Deborah Rowe - who married Jackson in 1996 and divorced him in 1999 - had petitioned a judge to reliquish her rights to the couple's two children, son Prince Michael and daughter Paris. This is what she said in her original petition:
"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 ... 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."
Of course, it's highly unusual, not to say drastic, that any court would approve a unilateral, albeit voluntary, request from someone to give up their rights to their own children. It most states, the law assumes that children need both parents, so any termination of rights for one of the parents must be called for by extreme circumstances.
Nevertheless, the judge in the case approved Rowe's request - but then realized, apparently, that he had acted improperly by not first requiring an investigation to determine whether the request was in the children's best interest. The judge then voided his own order, prompting Jackson's appeal to the state's 2nd District Court of Appeal.
This past week, that court agreed with the original judge, saying:
"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."Rowe has been trying to reassert her parental rights since Jackson was prosecuted on child molestation charges. But that's not the only reason. Rowe, who is Jewish, is concerned about the pop star's current flirtation with the Nation of Islam, which she reckons - with good reason - has a poor attitude towards Jews.
Interestingly, Jackson is reported ready to build a mosque in Bahrain, where he has been living since his acquittal last June, as the guest of Sheik Abdullah bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the son of Bahrain's king.
What's particularly disturbing about this case is that it is an open secret that neither Rowe or Jackson intended to live together as a married couple. Indeed, the only purpose of their relationship was literally to produce children for the man-child who likes to surround himself with children. As the judge who originally approved Rowe's request to surrender her rights said:
"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.'"
I suppose it is commendable that Rowe reversed her decision and I am glad that the court has now, in effect, voided the whole "business transaction" between she and Jackson. Still, it gives me great pause that any person, celebrity or not, could use the system to promote their selfish desires to have children 'of their own.'
In this case, think of what the woman was doing to her own children by giving them up to Michael Jackson ... at least now, however, she is trying to correct a disasterous decision.
Let's just hope she's not too late.