LOS ANGELES — A judge on Thursday delayed a guardianship hearing for Michael Jackson’s children at the request of attorneys for the singer’s mother and his ex-wife, Deborah Rowe.

The legal documents filed on behalf of Rowe and Katherine Jackson were not accompanied by any petition for custody by Rowe.

The hearing had been scheduled for Monday. Records show attorneys for both sides asked for the hearing to be delayed until July 13.

Another hearing scheduled for Monday on who will take temporary control of Jackson’s estate will proceed.

KNBC in Los Angeles reported earlier that Rowe intends to seek custody of Jackson’s two oldest children and will seek a restraining order to keep Jackson’s father Joe away from the children.

Calls by The Associated Press to Rowe’s attorney Marta Almli were not immediately returned.

Katherine Jackson currently has temporary guardianship of the children.

Rowe is the mother of Jackson’s two oldest children, son Michael Joseph Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; daughter Paris Michael Katherine, 11.

The mother of the singer’s youngest child, son Prince Michael II, 7, has never been revealed.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles officials were holding closed-door talks about a possible event for Michael Jackson on Tuesday at a downtown arena, a person with knowledge of the situation said Thursday.

The event would take place at the Staples Center, home of the Los Angeles Lakers, said the person who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

It wasn’t immediately clear if a funeral or a public memorial was being discussed for the entertainer — or both.

All talks were preliminary, and no decisions had been made, the person said.

Another site that has also been discussed for a Jackson tribute is the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

The discussions were held as the federal Drug Enforcement Administration joining the investigation into Jackson’s death, and Jermaine Jackson said he would be “hurt” if toxicology reports showed his younger brother abused prescription drugs.

“In this business, the pressures and things that you go through, you never know what one turns to,” Jermaine Jackson said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show.

The circumstances surrounding Jackson’s death last week have become a federal issue, with the DEA asked to help police take a look at the pop star’s doctors and possible drug use. Allegations have emerged that the 50-year-old entertainer had been consuming painkillers, sedatives and antidepressants.

Asked if he would be shocked or surprised if Michael’s drug use was proven, Jermaine Jackson said, “I would be hurt.” He said he had heard about prescription drug use in the 1980s when his brother was hurt in an accident filming a commercial but did not know if drug use was a possibility more recently.

“I don’t know about these things, because I hate anything with drugs,” he said, adding that it hurts the family for people to say things about drug use “because we don’t know.”

Psychic entertainer Uri Geller, a former Jackson confidant, said he tried to keep Jackson from abusing painkillers and other prescription drugs, but others in the singer’s circle kept him supplied.

“When Michael asked for something, he got it. This was the great tragedy,” Geller said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from his suburban London home.

Jermaine Jackson said he would like Neverland Ranch to be his brother’s final resting place. A person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity told the AP that permits for a burial at Neverland could not be arranged in time.

The Los Angeles Police Department asked the DEA to help in the probe, a law enforcement official in Washington told the AP on condition of anonymity because of the investigation’s sensitivity.

While the investigation into the singer’s death deepened, passionate Michael Jackson fans spent another day in an uneasy limbo, awaiting word from the King of Pop’s camp about where and when a memorial service might be held for their hero — and if they’re even invited.

On the legal front, Jackson’s 7-year-old will was filed Wednesday in a Los Angeles court, giving his entire estate to a family trust and naming his 79-year-old mother Katherine and his three children as beneficiaries. The will also estimates the value of his estate at more than $500 million.

The will doesn’t name father Joe Jackson to any position of authority in administering the estate. Also shut out is Rowe.

The will was dated July 7, 2002. Details of the trust will not be made public.

Jackson owns a 50 percent stake in the massive Sony-ATV Music Publishing Catalog, which includes music by the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers.

___

AP writers Michael R. Blood, Noaki Schwartz and Ryan Nakashima in Los Angeles; John Rogers in Los Olivos; Michele Salcedo in Washington; Shawn Pogatchnik in London; and AP Entertainment Writer Erin Carlson in New York contributed to this story.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Media reports are swirling over the issue of who will get custody of Michael Jackson’s kids.  It could be a bit of a battle depending on a variety of things including what Michael Jackson’s will provides regarding guardianship of the kids, whether Michael Jackson’s mother (temporary guardian at this point) petitions the court for custody, and whether any other person(s) claim a legal right to custody of the children.  One of the issues that may impact the custody or guardianship proceedings is whether or not another person, such as Debbie Rowe (mother of Michael Jackson’s two eldest children), or the so-called unknown surrogate mother of Jackson’s youngest child, will dispute any guardian named in Jackson’s will and try to obtain custody respectively.   It can be a complicated, if not downright tricky, legal issue when children are born in, let’s say non-traditional, means.  And… unlike some tabloid reports, the person(s) named on a child’s birth certificate are not necessarily conclusively entitled to such custody.  Allow me to deconstruct: 

