Mike und Debbie müssen Papiere von der Scheidung vorlegen...

<div class='quotetop'>ZITAT (Been Told @ 08. April 2006 - 22:49 Uhr) [snapback]91003[/snapback]</div>

Zitat

Das ist genauso als sie ihn fragten, ob er Lisa-Maries Kinder adoptieren würde - er war mit ihr verheiratet, er könnte/bräuchte das garnicht.
[/b]

Wieso bräuchte er das nicht

da die Kinder doch aus Lisa's erster Ehe stammen und deren Vater lebt, hat Mj eigentlich gar keine Anrechte aus irgendein Elternrecht

Kennt einer das Märchen vom Fischer und seiner Frau? Da will die Fischersfrau auch immer mehr- un d steht letzlich mit leeren Händen da!
Ich hoffe nur, das man selber nicht so werden würde, käme man in die gleiche Situation! Sicher bin ich mir nicht! Traurig macht mich das allemal

Michael Jackson Sued By Former Wife
Piling more woe on the star...
by Scott Colothan on 7/13/2006

Michael Jackson has had legal proceedings launched against him by his former wife who claims the star failed to pay the agreed divorce money.

Debbie Rowe is seeking an upfront $195,000 from Jackson, as revealed in papers filed by the Los Angeles Supreme Court on July 3.

Rowe, who divorced Jackson in 1999, is also looking for an extra $50,000 in living expenses so she can battle for the custody of her two children with Jackson.

In 2001, Rowe waived all access to Prince Michael and Paris after the pair reached a settlement. She went on to contend this agreement in 2004 and is now seeking for the custody back of her two children.

According to the new legal papers seen by the AP news agency, Rowe alleges that Jackson stopped paying her divorce payments four years after their split.

The case adds more woe to Jackson, who is also being sued for the sum of $3.8million.

Link: http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=19687

-----------------------------------------------

Michael Jackson sued by ex-wife

Michael Jackson's ex-wife has taken legal action against the pop star, claiming he failed to pay what he promised after their divorce.

In papers filed at Los Angeles Superior Court on 3 July and seen by the AP news agency, Debbie Rowe seeks an immediate payment of $195,000 (£106,000).

She also requests $50,000 (£27,250) in living expenses so she can pursue a child custody case against Jackson.

Rowe is the mother of his two children, now aged eight and nine.

In a 2001 agreement, she waived all access rights to the children, Prince Michael and Paris.

But she went to court in 2004 to have that decision reversed and is now fighting for custody of the pair.

Last year, Rowe, who divorced Jackson in 1999, testified at the singer's child abuse trial, praising him as a "great father".

But in her new legal action, she claims he stopped making the promised payments in October 2003.

'Easily influenced'

Jackson, 47, is also being sued by a former business associate, Marc Schaffel, who claims he is owed $3.8m (£2.1m).

The jury in that case in Santa Monica, California, heard closing arguments on Wednesday and is expected to retire on Thursday.

Mr Schaffel's attorney Howard King called Jackson a "cagey, calculating witness" who feigned forgetfulness in videotaped depositions shown to the jury.

The pop star's own legal representative has painted a different portrait of the troubled singer.

"I don't see the evil, conniving puppet master he saw," Thomas Mundell said. "I saw the gentle, easily influenced artist who pays little attention to business matters."

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5175408.stm

----------------------------------------

DEBBIE ROWE SUES JACKSON OVER DIVORCE SETTLEMENT

MICHAEL JACKSON has been hit with a lawsuit by his ex-wife DEBBIE ROWE, who claims the THRILLER singer has failed to honour their 1999 divorce settlement. In the lawsuit filed in Los Angles Superior Court on 3 July (06), Rowe, who testified positively about her ex-husband during his child molestation trial last year (05), is seeking $245,000 (GBP136,000) to cover legal costs and living expenses so she can continue her child custody case against Jackson. Rowe is the mother of Jackson's children PRINCE MICHAEL, nine, and PARIS-MICHAEL, eight. She ceded her parental rights in 2001, but called on a judge to reinstate them in 2003, shortly after her ex-husband was arrested on suspicion of child molestation. Under their divorce settlement, Jackson agreed to pay Rowe $1 million (GBP550,000) per year for the first three years, and then $750,000 (GBP417,000) for the following six years. She also took possession of a house in Beverly Hills, California. A court hearing has been scheduled for 26 July (06).

