Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While they may not live together, I'm pretty sure he is in the house right now.
He also keep saying "they are gonna raise kids"
Joe is also dissing Debbie which is low.
I said something similar the other day in one of the other posts..
A lot of us were beaten back then; it's what our parents knew to do since it was done to them.
I don't know anyone that didn't get hit back then. Most got hit by a belt, wooden spoon.
Do I consider myself abused? No, but one of my sibs does.
With all that I've read & watched the last few days, I'm almost positive Debbie Rowe lived up the street from the kids until MJ left after the trial. It is my understanding that no one has really seen MJ and the kids since the trial. Debbie was in the kids lives before MJ left.
I would like to see Janet have the kids by MJ.but it's looking like the kids don't share DNA with any of the Jackson's and none were legally adopted
How do I feel? I think Debbie Rowe having them wouldn't be a bad thing; I don't agree with Katherine having them due to Joe. If Debbie gets them, I think the nanny should stay.
Debbie will have no claim over the estate. Whoever is in charge of it would dole out money for the kids support. I don't think she'd be allowed to just live off of a certain amount every month. Now this is assuming there is any money left after his debt is paid.
Jermaine sure is popular these days huh?
I know the media is batting this around and I'm not sure why because...if 2 people are legally married and they have a child the father will be considered the legal father and have all rights. This has always applied when say a woman had an affair while being married and got impregnated, the person she had the affair with has no legal claim to the child, the male (father) in the marriage is considered the legal dad. I really don't even think this can be challenged in court.
I think this created a sticky thorn in the past because the married guy would find out a kid wasn't really his and want to stop child support later down the road if him and the woman split up, and had no recourse because if you are married at the time of conception you are considred the legal father.
So what I'm saying is if Rowe and Jackson were married at time of conception of those kids they are legally his, doesn't matter if he was biological dad.
I know the media is batting this around and I'm not sure why because...if 2 people are legally married and they have a child the father will be considered the legal father and have all rights. This has always applied when say a woman had an affair while being married and got impregnated, the person she had the affair with has no legal claim to the child, the male (father) in the marriage is considered the legal dad. I really don't even think this can be challenged in court.
So what I'm saying is if Rowe and Jackson were married at time of conception of those kids they are legally his, doesn't matter if he was biological dad.
I'm wondering if it can be proven in court that the two never consummated the marriage, never shared a residence, and that the "marriage" was simply a bizarre, prearranged sham, if that would make a difference.
I suspect it might.
For the sake of other children in other situations (think "Lolita") I suspect the court would take such things as the duration of the marriage and the conditions surrounding it into account before deciding that a woman's child automatically "legally belongs" to her husband (not the biological father) in the event of her demise or disappearance, and in the event that the biological father is absent or unavailable.
I'm wondering if it can be proven in court that the two never consummated the marriage, never shared a residence, and that the "marriage" was simply a bizarre, prearranged sham, if that would make a difference.
I suspect it might.
For the sake of other children in other situations (think "Lolita") I suspect the court would take such things as the duration of the marriage and the conditions surrounding it into account before deciding that a woman's child automatically "legally belongs" to her husband (not the biological father) in the event of her demise or disappearance, and in the event that the biological father is absent or unavailable.
I don't think in MJ's situation it will ever be determined he is not the legal father. That would be devastating to the kids and pointless really as he has money set aside to support them.
I am watching it right now! That Neverland is one beautiful place.
Tex did you catch the part where King asks Jermaine if he finds it significant that Joe isn't mentioned specifically in the will and Jermaine answers that well Katherine is and that means Joe is...look we're a family...
Location: Pittsburgh--Home of the 6 time Super Bowl Champions!
11,310 posts, read 12,370,519 times
Reputation: 4938
Quote:
Originally Posted by gold*dust1
I know the media is batting this around and I'm not sure why because...if 2 people are legally married and they have a child the father will be considered the legal father and have all rights. This has always applied when say a woman had an affair while being married and got impregnated, the person she had the affair with has no legal claim to the child, the male (father) in the marriage is considered the legal dad. I really don't even think this can be challenged in court. .
