mike in usa?/ Was geht da bei gericht ?/neue klage (zusammengeführt)

Der Richter kennt Debbie und tritt deshalb zurück

Update on the Kapon vs. Jackson Case:

At the 8:30 hearing this morning in Orange County, Judge Derrik Hunt has recused himself from the case. Apparently he knows Debbie Rowe through her lawyer and feels it is a conflict.

This news comes to us via BJ Hickman who was at the Court House. With verification coming from the court clerk, via Gail Felix as soon it is avail.

http://eurweb.com/story/eur24686.cfm

*The judge overseeing Michael Jackson’s custody battle had to briefly step down in January after reports of him calling the pop star anti-Semitic. Judge Stephen M. Lachs says his statements were taken out of context and he was simply stating that the media has unfairly labeled Jackson. Judge Lachs wrote, "I pointed out that the news media should realize that his attorney is Jewish, Ms. Rowe's attorney is Jewish, and the Judge whom he selected to hear his case is Jewish. We all laughed at the notion that with these people being chosen by (Jackson), he would be anti-Semitic." According to TMZ.com, Judge Lachs is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge who was temporarily sworn back into service to hear the case in a private office.

In other news:

Michael Jackson has been appointed head of Bahrain’s Child Protective Services Bureau.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-dantoni/...he_b_15651.html

Court voids Michael Jackson’s ex-wife’s loss of parental rights
(AP)
16 February 2006

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

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

The pop star, who has been living outside of the United States since his acquittal on molestation charges last June, could further appeal the ruling. He is reportedly traveling with his children in Italy.

Jackson and Rowe married in November 1996 and filed for divorce in October 1999 after the births of son Prince Michael and a daughter, Paris. Jackson also has a son whose mother hasn’t been identified.

While acknowledging Rowe initiated the proceeding to give up her parental rights in 2001 and made clear she wanted Jackson to have sole custody, the appellate court said the judge in 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 subsequently filed to prevent the judge from voiding his earlier ruling.

“A court cannot enter a judgment terminating parental rights based solely upon the parties’ stipulation that the child’s mother or father relinquishes those rights,†the appeals court said.

The 18-page ruling quoted from Rowe’s original motion in October 2001.

“Michael has been a wonderful father to the children and I do not wish to share parenting responsibilities with Michael because he is doing so well without me,†she said. “I want to forever give my any and all rights pertaining to the children because I believe that by doing so, it is in the children’s best interests.â€

When a hearing was held, Rowe had not seen the children in more than a year, the documents said, and she reiterated that she was giving up all rights to them.

Jackson’s lawyer warned her at the hearing that if she changed her mind because of something she read that made her think Jackson was a bad father, she probably would have no recourse. She clung to her position.

“I don’t think he’s capable of being a bad father,†she said, according to the hearing transcript quoted in the ruling. “He loves his children too much.â€

But Rowe did change her mind two years later and sought temporary custody. Her stated reasons were publicity surrounding Jackson’s prosecution on child molestation charges and press reports that he was associating with the Nation of Islam “whose members Deborah believed do ’not like Jews.â€â€™

“Because she is Jewish, Deborah feared the children might be mistreated if Michael continued his association with the Nation of Islam,†the ruling noted.

At the hearing on Jackson’s motion opposing her move to regain parental rights, Lachs was quoted as saying, “It was an arranged deal from the beginning. ... This was not mom and dad saying, ’Hey, let’s have a family that we’re going to raise.â€â€™

But the judge said the couple clearly agreed Jackson would raise the children.

Lawyers for Jackson and Rowe did not immediately return calls for comment Wednesday.

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson said in an interview that the ruling puts Rowe back in the position she was in before she relinquished her parental rights. If the case returns to court, she said, state agencies would probably be asked to evaluate the situation.

“No court has ever really figured out what would be best for these kids,†she said.

Rowe told the syndicated TV show “The Insider,†“I am thrilled with today’s ruling.â€

Jackson publicist Raymone K. Bain said she had not yet read the ruling.

Quelle: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...ml§ion=theworld

Now CNN Law has updated their information.
CNN LAW

Court: Jackson's ex-wife's parental rights improperly terminated
Ruling could set up custody battle

(CNN) -- A California appeals court ruled Wednesday that a lower court improperly terminated Deborah Rowe's parental rights to her two children with pop star Michael Jackson, opening the door to a possible custody battle between the singer and his ex-wife.

Rowe gave up her parental rights to Prince Michael Jackson -- identified in court papers as "Michael Joseph Jackson Jr." -- and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson in October 2001, giving her ex-husband sole custody. At the time, Rowe said she did not wish to share parenting responsibilities with Jackson "because he is doing so well without me."

But Rowe changed her mind more than two years later and sought temporary custody of the children, as well as a psychiatric evaluation to determine what custody arrangement would be in their best interest, the court said.

Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges last year. Rowe asked the court to reopen the custody issue because of concerns over Jackson's criminal prosecution and "press reports Michael had associated with the Nation of Islam, whose members Deborah believed do 'not like Jews.' "

"Because she is Jewish, Deborah feared the children might be mistreated if Michael continued his association with the Nation of Islam," Wednesday's ruling states.

The same judge that previously ordered the termination of Rowe's parental rights reversed that ruling because the court did not, at the time, order an investigation into the children's best interest or consider appointing an attorney to represent their interests. Jackson's attorneys contested that reversal, claiming Rowe's rights were properly terminated, but the appeals court Wednesday upheld that decision.

