those poor kids, thrust in the limelight, to loose their only parent, so sad. Seeems to be a bit of dysfunction ever option of where they could go....what do ya all think...they need to be kept together in my opinion.
1. their grandma Katherine ( Micheals Mom)
2. Debbie Rowe takes all 3
3. Mark Lester (in England) Godfather #3 would take all 3
I voted Mark, Debbie ib my opinion well Im just gonna say it she doesnt deserve them, Katherine seems very kind and nothing against her, shes old , the kids need youth and stability. Mark is already very wealthy, seems to love them , has been in their lives..
Oh, with the little bit of knowledge I have about those children, I could not even venture a guess. Whatever happens, I hope they keep them all together. Grandma and pa didnt do a real fantastic job with michael, so I am not sure that would be a good idea, I dont think michael would want that.
I have voted for Debbie, the children look like her, she is their Mom even if she gave them up that can be mended, I dont like to stuff Joe Jackson says it was all about the worlds greatest Pop star and nothing much about him as a son,and we all know he drove Michael hard w hen he was a kid and the older bros were also hard on the younger Michael from what I have read, Isnt there some doubt that Michael was the father or was that a media story. They need a good caring MOM she can do that ,she should go for it....
I voted for Debbie Rowe. When they have interviewed her in the past she was scared and talked about how she was "warned" not to go any further about the kids. I don't know what that means, but I'm sure with Michael's attorneys and the clout he had behind him she probably did not believe she would win custody when she tried to get them back before. I would hope that if she took her two that she could also get blanket. I think they should stay together. I would vote for Mark (the godfather) over Michael's parents as my second choice.
I can't imagine Michael's mother taking them - she's in her 70s and they have already suffered a loss of their Dad and then to top that off she is still with Joe Jackson and we know what happened with him and Michael.
Hopefully Michael had a will. Let this be a reminder to everyone to make sure you have a will. None of us ever think something like that could happen to us but it does happen. I had two friends who were killed in a bad car accident several years ago and were both killed. They were only 25 and 26 years old. They left behind a 4 year old and 2 year old. They had no will. Last I heard the kids went to their grandparents but the sister wanted the kids.
You really don't want to have to put your family through such difficult decisions. It's hard enough deciding who gets what materially. If you get all that straightened out ahead of time you won't have the fighting, hurt feelings or just plain stress between your family members. Don't do that to them. Make a will.
well said April and Teko of its for the courts for sure, I hope the kids dont get put through too much, poor babies, I feel bad for them, some were envious of Fame and Fortune, it sure can not buy happiness.
While you are right that the birth mothers have custody under operation of law, we just don't know what prior proceedings may have transpired here. Ms Rowe may relinquished her parental rights, not that I think it likely but given the peculiar circumstances surrounding these family arrangements, and the great disparity between the parties as to money and power, its hard for me to rule out the possibility. I wonder what Ms Rowe wants now, and truthfully I have always wondered about her actions.
End of the day, the standard for the court is the best interest of the children. There will likely be a long inquiry to determine just what that best interest may be. There often is.
There is a will ,John Branka (attorney) has it and has informed the court it is coming. Also, evidently Ms. Rowe was artificially inseminated and per law any child born during that marriage makes MJ the dad. So Im not sure if it was his sperm used or not. Curious Stuff.
I totally agree with what you said. Actually today they had said that Debbie Rowe and and the surrogate mother relinquished their rights to the children. Debbie said she actually just had the children for Michael and that she really did not even want children. So, in that case then all the children should go to Michael's mother. I also wonder if the nanny that took care of these children on a daily basis may be better than Michael's mother since she has been with the children from the very begininning everyday. And I also am very skeptical of them being with Michael's parents given the father's abusive past with Micael, and his brothers. As you said, It is really in the best interest of the children and what the courts decide for them.
I may be talking out of line here, but it would appear that all hia oqn children are frightened of Joe to this day. I sincerely hope they do not place those children there. Joe appears to be enjoying all the attention moreso than grieving. Is that just me?
I don't know if you heard but this morning they just reported that back in 2002 in Michael's will he put all family members in the will except for his Father Joe. Hmm, that to me sounds like he does not want his father involved with any aspect of what remains of Michael's life. Very sad that Michael and his siblings had to go through all of the abuse from their father. Joe is a sick man. I actually watched a report that MSNBC did on Michael a while back and to hear Michael say that everytime him and Germaine and the other boys made a mistake when singing and dancing, their father Joe would beat them with the belt in order to get them to do the dance steps correctly. That is just horrible. Michael was a great singer and dancer and deserved to be treated alot better as does any human being or creature on this Great Earth that we live on. Very sad situation. I just hope and pray that those children get the appropriate care that the really need and deserve.
The relinquishing of rights is usually only valid if the situation at the time the rights are relinquished continues, and death seriously changes things.
Think about it -- it doesn't matter how much your kids misbehave, you cannot just sign a paper and give them to someone else. You can put them up for adoption, but even then the new parents can give the children back to you or force you to pay for them under certain situations (state laws vary, of course).
Of course, it seems that Jackson never adopted the children, which adds a weird legal wrinkle to the whole thing.
The children are the issue of Jackson's wife during their marriage (the older two) and are therefore his children - no adoption necessary. I would have to see the contract with the surrogate, and the birth certificate of the youngest to form an opinion on that child's status. Relinquishing parental rights is a final act, at least was when I was practicing law in family court.
