MICHAEL'S KIDS MAY BE HURT BY CASE.

Byline: Gloria Allred Local View

IS entertainer Michael Jackson in danger of losing custody of his children? Is he in legal peril in the family law or the juvenile court, as well as in criminal court?

Jackson was recently arraigned on seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14 and two counts of using an intoxicating agent to commit the alleged lewd and lascivious acts. He has entered a plea of not guilty.

Jackson reportedly has custody of three children, none of whom is alleged to be the victim in the current pending criminal case. The mother of two of those children is Debbie Rowe. He is alleged to be the father of all three children.

Rowe, according to news reports, may be interested in pursuing custody of all three children. The mother of the third child is unknown and may have been a surrogate.

What are Rowe's chances of prevailing, should she wish to pursue a change of custody? The answer may depend on Rowe's legal status as a parent.

According to news reports, Jackson obtained physical and legal custody of the two children to whom Rowe gave birth through a confidential agreement with her.

It is not known if Rowe has relinquished her parental rights to the two children. If she legally relinquished her rights as a parent, then she has no legal right to seek custody. If, however, she is still legally the mother, but agreed that Jackson could have sole legal and physical custody, then she has the right to seek a change of custody of her two children from Jackson to her.

Some have suggested that she may have received substantial compensation in the agreement to afford Jackson custody of the children and that she may have agreed never to seek custody. Since any such agreement would most likely have been confidential, it is impossible for the general public to know whether these allegations are true or false.

But such provisions, if they existed, would not bar Rowe from seeking custody, because the court retains jurisdiction to determine what is in the best interests of the children. Rowe, as the noncustodial parent, would be required to prove changed circumstances to the court and demonstrate that it is no longer in the best interests of the children to be with Jackson.

As evidence, she would most likely cite the pending criminal allegations, the 1993 allegation of sexual misconduct by Jackson against another child, the incident in which Jackson dangled his third child over the side of the fourth-floor balcony in Germany and Jackson's statements that he allows his children to sleep in bed with unrelated adult males.

Rowe might also argue that, if the acts alleged in the current pending criminal case occurred at Neverland Ranch, where her own children resided, then her own children were at risk of being sexually abused. She might also cite an article in the March issue of Vanity Fair, which suggests that there may be evidence that Jackson placed alcohol in the soda pop cans of the minor in the pending criminal case and showed him pornography.

As to the third child of Jackson, Rowe would have no standing to seek custody since she is not the child's mother.

Even if Rowe does not file for a change of custody, she still may obtain temporary ``custody'' of her two children, assuming she has not relinquished her rights as a parent.

California Welfare and Institutions code states that the Juvenile Court shall assume jurisdiction when there is a ``substantial risk that a child will be sexually abused by his or her parent,'' or there is a substantial risk that a child may suffer serious physical harm. Jackson's videotaped behavior of dangling his baby over a balcony, thereby endangering the child, and allegations of sexual misconduct, should be sufficient to argue substantial risk under these sections of the law.

If child welfare authorities decide to temporarily remove Jackson's children, then a hearing would be held in the Juvenile Court, and preference for placement would go to relatives.

Therefore, Rowe might obtain temporary ``custody'' of the children through the Juvenile Court without ever having to file in the family law court.

If, however, Jackson's parents or other relatives sought to have the children temporarily placed with them, there might be a battle over where the children should be placed.

Will Jackson's children be removed from his custody? With whom would they be placed if they were removed? As we enter a legal Neverland, only time will tell. One thing is sure, however. The answer will be a real ``thriller.''