The hardest legal choices usually involve the ones you love
Ok, here’s the situation. You are in a car accident and the person at fault is a good friend or a family member. Do you call the police? Do you notify your car insurance?
What about a Will that leaves something to you that you know another family member. Do you give it to the family member?? What if the item is something you always wanted but your family member has always said they wanted it? If they fight it in court, are you going to fight it in court??
What about a family member that gets arrested and wants to use you as an alibi? Do you cover for them if the alibi is not true??
I wish I could give you the ‘CLEAN LEGAL’ answer for all of the scenarios but unfortunately, I can’t. I can tell you that you may need to investigate the damages for your car and speak to a Personal Injury Attorney. I can tell you that you may need to speak to an Estate Attorney regarding challenges to wills. I can tell you that you need to speak to a Criminal Defense attorney so you can appreciate the ramifications of your actions for covering (i.e. lying for a family).
Those responses are the “Legal” responses. Unfortunately, they are not necessarily the CLEAN responses. The reason I say they are not the CLEAN responses is because any time you are dealing with family members or loved ones and THE LAW, things are never as clean as we would like them to be.
It’s easy to deal with someone who is not a relative or a friend. However, when you find yourself in a situation where you are trying to separate your personal emotions and feelings about a legal situation, it can be come increasingly difficult based on the person you’re dealing.
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. The phrase “The LAW is Blind” is also applicable to family members and friends. When you find yourself in a situation where you are forced to avail yourself of the legal system, you have to keep in mind that your relationship with that person will be affected by the legal process. The impact of that affection depends on you and your loved one.
Anthony Reeves
www.reevesfirm.com
Dedicated to Representing the Disabled and Discriminated
Law 102: Michael Jackson’s kids – not over yet
Today, I read in the paper where Katherine Jackson and Debbie Rowe have come to an understand about Michael Jackson kids. Ms. Jackson will have custody and Ms. Rowe will have visitation. Ms. Rowe’s parental rights are restored. Ms. Rowe will not receive any money beyond what she’s receiving.
They should have added a phrase that says “……..For NOW”.
Now, some of you are probably thinking, “yaaaaay, the kids stay with the Jacksons and Ms. Rowe won’t get any money.”
Again, I say “……. For NOW”.
Now, I’m not an expert but this move may have been a brilliant move on the part of Ms. Rowe:
1) Visitation re-establishes a relationship. The simple fact that may have hurt Ms. Rowe was that she had NO relationship with her children at all. They didn’t know who she was. They didn’t know she was their biological mother. They didn’t visit her. Her ability to demand their custody may have been hampered by these facts (coupled with the alleged fact that she relinquished some of her parental rights). By allowing visitation, she may be able to establish a relationship with the children. Depending on the type of visitation (overnight, extended visits, etc.), she may be able to spend a great deal of time bonding with the children.
2) Agreement revives parental rights. The agreement allegedly revives her parental rights which gives Ms. Rowe the ability to assert an interest in the children as it relates to their well being. As time progresses, the more time she spends with the children, the stronger her position becomes as it relates to asserting her parental rights.
3) Ms. Jackson’s age may be an advantage. I know this is a morbid point but Ms. Katherine Jackson is 79 years old. Hopefully, by the grace of the almighty, Ms. Jackson lives to be 109 years old. With one child being 12 and the other 11, these kids could reach the age of majority (18) by the time Ms. Jackson turns 86. However, with the youngest being, 7 years old, Ms. Jackson may be 90 years old. If everything works perfectly, Ms. Jackson will have the pleasure of watching all 3 children graduate from high school. However, if she passes away before this time, Ms. Rowe may be able to use the time she has had establishing a relationship with her children as an opportunity to modify the custody arrangement.
4) No money now may mean more money later. Recognize one fundamental point – ‘The money follows the kids’!!! If Ms. Jackson passes and Ms. Rowe is awarded custody, she still stands a great likelihood of receiving money on behalf of the children. Now, someone can easily argue that a trustee should handle the money but make no mistake, she can still make a compelling argument that if she gets the kids, she should be able to handle the money.
5) Estates rights v. Parental rights. I know this is prospectively speaking but the simple fact is that if Ms. Jackson passes away over the next years, Ms. Rowe (depending on how often she visits the children) may be able to assert her custody rights. This situation may get tricky if Ms. Jackson inserts a provision in her will regarding the children OR if the estate emphasizes that the children should go to the secondary custodian, Diana Ross. Make no mistake, Ms. Rowe will have a compelling argument that her Parental rights trumps any will that may be in effect at the time of Ms. Jackson’s passing.
6) Best interest of the child. All of these points sound like a very elaborate and integrated chest match. However, at the end of the day, the governing factor will always be “What’s in the best interest of the children”. Whatever course of action, this factor always takes precedence.
Right now, both parties did the smart thing. They didn’t go through a lengthy fist fight which would have been extremely high profile. For Ms. Jackson, she has the ability to ensure that her children maintain a close relationship with the only family they know. Ms. Rowe will develop the relationship she never had with the children. In the end, this looks like a very elaborate and complex chest match with the children being used as pawns. In any legal proceedings, you have to move one piece over and lose a piece before you get a check mate.
Just remember, this situation is far from over.