13/07/2006 08:07
Link: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/artic...tlement_1002388

debbies muttergefühle in allen ehren - aber jetzt wollte sie die kinder 8 jahre nicht, und jetzt auf einmal tauchen da diese muttergefühle auf weil michael angeblich "kontakte" zur nation of islam pflegt und ihre ach so geliebten kinder in gefahr sein könnten? entschuldigt, aber das kauf ich ihr nicht ab.
hätte sie die kinder nicht einfach so an michael abgetreten, und es auch vor der presse als "geschenk" deklariert, hätte ich jetzt irgendwie mitgefühl mit ihr - aber so...?!
da gehts ums geld - ist mein heißer tipp... sonst gar nix.

das muss nun auch noch durchfochten werden und hoffe dass Michael schnell damit fertig wird. wir wissen nicht was in den Papieren steht !!!!!! Egal, ich bin sehr entäuscht von ihr. Nur wieder Geld steht auf den Plan!!! will mich nicht weiter dazu äussern.

Quelle MJJ Forum: MJSN

Michael Jackson Tells Ex-Wife Debbie Rowe to Beat It
Friday, August 25, 2006
By Terry Schermerhorn

The Life and Times of Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson was hit with a suit last month by his ex-wife Debbie Rowe, demanding more money -- now he's telling her to beat it.

The Gloved One handed over $8 million in support and legal fees to Rowe in a settlement after their 1999 divorce. He got custody of their two children, Michael Jr., 9, and Paris, 8.

Rowe is now fighting for custody and wants Jackson to pay about $245,000 in new legal fees.

In his response, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday but released Thursday, Jackson argues he has already paid her prior legal fees and the millions dictated by the settlement and charges that she broke a nondisclosure clause.

The case will be heard by Judge Robert Schnider on Sept. 5.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210427,00.html

Sehr interessant. Frage ist, wenn sie diese Verschwiegenheitsklausel wirklich gebrochen hat, wie will sie dann NOCH mehr Kohle von MJ kriegen?

in dem sie sich ums Sorgerecht bemüht? Und ihm so Angst macht?

Jackson Case Reopens Debate on Private Judges

Pop star's dispute with ex-wife heads for county court as officials seek to reform system.
By Jessica Garrison, Times Staff Writer
September 6, 2006

Starting today, Michael Jackson will figure in another courtroom drama — this one centering on attempts by Los Angeles Superior Court officials to show that celebrities and other rich people can't buy special treatment from the legal system when they have business disputes or want to get divorced.

For years, Jackson's custody battle with ex-wife Deborah Rowe sometimes seemed to suggest the opposite point.

Despite the media firestorm that accompanied the pop star when he was tried and acquitted last year on child molestation charges, he managed to keep the custody dispute largely out of the public eye.

He did so by hiring a private judge — a service that celebrities and rich people regularly use.

These judges are privately paid by the parties in the dispute, but are required to follow the same rules of public access and procedure used in public courtrooms.

But earlier this year, stung by the appearance that celebrities were buying special treatment, Los Angeles County court officials announced a push for greater compliance with the rules governing private judging. They also moved the Jackson case back into the public system.

This morning, lawyers for the pop star and his ex-wife are expected in the teeming, somewhat dilapidated downtown courthouse — a far different environment from the sleek conference rooms where some hearings had been held.

On the agenda are Rowe's efforts to win visitation with her and Jackson's two children, Prince Michael and Paris, as well as attorney's fees.

Court officials also ordered lawyers for Jackson and Rowe to publicly file all legal documents since the divorce this week. As the papers have flooded in, they have opened yet another window into Jackson's unusual life.

Jackson and Rowe, who had been a nurse in the office of Jackson's dermatologist, were married in 1996.

Rowe gave birth to Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. in 1997 and to Paris Michael Katherine Jackson in 1998. In 1999, Rowe filed for divorce.

Jackson got custody. Rowe received an $8-million settlement, along with a house in Beverly Hills. At first, she also had the right to visit the children every 45 days, but in 2001, she went back to court and asked the private judge, Stephen Lachs, to terminate her parental rights.