Hmmm...I don't buy this one. First of all, DNA proves who the legal father is and that legal father does have rights to their child, if they want it. Look at Larry Birkhead...Anna Nicole was married to that scumbag lawyer of hers and she was carrying Larry's baby. He went to court over said child. Even if she would have lived, Anna would have had to share custody with him once proven by DNA that he was the legal father.
Location: Pittsburgh--Home of the 6 time Super Bowl Champions!
11,310 posts, read 12,370,519 times
Reputation: 4938
Quote:
Originally Posted by gold*dust1
Tex did you catch the part where King asks Jermaine if he finds it significant that Joe isn't mentioned specifically in the will and Jermaine answers that well Katherine is and that means Joe is...look we're a family...
Yes I did catch that. It's a shame that MJ didn't specify that JJ was NOT to benefit from any MJ money.
Location: Pittsburgh--Home of the 6 time Super Bowl Champions!
11,310 posts, read 12,370,519 times
Reputation: 4938
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGirl@Heart
Hmmm...I don't buy this one. First of all, DNA proves who the legal father is and that legal father does have rights to their child, if they want it. Look at Larry Birkhead...Anna Nicole was married to that scumbag lawyer of hers and she was carrying Larry's baby. He went to court over said child. Even if she would have lived, Anna would have had to share custody with him once proven by DNA that he was the legal father.
Just to clarify my above post....MJ doesn't share the same DNA as the children but I would think they are still legally his. Sole custody was awarded to him in a court of law. He has the right to say who gets the children.
IMO....I think Jermaine is the most stable after watching his interview with Larry King last night. I think he would provide a loving nurturing home for those children.
I don't think in MJ's situation it will ever be determined he is not the legal father. That would be devastating to the kids and pointless really as he has money set aside to support them.
I agree.
The exception would be if it could be proven that he bought the children (human trafficking is highly frowned upon in our country), or somehow coerced or blackmailed Rowe and/or Blanket's biological mother into giving them to him and staying away.
Even so, at this point, I do not feel it would do the children any good to have their father's memory besmirched. I'm sure they loved him dearly, and I've no doubt he loved them.
The question now is where to go from here?
Do Michael's wishes and plans for the children matter any longer?
Not if the court determines that Michael's wishes and plans are disadvantageous to the children, or are not in their best interest.
As I've stated before, I'm sure teams of court-appointed psychologists will be onhand to assist in the decision of where the children will live.
This situation is just so odd that it's not one the courts can really stay out of. They're going to have to play a role in determining what would be in the children's best interest.
Michael's judgement was obviously not entirely sound at the end of his life (if it ever was to begin with).
Respecting his wishes will take a backseat to ensuring the children's safety and well-being.
Hmmm...I don't buy this one. First of all, DNA proves who the legal father is and that legal father does have rights to their child, if they want it. Look at Larry Birkhead...Anna Nicole was married to that scumbag lawyer of hers and she was carrying Larry's baby. He went to court over said child. Even if she would have lived, Anna would have had to share custody with him once proven by DNA that he was the legal father.
Larry wasn't married to Anna. I don't think she married the lawyer until further down the line...but I still stand by my opinion because MJ's situation is completely different than Anna's was.
I know the media is batting this around and I'm not sure why because...if 2 people are legally married and they have a child the father will be considered the legal father and have all rights. This has always applied when say a woman had an affair while being married and got impregnated, the person she had the affair with has no legal claim to the child, the male (father) in the marriage is considered the legal dad. I really don't even think this can be challenged in court.
I think this created a sticky thorn in the past because the married guy would find out a kid wasn't really his and want to stop child support later down the road if him and the woman split up, and had no recourse because if you are married at the time of conception you are considred the legal father.
So what I'm saying is if Rowe and Jackson were married at time of conception of those kids they are legally his, doesn't matter if he was biological dad.
According to what I am seeing, it (DNA) might come into play.
I'm sorry the kids have to go through this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGirl@Heart
Hmmm...I don't buy this one. First of all, DNA proves who the legal father is and that legal father does have rights to their child, if they want it. Look at Larry Birkhead...Anna Nicole was married to that scumbag lawyer of hers and she was carrying Larry's baby. He went to court over said child. Even if she would have lived, Anna would have had to share custody with him once proven by DNA that he was the legal father.
Good comparison.
From what I am seeing on TV, this is going to be similar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