When a man and woman get married, conceive a child, the woman carries the pregnancy and gives birth to the child, the child is both biologically related to both the man and the woman and the woman gives birth to the baby – both “paternity” and “maternity” are clear.  Both the man and the woman have a “parent and child relationship” with the baby.  The woman’s name is listed on the birth certificate as the mother and the man’s name is listed on the birth certificate as the father. 

With adoption of a child, parental rights are also well-settled.  The man and the woman petition the court to adopt the child, to terminate the biological mother (and father’s when known) legal rights, and for the adoptive parents to become the legal parents.   A Court Report of Adoption is prepared which contains the child’s original birth name, etc. and the natural parents’ names, as well as the child’s new name and information about the adoptive parents.  Then, the child’s original birth record is sealed and a new birth certificate is prepared listing the adoptive father’s name as the father and the adoptive mother’s name as the mother. 

With surrogacy, the legal rights of all involved start getting a little tricky.  First, there are many different types of surrogacy.  A woman’s eggs can be harvested and fertilized by her husband’s sperm and implanted into another woman (surrogate), eggs can be donated by another woman, sperm can be donated, a woman can volunteering (or be paid) to be inseminated with a married man’s sperm in order to conceive and carry a child for a married couple,  etc.   Donors may be known or anonymous.  The most common types of surrogacy according to surrogacy.com are outlined below: 

• Traditional Surrogacy (Artificial Insemination) 
  An arrangement between the intended parents of the child and a woman who agrees to donate her egg(s) to be artificially inseminated with the sperm of the intended father. In most states the intended mother does a step-parent adoption after the birth in order to establish her parental rights and so that the surrogate will relinquish her rights regarding the child.
• Gestational Surrogacy
  An arrangement between the intended parents of the child and a woman who agrees to carry the embryo(s) made from the egg(s) and sperm of the intended parents. The child(ren) of gestational surrogacy is/are the genetic child(ren) of the intended parents, and the surrogate carries the embryo/fetus to term in the role of “host” uterus. In this form of surrogacy, the surrogate may also be called the “gestational carrier”.
• Donor Egg/Gestational Surrogacy
  Arrangement between the intended parents of the child and a woman who agrees to carry the embryo(s) made from the egg(s) of a third party donor (who is often anonymous) and sperm of the intended father. The surrogate carries the embryo/fetus to term as a “host” uterus since there is no biological tie between the surrogate and the embryo/fetus. In this form of surrogacy, the surrogate may also be called the “gestational carrier”.

In many states, the woman who gives birth to a child is presumed to be the mother and is thus named on the birth certificate as such.  With the increase of “assisted conception” and “third party reproduction” methods, however, some states may have regulations in place regarding naming the intended or biological mother on the original birth certificate.  On the father’s side, the intended or biological father may be able to “acknowledge” paternity and be named on the original birth certificate.  However, in many states if a surrogate is married, her husband may be “presumed” to be the father and thus listed on the original birth certificate.  Of course, these “presumptions” may be rebutted through evidence otherwise.

In California, the names of the father or mother listed on a child’s original birth certificate can be changed through a court order called an “Adjudication of Facts of Parentage.” A hospital or the Department of Vital Records can not change the names on a birth certificate without this official court order or “adjudication.”  To get the court order, the person(s) must petition the court, present facts about their situation, and the court must officially determine whether a “parent and child relationship” exists in order for the birth certificate to be changed. 

The Adjudication of Facts of Parentage (court order) must state the following:

1. 1. Specifically instruct the Department of Vital Statistics to remove the existing father and add the new father.
2. 2. Include the child’s date and place of birth as listed on his or her original birth certificate.
3. 3. If the child’s name is being changed, the full new name must be listed in the court order.

Given all of the above, the birth certificates of Michael Jackson’s children may not necessarily be the whole story.  Of course, they would be evidence of legal paternity and maternity.  Since the stakes are quite high in circumstances such as these – i.e. who will obtain legal rights to custody of a child – it is extremely important to seek the advice of an experienced attorney when contemplating assisted conception, third party reproduction, surrogacy, or other methods to create your family.  For more information, contact a family law attorney or a surrogacy lawyer.