She said she felt like "an intrusion on their life and they're going to have enough intrusions as it is," according to a transcript. "I'm absolutely around if Michael ever needs me, if the children need me for a liver, kidney, a hello, whatever, I will always be around for him."

But she added, "These are his children. I had the children for him…. They're his kids. They're not my kids."

At that time, Lachs, a well-regarded retired family law judge, agreed to terminate her parental rights.

But after Jackson was arrested on charges of child molestation, Rowe reconsidered. She went back to Lachs and asked him to void that order.

Lachs did, saying that he had erred when he terminated Rowe's rights to Paris and Prince Michael without having someone represent the children's interests. But he stopped short of allowing Rowe increased visitation without further evaluation of the situation.

That ruling set off a furious round of fighting between lawyers for Jackson and Rowe.

At one point last summer, lawyers for Jackson said Rowe was "trying to hold up Michael Jackson for money using the children as the tool…. I believe she is one step below a common crook or extortionist."

Jackson's lawyers also took Lachs' decision to the Court of Appeal, which sided with Rowe in a ruling published earlier this year.

The ruling, in which the justices said Lachs had abdicated his responsibilities, brought scrutiny to the practice of private judging. The secrecy of many of the proceedings before private judges also became an issue, with the media complaining that files and hearings in Jackson's case and others were being inappropriately closed.

Court officials issued stern reminders that court documents and hearings must remain public, and parties seeking to seal documents must make the request to public court officials.

ADVERTISEMENT
Los Angeles County Superior Court Presiding Judge William A. MacLaughlin, who has led a compliance effort, said the Jackson case "raises the issue ... of the wisdom" of permitting people to use private judges, because many documents were missing from the public file of the case.

Still, since the reform effort more than a dozen cases — including the divorces of Jessica Simpson, Eddie Murphy and Rod Stewart — have gone out of the public system to private judges. It remains to be seen what effect the court's new emphasis will have.

Only the Court of Appeal has the formal power to tell a sitting judge, even a private judge, what to do by overturning a decision.

Advocates for private judging, meanwhile, defend the system. What they provide is not secrecy, they say, but efficiency, especially in a court system so overburdened that a complicated divorce can take months and consume thousands of dollars in lawyer' fees because it has to compete for space on a sitting judge's crowded calendar.

Marta Almli, one of Deborah Rowe's attorneys, said she sees both sides.

"There are some persuasive arguments … why it is important that even divorce cases be open to the public," she said. "For example, so public watchdogs can … make sure people are treated fairly. But I don't see any public watchdogs going into court and making sure that John and Jane Doe are being treated fairly or consistently. I only see people looking at the Michael Jackson cases."

And now that case is back in a public courtroom.

LA Times

Judge Orders Michael Jackson To Pay $60K To Ex-Wife

September 6, 2006

LOS ANGELES -- A judge has ordered Michael Jackson to pay $60,000 to ex-wife Deborah Rowe Jackson to cover her attorneys' fees in their ongoing post-divorce battle. She had sought nearly $200,000.

The judge did not decide on custody issues concerning the couple's children

http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/9797284/d...la&psp=news

was geht denn hier ab!!!! wer bekommt was???????? oder nicht. Hoffentlich hat Mike nicht die schlechten Karten !!!!

Hier nochmal der obere Text auf Deutsch, Übersetzung von Shanaya aus dem Malibu-Forum:

Debatte über Privatrichter durch Jackson Rechtsfall wiedereröffnet

Streit des Popstars mit Ex- Frau geht auf Bezirksgerichts- Verfahren zu, während Beamte eine Reformierung des Systems anstreben
Von Jessica Garrison, Times Staff Writer
06. September 2006

Ab heute wird Michael Jackson in einem weiteren Gerichts- Drama eine Rolle spielen- dieses zentriert sich um Versuche von L.A. Kammergerichts Beamten, die zeigen wollen, dass sich Prominente und andere reiche Leute keine Sonderbehandlung vom Justizsystem kaufen können, wenn sie in Geschäftsstreitigkeiten verwickelt sind oder sich scheiden lassen wollen.

Über Jahre hat Jackson's Sorgerechtsstreit mit Ex- Frau Deborah Rowe scheinbar manchmal das Gegenteil glauben lassen.