The next step is for a family court and judge to decide what Rowe's custody and visitation rights will be, one of her attorneys, Eric M. George, told CNN. Attorneys for Jackson, however, can appeal Wednesday's ruling.Since his acquittal, Jackson has spent much of his time in seclusion in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain. In addition to the two children he had with Rowe, he has a third child, Prince Michael II. The boy's mother has not been publicly identified.

CNN's K.J. Matthews contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/16/jackson.custody

Zitat

Originally posted by TLC@Donnerstag, 16.2.06 - 6:53Â Uhr

Jackson publicist Raymone K. Bain said she had not yet read the ruling.

[snapback]69272[/snapback]

typisch, warum denn auch ???

Gegen Ex-Frau
Michael Jackson unterliegt in Sorgerechtsstreitveröffentlicht: 16.02.06 - 07:29

Los Angeles (rpo). Im Streit um das Sorgerecht für die beiden Kinder Prince Michael und Paris hat US-Popstar Michael Jackson eine weitere Niederlage gegen seine Ex-Frau Debbie Rowe einstecken müssen. Danach darf seine Ex die Kinder weiter sehen, was Jackson verhindern wollte.
Die fünf Richter des kalifornischen Berufungsgerichts bestätigten am Mittwoch (Ortszeit) ein erstinstanzliches Urteil, nach dem die 46-jährige gelernte Krankenschwester ihre Rechte auf die Kinder nicht rechtsgültig abgetreten hat. Eine Erklärung Rowes aus dem Jahr 2001, auf die sich Michael Jacksons Anwälte berufen, ist nach der Entscheidung des Berufungsgerichts wegen Formfehlern ungültig.

Jackson und Rowe waren von 1996 bis 2000 verheiratet. Die Kinder kamen 1997 und 1998 zur Welt. Nach der Scheidung hatte Rowe sich zunächst mit einem Abbruch der Kontakte zu ihren Kindern einverstanden erklärt. Als jedoch gegen Jackson 2003 Vorwurfe erhoben wurden, er habe einen 13-jährigen Jungen sexuell missbraucht, widerrief sie diese Erklärung. Im Juni 2005 wurde Michael Jackson in dem Missbrauchsprozess freigesprochen.

Jacko muss Sorgerecht teilen

Im Rechtsstreit um das Sorgerecht für die Kinder hat Popstar Michael Jackson den Kürzeren gezogen.

Michaels Ex-Frau Debbie Rowe fürchtete, dass die Mitgliedschaft Jackos in der "Nation of Islam" sein Verhältnis zu den Kindern, die eine jüdische Mutter haben, beeinträchtigt - eine Begründung, die das Gericht offenbar überzeugte: Die Kinder werden fortan auch wieder bei ihrer Mutter wohnen. Neben den Kindern Prince Michael Jackson und Paris Michael Katherine Jackson hat Michael Jackson noch ein drittes Kind, Prince Michael II., über dessen Mutter nichts bekannt ist. Jackson kann gegen dieses Urteil Berufung einlegen, seine Anwälte haben sich dazu aber noch nicht geäussert.

Quelle: http://www.viva-swizz.ch

O.o... dann darf er in zukunft NICHT MEHR alleine bestimmen, wo die kinder hinfliegen...
und - er MUSS ihr umgangsrecht akzeptieren, sonst gibts ärger...

Zitat

Originally posted by badwoman@Donnerstag, 16.2.06 - 13:11Â Uhr
O.o... dann darf er in zukunft NICHT MEHR alleine bestimmen, wo die kinder hinfliegen...
und - er MUSS ihr umgangsrecht akzeptieren, sonst gibts ärger...

[snapback]69357[/snapback]

Genauso hab ich es vor Monaten prophezeit, keiner wollte mir glauben und ich wurde verspottet. Ja, das war eine schwere Zeit ...
Nein, im Ernst: Ich denke, dass es so auch richtig ist. Michael kann nicht einfach mit den Kindern monatelang vesrchwinden und Debbie überhaupt keine Auskunft geben, es sind immerhin auch ihre Kinder und sie sollte das Recht haben sie ab und an zu sehen. Wie die genaue vertragliche Abmachung war, weiss ich natürlich nicht, aber das Michael wirklich so skrupellos ist und ihr die Kinder ganz vorenthällt ist auch nicht gerade nett.
Bin mal gespannt wie das jetzt umgesetzt werden wird. MUSS Michael jetzt ab und an in die USA, bzw. seine Kinder, damit Debbie sie sehen kann?

was heisst denn hier skrupellos, debbie war doch jahrelang damit einverstanden und wollte nicht, dass die kinder zu ihr mama sagen hat während des prozesses als zeugin der anklage, der verteidigung in die hände gespielt und unter tränen michaels vater qualitäten bezeugt
und jetzt das
das ist doch nur wieder ein beispiel ,dass auf kosten von kindern ein rachefeldzug begangen wird
Papa?

nur richtig so!!!!!!
die kinder sollen bei ihrem vater in ihrere gewohnten umgebung bleiben, wenn sie alt genug sind, können sie immer noch zu ihrer ach so liebevollen mutter zurück, aber immoment ist das das beste für die kids.
sie ist selber schuld ,das hätte sie sich früher überlegen sollen und wenn sie wirklich so fürsorgend wäre ,dann würde sie jetzt nicht so reagieren und den stress ihren kindern antun