Once you have children, you should put guardianship forms in place in the event something should happen to you as a parent.  Through the appropriate legal forms, you can make your wishes known to the court regarding the custody and care of your children.  Typically, a court prefers to abide by the wishes of the parent, as long as there are no concerns about such potential guardian’s ability to care for the child in accordance with the child’s best interest.  However, guardianship over a minor child can get a bit tricky when one of the parents is somewhat estranged, has given up their custody rights, or there is some other dispute regarding guardianship.  As we’ve all seen in the news, there may be some tricky legal issues involved in the guardianship of Michael Jackson’s children. 

A guardian is person appointed by a court to provide care for a minor child.  In addition to custody over the child, the guardian may or may not be given legal authority to manage the finances and/or assets legally belonging to the child.  Typically, relatives or friends are appointed as a child’s legal guardian when the parent is unable to care for the child any longer.  However, other interested persons may also petition the court for guardianship.

Once a petition for guardianship is filed with the court, an investigation is typically conducted before the court makes its decision.  Many people may be interviewed throughout the process, including the person petitioning for guardianship, the child (or children), and any other person the court determines should be contacted about the case.  The investigator submits a report of his or her investigation to the court and makes a recommendation about what should occur.  Sometimes, the case will even go to a court trial, particularly if there are several interested parties vying for the guardianship.  In all cases, the court must determine that there are sufficient grounds, or proof, that a particular guardianship is in the best interests of the child. 

Guardians are granted legal and physical custody of the child, including the right to make decisions about the child’s education, religion and medical care.  However, guardians’ authority over any financial estate of the child is typically restricted.  For instance, a guardian may be required to obtain a court order to spend estate funds.  Also, guardians are typically not allowed to pay themselves a fee, make any gifts of the estate to others, or borrow money from the child’s estate.  Finally, since guardians of a child’s estate are required to manage the child’s funds in a responsible matter (including keeping records and financial accountings), an attorney is often used by the guardian to help manage the estate. 

For more information about guardianship of a minor child, visit LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center.   For assistance with a guardianship, contact an attorney in your area.  You can find a guardianship attorney by clicking here.

The fight for marriage equality will rage on another day. On Tuesday, May 26th, California’s Supreme Court ruled to uphold the state’s gay-marriage ban, also known as Proposition 8. The 6-1 decision by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument from activists that Proposition 8 revised the California constitution’s equal protection clause.

Although the Court also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid and it would be too disruptive to apply Prop 8 retroactively, activists said they would go back to the voting public as soon as possible to repeal the ban.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Since that time, same-sex couples from around the country came to California to wed before this ruling made its way to the voters during the 2008 election. Consequently, Proposition 8 did pass with a 52% approval. As the fight raged on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage.

Although the court ruled that the ban denies gay couples use of the term “marriage,” California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships and does not “disturb the basic right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within the family.”

So what are your thoughts? Was justice upheld today based upon the voice of the voters, or was the decree of our Constitution challenged today and overruled? No matter what side of the fence you stand on this issue, there is a long fight ahead that will impact our country and that of generations to come.

As Elizabeth Edward’s new book, Resilience, is about to hit the shelves, she has given several interview (including Oprah’s) discussing the admitted affair her husband, John Edwards, had with Rielle Hunter and the possibility that he  is the father of Hunter’s child out of that affair.  Elizabeth Edwards apparently commented to Oprah that if John Edwards is determined to be the baby’s father, while he would certainly have legal (and presumably other) obligations to the child, that the child will have no affect on Mrs. Edward’s life.  As I continue to see the comments on the web regarding Elizabeth’s remarks, I see that this has you all thinking.  Well, it got me thinking a bit too…

What happens when a child is born out of a cheating husband’s affair with another woman?  Assuming paternity is established, the man will be required to pay child support.  (This is of course only one issue of many, but we’re focusing on that issue here).  The man is required to pay child support in accordance with child support guidelines set by the state.  His income must be calculated.  What if he’s the stay-at-home husband and his wife is the breadwinner?  Ah ha…  in many states his wife’s earnings are considered marital income.  What then?  The betrayed wife not only gets cheated on, but then has to take some of that money she earns to pay child support to the woman who had an affair with her husband?   Can you even imagine writing that check every month? 

Now, I am all for what’s best for the child.  I certainly wouldn’t be in favor of a child suffering because of mistakes made by his/her parent(s).  The law clearly favors taking care of the child, which is the important thing.  I just couldn’t help wondering about the experiences of betrayed breadwinner-wives out there in this kind of situation.
If you’re struggling with paternity, child support, infidelity, or other family law matters, contact a family law lawyer in your area today. 