Trotz des medialen Feuersturms, der den Popstar während seines Kindesbelästigungs- Prozesses und Freispruchs begleitete, schaffte er es den Sorgerechtsstreit größtenteils aus dem Blickfeld der Öffentlichkeit zu halten.

Dies gelang ihm durch die Einstellung eines privaten Richters- ein Service, den Prominente und reiche Leute sich regelmäßig zu Nutzen machen.

Diese Richter werden von den im Zwist liegenden Parteien privat bezahlt, sind aber verpflichtet, die selben Regeln allgemeiner Einsicht und Verfahrensweise zu befolgen, die auch in
öffentlichen Gerichten angewendet werden.
Doch früher in diesem Jahr- angestoßen durch den Anschein, dass sich prominente eine Sonderbehandlung kauften- verkündeten L.A. Amtsgericht Beamte, sich für eine breitere Einhaltung der Regeln einzusetzen, die private Beurteilungen betreffen.
Desweiteren verschoben sie den Jackson Fall zurück ins öffentliche System.

Heute morgen werden Anwälte des Popstars und seiner Ex- Frau in dem immer gut gefüllten, irgendwie baufälligen Gerichtshaus in der Stadtmitte erwartet- ein Umfeld, das sich von den gediegenen Konferenzräume, in denen bisher einige Anhörungen stattfanden, sehr unterscheiden dürfte.

Auf dem Programm stehen Rowes Bemühungen, das Besuchsrecht für die beiden gemeinsamen Kinder Prince Michael und Paris zu gewinnen sowie Anwaltshonorare ersetzt zu bekommen.

Gerichtsbeamte wiesen die Anwälte Jacksons und Rowes zudem an, alle Gerichtsdokumente seit der Scheidung diese Woche für die Öffentlichkeit zugänglich einzureichen.
Sowie die Papiere eingeflossen sind, öffneten sie ein weiteres Fenster zu Jacksons ungewöhnlichem Leben.

Jackson und Rowe, die eine Krankenschwester in der Praxis von Jackson's Dermatologen war, heirateten 1996.
Rowe brachte 1997 Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. und 1998 Paris Michael Katherine Jackson zur Welt. 1999 reichte Rowe die Scheidung ein.

Jackson bekam das Sorgerecht. Rowe erhielt eine 8 Millionen Dollar Abfindung und zusätzlich ein Haus in Beverly Hills. Anfangs hatte sie das Recht, die Kinder alle 45 Tage zu besuchen, doch 2001 ging sie vor Gericht und beantragte bei dem privaten Richter Stephen Lachs ihre elterlichen Pflichten zu terminieren.

Laut einem Transkript sagte sie, sie komme sich wie eine "Einmischung in ihren Leben vor und sie werden schon so, wie es ist, genug Einmischungen haben". "Ich werde auf alle Fälle da sein, falls Michael mich braucht, wenn die Kinder mich für eine Leber, Niere, was auch immer brauchen, ich werde immer für ihn da sein."

Doch sie fügte hinzu: "Dies sind seine Kinder. Ich bekam sie für ihn...sie sind seine Kinder. Sie sind nicht meine Kinder."

Zu der Zeit stimmte Lachs, ein angesehener, pensionierter Richter des Familienrechts, zu, ihre elterlichen Rechte aufzuheben.

Doch nachdem Jackson auf Grund einer Klage wegen Kindesbelästigung verhaftet wurde, überlegte es sich Rowe noch einmal. Sie ging zurück zu Lachs und beantragte, ihren damaligen Antrag für ungültig zu erklären.

Lachs kam dem nach, mit der Begründung, dass er irrte, als er Rowe's Rechte an Paris und Prince Michael aufhob, ohne dabei einen Vertreter für die Interessen der Kinder gehört zu haben.
Jedoch ging er- ohne weitere Bewertung der Situation- auch nicht soweit, Rowe die Erlaubnis für häufigere Besuche zu geben.

Diese Regelung war der Startschuss für eine grimmige Kampfrunde zwischen Jacksons und Rowes Anwälten.

