cannot consider homosexuality as “neutral”.

In addition, Singapore law classifies homosexual acts as illegal, so how can any material used in public schools teach that homosexuality is neutral?

I am not against my children attending a talk on homosexuality, if the talk is based on the fact that homosexual acts are not normal. However, if the talk promotes homosexuality and other unusual sexual acts as “neutral”, then I am against my children attending such a talk, because they are still young and impressionable.

Personally, I believe topics such as sex should be taught at home rather than at school, as morality must be considered.

From TODAY, Voices – Friday, 08-May-2009