For more information about how to calculate child support, check out LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center.  Here are few links to get you started: 

http://www.lawinfo.com/Family-Child-Support.html

http://resources.lawinfo.com/Search.html?q=child+support

http://resources.lawinfo.com/Search.html?&q=paternity%20child%20support%20payment&fq=category:Child%20Support

http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/2582

When a marriage fails, dividing the marital property is hard enough when the couple actually has assets to split.  A divorce attorney colleague of mine recently pointed out that he’s seeing a trend in what’s called the “bankrupt marriage” – when the couple has more debt than it does assets.  In a bankrupt marriage, or “negative asset” case, the question becomes:  How to divide the debt between the ex spouses?  Equally?  Non-equally?  Fairly? 

Marital assets and debts are divided in accordance with state law.  In ”community property” states, the general rule is that marital assets and debts are divided equally.  In other states, the division of property is supposed to be made “equitably” based on a variety of factors.  With the current economic crisis, though, courts may be taking a new look the rules regarding division of assets, particularly in states where the general rule is to split things down the middle. Couples owe more on their homes than they’re worth, credit card bills are often too high to pay even with two incomes, and salaries are being cut.    For these reasons, and others, divorcing couples are having a hard time allocating debt between them.  Rarely can each spouse take on an equal portion of the debt.   If you’re in a bankrupt marriage – and you have more debts than assets – then your attorney may be able to argue for an unequal division of the debt in proportion to your ability to pay.   Another option may to award an unequal division of the assets in order to offset certain financial discrepancies between you. 

The financial aspects of any divorce can be complicated, but if you are in a “bankrupt marriage” contact an experienced divorce attorney to determine if the non-equal division of property and debt is available in your case.  

If you’re in San Diego, you can certainly contact my attorney friend, Roy Doppelt, of the law firm of Pinkerton, Doppelt & Associates.  He takes these kinds of cases regularly.

To learn more about divorce, check out LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center.

Garment workers, manufacturers and small-business owners gathered in front of Macy’s flagship store in New York Tuesday to protest a new anti-lead law they say will cut their jobs and devastate wide-spread retail profits.

The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires that all items sold for use by children under the age of twelve, including clothing, toys and other products, must be tested for lead. Congress passed the act after the U.S. recall of millions of lead-containing toys imported from China.

But this new act does not come without major concerns. Tuesday’s protest was organized by the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Childrenswear, which represents hundreds of manufacturers and family business workers. The coalition says the new rules would cost thousands of jobs and drive companies out of business.

Coalition members said manufacturing practices have already changed to comply with the new law, but they are asking Congress to ease a provision that will retroactively force them to pull $500 million worth of possible lead-containing products from shelves.
In passing the act, Congress had asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to come up with specific methods on how and by whom products should be tested and certified to be lead-free. But the coalition says up until now, there have been no definitive regulations set in place to execute this.

“Until regulations are set in place on how to do the testing and certify that something is lead-free, retailers won’t risk putting anything on their shelves that could contain lead, thereby halting the demand for thousands of products, and cutting manufacturing jobs in the process,” a spokesperson for the coalition said.

Steve Levy, of Star Ride Kids sportswear, said the coalition is not asking for special treatment or government bailouts. “All we are asking for is some common sense. At the exact moment when Congress is debating a $900 billion economic rescue bill, it should be looking for every opportunity to create jobs, not kill them.”

It is true that the economy is facing its worse financial crisis in history, and that every job this country can sustain is critically important. However, what is the lesser of two evils in this situation? Keeping jobs and businesses afloat, or keeping health regulations in check and making sure toxic products do not end up in the hands of our children? Although it is clear that the coalition, Congress, and the CPSC all want to arrive at a place where lead-containing products are not released into the marketplace and manufacturing jobs aren’t threatened in the process, until that time, whose side are you on?

For more information on the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008, visit the CPSC. To learn more about the Act’s predecessor, the Consumer Product Reform Act of 2007, click here, or visit LawInfo’s free legal resource center for more CPSC legal news.

So far, 2009 isn’t starting out great when it comes to safe products for children. There have been a lot of products recalled, including cribs, baby garments and common household objects. The following list comprises recalls that have been announced so far this year:

Stork Craft baby cribs

About 535,000 Stork Craft baby cribs, manufactured in Canada, China and Indonesia, have been recalled due to metal mattress-support brackets cracking and breaking, causing the mattress to collapse and creating a gap where a child could get trapped and possibly suffocate. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is aware of 10 incidents of support brackets that broke, although no injuries have been reported.

