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.
Michael's "intentions" for his adopted children will take a backseat to what the courts perceive as being in the children's best interest (as will Rowe's intentions, wishes, and/or desires).
Which is as it should be.
This will be especially true if the court finds that Jackson, Rowe, and/or both of them were or are mentally unstable.
I don't feel that mental instability will be a factor here at all.
Are you assuming that MJ's intentions are not in the best interest of the kids? I'm assuming they are. You're right though, the kids' best interests rule here.
Yes, certainly an argument could be made on Rowe's behalf. Unanticipated events that were not contemplated by the parties when they made the agreement that she remain out of the kids' lives, gives her a new claim for custody. Would it be in the best interest of the kids for two of them to go with her and the third stay with MJ's mother? MJ's abusive father also is certainly is a negative factor and an argument can be made that he poses danger to the kids if they were in the custody of MJ's mother (and father).
I'm speculating that Rowe does not want custody, but merely wants to make the argument in hopes that she is paid a sum of money to drop her claim. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe she does want custody. We'll see. I frankly don't see how a woman could give up custody like she did. I don't care how much she was offered.
Last edited by LexusNexus; 07-03-2009 at 10:45 AM..
Are you assuming that MJ's intentions are not in the best interest of the kids? I'm assuming they are.
The court will not "assume" anything, especially if custody is disputed.
It's their job to investigate, not assume.
And, yes, to act in the best interests of the children.
What a gold digging wh**re!!! Those poor kids. First they lose their father, now some woman they dont know is trying to get them away from their grandparents.
I really really really hope she does not get custody of those kids. They do not know her, they do not want to be with her. Says she wants to file a restraining order to keep grandpa away from the kids. She must have been talking to KFed and Larry Birkhead about how to use children to get enough money so that you never have to work.
Really.
Jeesh, at best Debbie Rowe is some kind of selfless saint, offering Michael "her womb", as she's stated, no strings attached, as a vessel for his achieving his dream of being a father.
At worst, she's probably a mentally ill nutcase just like he was, and the kids would probably be better off raised far away from both of them.
The misogynistic remarks, such as "*****", seem unwarranted, though.
Rowe is a plain woman, a recluse who lives on a farm, is obsessed with caring for her animals, and admittedly never had sex with Jackson (and possibly never had sex with anyone in her entire life).
She doesn't have to "want to be a mother" to want to keep innocent children away from Joe Jackson.
She was, for a time, Michael's friend and confidante.
Apparently, Michael told her things about his father which concerned her.
I am surprised that MJ did not just use her as a surrogate only to carry eggs from an anonymous donor or at least a donor that did not know where her eggs were going. He was supposed to have been a cautious person in many ways with a good business head. Why didn't he anticipate the possibility of this happening?
Maybe she just wants a bargaining chip to get the guarantee that Grandpa will not be allowed to have any influence in the kid's lives while thay are still minors. She might strike a deal to back down if this stipulation is met, who knows, time will tell.
I am surprised that MJ did not just use her as a surrogate only to carry eggs from an anonymous donor or at least a donor that did not know where her eggs were going. He was supposed to have been a cautious person in many ways with a good business head. Why didn't he anticipate the possibility of this happening?
Maybe she just wants a bargaining chip to get the guarantee that Grandpa will not be allowed to have any influence in the kid's lives while thay are still minors. She might strike a deal to back down if this stipulation is met, who knows, time will tell.
If Michael were "cautious", he would've legally adopted these children.
I think he was ill-advised.
I frankly don't see how a woman could give up custody like she did. I don't care how much she was offered.
Well, as a birthmother (as well as a mother), I do see it.
And I don't believe that a willingness to give up one's child/ren so that they can have advantages you're unable to offer them at the time unsuits you for being a mother later in life, to other children... or even to the same children, if events leave them orphaned.
I agree. Rowe is just using this as leverage to see if she can pick up a few more bucks. The lawyers are "chomping at the bit" waiting to feed at the money trough. I don't think a custody battle would be over soon. By that time, Michael's eldest will be able to choose. I'm pretty sure the age is 14.
I agree too. What it comes down to is that she sold those children. She didn't have to. There was a point where a certain amount of money was enough for her to give up parental rights, even though the court turned that around, she didn't pursue any sort of relationship. Now that he's dead, she wants one? She's looking at that 40% $$$$$.
The court will not "assume" anything, especially if custody is disputed.
It's their job to investigate, not assume.
And, yes, to act in the best interests of the children.
Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Are you assuming that Jackson's intentions are not what is in the best interest of the kids?
Nobody seems to be addressing the racial aspect of this.
When it comes to black children, if there are two more-or-less equivalent choices, a black family and a white family, judges will more often than not award the children to the black family. Typically, every effort is made to find or even recruit adoptive families of color. Our society considers it beneficial for children of color to be adopted by families of color. Although white adoptive families will do if there is no alternative (and there often isn't), this is considered decidedly "second best".
Responsible white families that adopt children of other races do everything they can to educate the child about his or her heritage and help the child maintain some connection to it (although admittedly they often do a pretty second-rate job of this).
Because these children are white, will this simply not be an issue at all?
Is it okay for them to be raised as black children in a black family, entirely cut off from their actual heritage and actually being lied to and told that they are black (ie, that Jackson was their biological father, and that they have no mother)?
I'm not saying it is or isn't okay, I'm just wondering how others feel.
I have known adoptees of color raised by white families, and they sometimes have issues with race when they get older.
Barack Obama had issues with this, as outlined in his memoir, and he wasn't even adopted, he was biracial and did get to meet his biological dad once.
But he still had a lot of racial-identity issues growing up in a family where he was the only person of color.
Who wouldn't?
Excellent post. It shows that there are a lot of things that need to be considered.
From things I've seen/read, a lot of states are like this with placing children.
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.
