HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Faulking Opinions - Jul 2, 2009 - Printable Version
- Who Will Speak for the Children?
by Anonymous
"Justice for children cannot be sought, let alone achieved, if their voice is not represented in the hearings that determine their fate. Guardians ad Litem are that voice." -Former Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz, Minnesota Supreme Court It seems that one of the big stories of the day is the guardianship of Michael Jackson's three minor children. In his will, he apparently nominated his mother to serve in that capacity, with Diana Ross to serve in the event that his mother is unable to do so. Both women are older, which seems to be a sticking point with many. His mother Katherine is 79, while Diana Ross is 65. Given the celebrity deaths that have occurred recently, the argument Diana Ross is not that particularly old just doesn't seem to be that relevant.
Of course, no one really wants the children to go to Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson's ex-wife and the mother of his two eldest children. From all accounts, she essentially leased her uterus to Michael and then waived all rights to their two children. The idea that she now wants to play "mommy" is somewhat confusing to many.
I have my own objection to Debbie Rowe that not many people have really mentioned. She is not the mother of Michael Jackson's youngest child. One would presume that she, lacking any biological connection to the third child, would never in a million years be appointed guardianship over Blanket, as he is called. I tend to think very little of her as a suitable guardian for that reason alone. . . she doesn't have a familial relationship with her two biological children, so how can she honestly say that she has their best interests at heart? And how can we possibly take any such assertion when she might be willing to separate the two eldest children from their sibling at a very tragic time in their lives?
This story does serve as a public service announcement to parents everywhere . . . if you don't have a will naming the individuals you would want to serve as the guardian(s) of your children, you need to do so. Now. Google "holographic will" if you can't afford to hire an attorney. Find out what makes a handwritten will valid in your particular state. Do some research and get it in writing.
Your kids are just. that. important.
Michael Jackson was 50 years old, for the love of God. He should have had years ahead of him. Want to point to the possibility that drugs factors in? Pretend that Billy Mays, who was also 50 and apparently died of an enlarged heart, had children of similar ages. Age ain't nothing but a number, and it doesn't matter at all when death comes calling.
For the record, I would want my in-laws to take care of my child. Yes, they are 65 and 60. And they will probably outlive God. If they don't, though, or if they are unable to take care of my baby, though, I want the court that handles my estate to consider the only thing that matters, really.
The best interest of my daughter.
I want the best possible guardian for her that can be found, and if that is not her grandparents, I want the court to decide, because I know that, given the size of my family, there will be a LOT of voices weighing in on the subject.
In order to do that, and what I predict will happen in the case of Michael Jackson's children, the court will need to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children.
I know.
Novel concept, huh, letting the three children have a voice?
A "guardian ad litem" is "a guardian appointed to represent the interests of a person with respect to a single action in litigation."
The function of guardian ad litem is to independently represent the minor children's best interests. The guardian ad litem would not be hired by the Jacksons to fight Debbie Rowe, or by Debbie Rowe to tell the court why she is suddenly the greatest mother in the world. Although the court might order the disputing parties to pay the fees, they have no choice in the selection of the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem has no loyalty to either party and serve as an objective party -- an objective voice for the children, so to speak. The guardian ad litem investigates the living conditions, family relationships, friendships, and even the preferences of the children, themselves. They are authorized to speak with any party who might be relevant to the determination of what would be in the best interest of the child. Once their investigation is concluded, they report to the court their findings and recommendations of what would be in the best interest of the child regarding placement and visitation.
The recommendations of the guardian ad litem are not binding on the court, however, and the disputing parties will still have an opportunity to speak their own peace in front of the judge, but the guardian ad litem can be invaluable in resolving the unbelievably difficult question of which person's will best serve as the guardian of the children in question?
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the most important question right now is not whether Diana Ross, Katherine Jackson, Debbie Rowe, or even Janet Jackson should be named the guardian of Michael Jackson's three children. The real question is, who should serve as the guardian ad litem in the case. Who is the individual who would best examine the lives of these three children to make a recommendation to the court in the midst of what could turn into an ugly legal battle? Who would best serve as the neutral voice of reason to advocate for the defenseless in the case? For the sake of Michael Jackson's children, I hope the court considers these questions long and hard and chooses a guardian ad litem wisely, allowing ample time for that person to make every effort to conduct his or her investigation. In disputes like this one could be, there is no guarantee that the parties themselves will truly consider the best interest of the children . . . but that doesn't mean that no one should.
(Author's note: I would add as a caveat that I don't think that Michael Jackson's wishes should be ignored out of hand. He selected his mother and Diana Ross, respectively, and that matters and should be given considerable weight by the court, as well.)
(Editor's note: This is another opinion piece from "Anonymous", an exceptional writer who I stumbled upon on MySpace. She has contributed numerous pieces to our website over the past couple of months. At some point, I'm wondering if she will remove her cybermask and reveal her true identity. In the meantime, I'll continue to pilfer her work and post it here for our readers.)
(Another Editor's note: In a battle of the entertainment fanzines, there have been reports that Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother of Michael Jackson's two oldest children. Rowe denies those reports. Stay tuned. http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/07/debbie-rowe-insists-she-is-biological-mother-michael-jackson-children/ )
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).