The cribs were sold at J.C. Penney, Kmart, Wal-Mart and other stores around the country. They were also sold online at amazon.com, babiesrus.com, costco.com and walmart.com from May 2000 through January 2009.

For more information, call 866-361-3321, or visit http://www.storkcraft.com or http://www.cpsc.gov.

Taggies Sleep’n Play baby garments

About 16,000 Taggies Sleep’n Play baby garments, made in China, have been recalled due to snaps on the garments possibly detaching and posing a choking hazard to children. No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The products were sold at Babies R Us, Buy Buy Baby, Dillards, Nordstrom and other specialty stores nationwide and Internet retailers from January 2007 through November 2008.

For more information, call 888-594-3730, or visit http://www.rashtiandrashti.com or http://www.cpsc.gov.

Roman shades by Cost Plus Inc.

About 692,400 Roman shades and roll-up blinds, manufactured in India and China and distributed by Cost Plus Inc., have been recalled due to the cords posing a strangulation hazard for children. No incidents have been reported with the blinds in this recall, but CPSC is aware of the deaths of three children involving similar styles of blinds and shades.

The shades and blinds were sold at Cost Plus and World Market stores around the country from February 2006 to August 2008.

For more information, call 877-967-5362, or visit http://www.worldmarket.com or http://www.cpsc.gov.

Products liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Products liability cases may include defective or poorly designed machinery, tools, motor vehicle defects, recreational products, pharmaceuticals and other defective products and equipment. To learn more, visit LawInfo’s legal resource center for articles and answers to frequently-asked product liability questions.

On January 1st, 2009, laws mandating stores sell only cigarettes that are slow-burning and comprised of fire-safe paper went into effect in Delaware, Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas. Fifteen other states have laws that will take effect this year or next, according to the Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes.

The paper on these cigarettes is thicker in two separate areas so they will extinguish (if not puffed) when they burn to these spots. This was designed to prevent fires caused by unattended cigarettes. It is estimated that about 800 Americans die each year in fires caused by careless smoking.

“There has been a rash of smoking materials deaths,” Oklahoma Fire Marshal Robert Doke said Monday. “A cigarette will fall into overstuffed furniture or mattresses when people fall asleep, or it rolls off an ashtray and on to the carpet, then the possibility for ignition happens. This cigarette is supposed to snuff out before it can cause enough heat to start a flame.”

States that have already implemented fire-safe cigarette laws are New York, Vermont, California, Oregon, New Hampshire, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Utah, Alaska, Rhode Island and Minnesota, as well as the District of Columbia. Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Louisiana, Hawaii and Wisconsin have laws that take effect this year. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and South Carolina have laws that will take effect in 2010.

A New Year brings new laws across the United States. Some laws will have a small impact; others will be felt by thousands, if not millions of people. Some of these laws include the no-texting while driving law in California, no trans-fat in fast food restaurants law for Oregon, and a referendum that bans non-married, cohabitating couples from fostering or adopting a child in Arkansas. To find out more about the new laws in your state, simply visit your state’s home page (e.g. www.ca.gov for California, etc.)

Although FBI data suggests that fatal shootings have leveled off nationwide, the number of young black men and teenagers who either killed or were killed in gun fire has risen at an alarming rate, according to a new study by criminologists at Northeastern University in Boston.

The study finds that last year 426 black males between the ages of 14 and 17 were killed in gun crimes; marking a 40% increase from 2000. In addition, an estimated 964 in the same age group committed fatal shootings in 2007, a 38% increase from seven years earlier.

“Although the overall rate of homicide in the United States remains relatively low, the landscape is quite different for countless Americans living, and some dying, in violence-infested neighborhoods,” said Northeastern criminologist James Alan Fox, who co-authored the study. “There is an urgency for reinvestment in children and families. In essence, we need a bailout for kids at risk.”

The Northeastern study shows the number of young white men who committed gun-related murders has also risen, but not as steep. An estimated 384 white males aged 14 to 17 shot someone to death in 2007, up from 368 in 2000.

The Northeastern study shows that the surge in crimes by young black men and teens may be a result of grant cuts to local police and juvenile crime prevention programs.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a gun-related crime, especially a fatal gun-related crime, you will need to contact a criminal law attorney immediately to protect and defend your legal rights. Visit LawInfo’s attorney directory to find experienced, qualified legal representation in your area today.