Irgendwann im Sommer letzten Jahres erklärten Jackson- Anwälte, Rowe "versucht, sich an Michael Jackson zu halten, damit sie Geld bekommt und benutzt die Kinder als Werkzeug dafür...Ich glaube, sie ist eine Stufe tiefer als gewöhnliche Betrüger oder Erpresser."

Jacksons Anwalt legte Lach's Entscheidung auch einem Berufungsgericht vor, welches sich mit einer Regelung früher in diesem Jahr auf Rowe's Seite stellte.

Diese Regelung, in der die Richter sagten, dass Lachs seine Verantwortungen niedergelegt hatte, setzte die gängige Praxis privater Richtersprüche einer genauen Überprüfung aus.
Die Geheimhaltung vieler Verfahren vor Privatrichtern wurde auch dann einThema, als die Medien sich beschwerten, dass Akten und Anhörungen im Fall Jackson und andere unangebrachterweise unter Verschluss gehalten wurden.

Gerichtsbeamte stellten strikte Erinnerungen daran aus, dass Gerichtsdokumente und Anhörungen öffentlich bleiben müssen und Parteien, die Dokumente verschlossen halten wolllen, diesen Wunsch öffentlichen Gerichtsbeamte vorzutragen haben.

ANKÜNDIGUNG
Der beim L.A. Bezirksgericht vorsitzende Richter William A. MacLaughlin (der eine Einhaltungsbemühung geleitet hat), sagte, der Jackson Fall "lässt neu über die Klugheit" einer Erlaubnis zur Einstellung eines Privatrichters nachdenken, denn viele Dokumente aus der öffentliche Akte des Falles fehlen.

Trotzdem, seit der Reformbemühung sind mehr als ein dutzend Fälle- inklusive den Scheidungen von Jessica Simpson, Eddie Murphy und Rod Stewart- vom öfffentlichen System an Privatrichter gegeangen. Es bleibt zu sehen, welche Effekte die neuen Schwerpunkte des Gerichtes haben werden.

Nur das Berufungsgericht hat die formale Macht, einem amtierenden Richter, selbst einem Privatrichter, zu sagen, was er zu tun hat und zwar indem es seine Entscheidungen kippt.

Befürworter von Privatrichtern verteidigen derweil das System. Was sie bieten ist nicht Geheimhaltung, sagen sie, sondern Effektivität- besonders in einem System, das so überbelastet ist, dass eine Scheidung Monate dauern kann und tausende Dollar an Anwaltsgebühren konsumiert, denn um einen Platz im überfüllten Kalender eines amtierenden Richters muss gekämpft werden.

Marta Almil, eine von Deborah Rowes Anwälten, sagte, sie verstehe beide Seiten.

"Da gibt es einige schlagkräftige Argumente....warum es wichtig ist, dass selbst Scheidunsfälle öffentlich gemacht werden", sagte sie. "Zum Beispiel weil öffentliche Wachhunde so sicherstellen können, dass Menschen fair behandelt werden. Aber ich sehe keinen einzigen öffentlichen Wachhund im Gerichtssaal, der überprüft, ob John und Jane Doe fair und gleich behandelt werden. Ich sehe nur die Meschen, die nach den Michael Jackson Fällen schauen."

Und nun ist dieser Fall zurück in einem öffentlichen Gerichtssaal.

http://12563.rapidforum.com/topic=100174721653&startid=4

Michael Jackson must pay $60,000 in LA custody case

Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson must pay $60,000 in attorney fees for his ex-wife as she pursues a custody case against the pop superstar, a judge ordered Wednesday.

Superior Court Judge Robert A. Schnider gave the entertainer until Sept. 28 to meet the order. He did not rule on whether to grant Deborah Rowe visitation rights to the couple's children, Prince Michael and Paris.

Jackson and Rowe did not attend the hearing.

Rowe had sought $195,000 toward her attorney fees but Schnider declined, noting that she had received an $8 million divorce settlement.

"She has millions of dollars, so she should be able to contribute to her own fees," Schnider said.

The amount granted Rowe was reasonable and the judge left open the possibility that she can seek additional fees later, Rowe attorney Eric M. George said outside court.

Rowe, a former nurse for Jackson's dermatologist, married him in 1996 but filed for divorce in 1999 and later gave up custody rights. She asked a judge to reinstate them in 2003 after Jackson had been arrested on child molestation charges.

He was acquitted last year and now lives in Bahrain.

In February, a state appeals court ruled that her parental rights had not been properly relinquished under the law.

Attorneys for Jackson and Rowe were scheduled to meet next Tuesday to discuss settling the custody case.

"Hopefully all issues will be settled," Jackson attorney Michael Abrams said. "In one week, this case may be over."

Jackson also has a third child, Prince Michael II. The boy's mother has not been identified.

contracostatimes

Judge Puts Off Visitation for Jackson's Ex-Wife

From A Times Staff Writer
5:50 PM PDT, September 6, 2006

A Los Angeles judge Wednesday rejected attempts by Michael Jackson's ex-wife to resume visits with the couple's two children without going through the formal procedure for changing custody.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ordered the pop star to pay Deborah Rowe's lawyer $60,000 in fees but denied Rowe's request to file some documents under seal.

The rulings came at the first hearing in the years-long custody battle between Jackson and Rowe since the case was moved from the jurisdiction of a privately paid judge into a public court.

After a settlement conference set for next week, both sides are due back in court Sept. 18.

If the case is not settled, Rowe could pursue visitation and custody of the children. She voluntarily gave up those rights in 2001 but changed her mind after Jackson was charged with child molestation. He was acquitted last year and since has moved with the children to Bahrain.

LA Times

Michael Jackson muss Ex-Frau Debbie Rowe Geld zahlen

Los Angeles (dpa) - Popstar Michael Jackson (48) muss seiner früheren Frau Debbie Rowe 60 000 Dollar (rund 47 000 Euro) zur Deckung ihrer Gerichtskosten zahlen. Dieses Urteil fällte am Mittwoch ein Richter in Los Angeles, berichtete der Internetdienst «E!Online».

Bis Ende September muss der Sänger das Geld überweisen. Rowes ursprüngliche Forderung in Höhe von 195 000 Dollar wies der Richter aber zurück. Die Krankenschwester und Mutter der gemeinsamen Kinder Prince Michael und Paris habe nach ihrer Scheidung von dem Popstar immerhin etliche Millionen Dollar erhalten, begründete er seine Entscheidung.

Rowe und Jackson sind seit vielen Jahren in einen Sorgerechtsstreit verwickelt. Zwar hatte Rowe nach der Scheidung im Jahr 2000 gegen bare Münze zunächst auf das Sorgerecht verzichtet, dann aber wieder Ansprüche erhoben, als Jackson wegen Missbrauchs eines 13-jährigen Jungens angeklagt worden war.

Nach seinem Freispruch im vergangenen Sommer war Jackson mit seiner Familie von Kalifornien nach Bahrain umgezogen. Neben den beiden Kindern mit Rowe hat der Sänger ein drittes Kind, Prince Michael II, mit einer anderen Frau.

erschienen am 07.09.2006 um 10:12 Uhr

Die Welt

schön, das die welt die ursprungsforderung der frau Rowe da weglässt.

Jackson’s Secret Payments To Ex

Friday, September 08, 2006
By Roger Friedman

The divorce war between Michael Jackson and his wife Debbie Rowe has already cost him a lot of money—and not just the $60,000 which he was ordered to pay her this week.

Sources close to the case who have seen previously unavailable court documents reveal that Jackson already forked over a secret payment of $100,000 to Rowe in July of this year. This may have been a good faith attempt by Jackson to stave off a psychological evaluation in their ongoing custody case. It was Rowe’s second payment in seven months from Jackson, who also secretly ponied up $265,000 in late 2005 to his ex wife and the mother of his two eldest children.

Around the same time that payment was made to Rowe, Jackson’s lawyers also agreed to pay Rowe’s attorney, Eric George, $225,000 after a secret arbitration between the two sides.

Other documents show that when Rowe received her late 2005 pay out, it was part of a larger agreement that gave Jackson’s own attorney, Michael Abrams, $125,000 and Rowe’s former lawyer, Iris Finsilver, received $150,000.

All of this money came out of an escrow account into which Jackson’s accountants have been depositing money that would have gone to Rowe since he ceased payments to her in their divorce in October 2003.

Jackson and Rowe are headed into a settlement agreement next week, which could—in a perfect world—resolve all their financial and custodial issues over Prince Michael, 8, and Paris, 7. Rowe, as I have written before in this space, is the children’s only biological parent. She last saw them during a meeting in August 2005.

The former couple is involved in two separate disputes. One involves the children’s custody and visitation. But the other stems from Jackson’s assertion that Rowe violated their confidentiality agreement when she gave “Entertainment Tonight” an interview about her horses and ranch in October 2003.

Ironically, several months earlier, in February 2003, Rowe—at Jackson’s request—participated in a video interview in which she extolled his virtues as a parent. This was a rebuttal to Martin Bashir’s "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary that showed him holding hands with a 12-year-old boy. That boy ultimately claimed to have been molested by Jackson, which resulted in the pop star’s 2005 trial. He was acquitted.

But court papers also reveal that Jackson thought Rowe somehow was helping the police in their investigation of him, and that he stopped his alimony payments to her because of that as well.

Court papers also show that on several occasions the private judge whom Jackson and Rowe had hired to adjudicate all of this, Stephen Lachs, urged them to settle their issues. Jackson, the judge noted, never even bothered to make an appearance in the case.

For Rowe, the developments of the last few months can be seen as a victory of sorts. But even if the court awards her visitation or joint custody of Prince and Paris, it’s unclear how she’ll be able to act on it. Jackson claims now to be a resident of Bahrain, a country that doesn’t have to cooperate with U.S. law. Rowe’s only chance for success would be serving him with papers in the United Kingdom—i.e. England or Ireland, two places where the pop singer likes to escape when things get too hot for him in the desert.

And here’s a MJ flashback: just in case you didn’t read it, this column first reported on August 19th that Jordan Chandler, the young man to whom Jackson paid a $20 million settlement in 1994, recently got a restraining order against his own father. This week, the story got recycled by other outlets without our credit. Rest assured, it started here…

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212865,00.html

Michael Jackson muss zahlen
Der Popstar und seine Ex-Frau Debbie Rowe sind seit Jahren in einen Sorgerechtsstreit um die beiden gemeinsamen Kinder verwickelt. Jetzt kassiert die ehemalige Krankenschwester 60.000 Dollar.

Los Angeles - Popstar Michael Jackson (48) muss seiner früheren Frau Debbie Rowe 60.000 Dollar (rund 47.000 Euro) zur Deckung ihrer Gerichtskosten zahlen. Dieses Urteil fällte am Mittwoch ein Richter in Los Angeles. Bis Ende September muss der Sänger das Geld überweisen.

Rowes ursprüngliche Forderung in Höhe von 195.000 Dollar wies der Richter zurück. Die Krankenschwester und Mutter der gemeinsamen Kinder Prince Michael und Paris habe nach ihrer Scheidung von dem Popstar immerhin etliche Millionen Dollar erhalten, begründete er seine Entscheidung.

Rowe und Jackson sind seit vielen Jahren in einen Sorgerechtsstreit verwickelt. Zwar hatte Rowe nach der Scheidung im Jahr 2000 gegen bare Münze zunächst auf das Sorgerecht verzichtet, dann aber wieder Ansprüche erhoben, als Jackson wegen Missbrauchs eines 13-jährigen Jungen angeklagt worden war. Nach seinem Freispruch im vergangenen Sommer war Jackson mit seiner Familie von Kalifornien nach Bahrein umgezogen.

Rowe und Jackson hatten 1996 geheiratet, Sohn Prince Michael Jr. wurde 1997 geboren, Tochter Paris 1998. Zwei Jahre später ließen sie sich scheiden. Der Sänger hat ein drittes Kind, Prince Michael II, mit einer anderen Frau.
WELT.de

Artikel erschienen am Do, 7. September 2006

Quelle: www.welt.de

There was a judgment, I don't know what the judgment was but I think both sides came to an agreement... here's what's on the LA Superior court website:

Case Number: --------------
JACKSON, DEBORAH ROWE VS JACKSON, MICHAEL J

Filing Date: 10/08/1999
Case Type: Dissolution of Marriage (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Judgment-Final-Juv. Custody Order 09/08/2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Hearings
09/25/2006 at 08:30 AM in department CE2 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion

09/25/2006 at 08:30 AM in department CE2 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Status

aveeno1 vom KOP