I always thought that when you relinquished parental rights that it was final as well but I only know of this from reasearching this when my brother was going through his divorce from his wife (who had threatened to take the baby away to where she is from Brazil).
It will be interesting to see what happens in this case. This is extremely important to the childrens' well being. We will definitely see.
Obviously, this is a state law issue. Swampy's point of reference is the state where he lived and there biology trumped pretty much everything, which seems fairest because there can't be any fraud involved -- either the genes match or they do not.
Yeah, I wonder who else will come out of the woodworks, as well. You know when it comes to money and celebrities they tend to flock to these sort of situations.
I just want to see those children taken care of. Unfortunately, when being a celebrity, they seem to receive care but not the kind of love and nurturing that they really need. Of course, this does not apply to all celebrities but most. They are just so young and so vulnerable at this age.
With Celebrity children they do get a lot of care but it is mainly from other people, they get a lot of material goodies, but the important things in life are very often fobbed off onto Housekeepers and Nannies., movies take up a lot of time , and the lifestyle is addictive.Many of the children do have behavioral problems and seek to be with their parents more but the parents have habit of leaving it to others even when they are at home.This is not in all cases, some great movie stars moms take their children with them even onto the set they have a trailer set up for the children .I hope they are okay these children from Michael Jackson, I believe the 12 year old saw his Dad die, I hope they keep them together,
I do too Margy, even if Debbie gets them I hope she finds it in her heart to take Micheal II ( blanket) the kids are beautiful children, it doesnt really mattter if they are Micheals bio or not like all said under law they are his. Im sure at the moment Grandma K is taking great care of them,,,,she is 70 something those kids do not need to loose another primary care give,,she is simply too old, the youngest child is only 7.
I chose "other" because from what I understand, their nanny has been very involved with their lives for many years and has become quite close with his children. Although I do not feel that the children should live with the nanny alone, I do think the nanny should continue being in the children's lives (if she wishes to) full-time.
I do not support Michael's children staying with his parent's because his father is an abuser. I do not support the children being sent to Debbie Rowe by themselves, because they don't even know this woman.
I guess the ideal situation would be to keep them with their nanny for now.... find out who wants them (along with the nanny) and if they are healthy enough and meet all of the qualifications for an ideal parent, then they should get custody. Of course the nanny should go along with the chlidren as well.
Latest news is saying that the will states he has left any estate to his Mom and his chlidren no mention of his father or his siblings. they are saying that Michael may not and been the father of the childrenm, and neither was debra the supposed Mom...of course this in the media, at this time.
I wouldn't be surprised if those reports were true. I mean it is bizarre for Jackson's ex-wife, Debra, to have given birth to her children and yet waiver her right to see them. Not to mention that MJ's children don't look anything like him !
They showed an interview with Michael from years ago where he said the first two were not from him. They are from donor sperms. The third child is from a surrogate mother that was I guess a donor egg and sperm. I think that's what they said about the third one, although I swear he does look a bit like Michael! The first two are biologically Debbies but not Michael. That's what I got from it. This could make things harder for placing the children if Debbie decides to petition for the children. She does have that right to the first two since they are biologically hers.
Michael's mom is 79 and way too old to try to be raising young children, in my opinion. I'm thinking the nanny or the godparent might be better. Last resort Debbie, maybe. It's hard to say.
I know it would be somewhat of a wrench for the Jackson family, but I'd let them go to England. Get them as far away from Joe as is possible. Debbie gave them up once. If she'd wanted them...she'd of fought for them a bit harder. I'm thinking everyone is going to want the money that goes with them and it would worry me what would happen to their inheritance with either Debbie or Joe around. So, I'd send them and the nanny to England if she wants to go.
ok Im gonna just say it,,,,I think Ms Rowe and her marriage to M.Jackson was a farce, and she was nothing more than a paid incubator, and Id guess she was artificially inseminated,,did anyone see the interview where Micheal was asked by Oprah if he was a virgin? he was too embarrased to answer..non virgins woulda been like ya right or give me a break or do ya want to see the notches in my belt
NO negative responces to this its just my opinion,
You know, these children have been through more than a child should have to go through in a lifetime. Michael is their Father regardless of how they were conceived, and thier world has caved in around them. Catherine is their Grandmother and has been in their lives and right now those children need HER.
Joe Jackson is a bully and a sorry, money grubbing man and should be kept away from them. Had Michael wanted Joe in his children's lives, he would have encouraged it before his death, but for reasons unknown to any of us, he chose to keep his children away from Joe Jackson.
In all accounts( those that have been reported on) Michael's children have been happy, or as happy as possible with the media constantly trashing and bashing their way into their lives, right now they need a strong shoulder that is familiar and loving, and Catherine can give that shoulder, plus much more. IMO those children need to be left alone until they can fully understand what is about to take place. They have lost the most important person in their young lives, geez, give those kids a break.
Lisa Marie Presley must have some take on this ,she was married to him, sounds like a fiasco going on about the funeral I heard Sharpton and Jessie Jackson fighting over who does the Euology.... and a ton of presciptions removed in other folks names .oh boy theres going to be a few Physicians out of a job..you know it doesnt surprise me that Michael Jackson was such a mess when you hear about his childhood.
I took a look at the new pictures of the children, they are lovely looking kids if a little serious, the godfather of 'Blanket" put them out there , really nice shots of everyone.You know cherie I may be wrong but I had the feeling the parents were seperated or divorced , no mention of anything in the will then for all the siblings., I know Latoya believed he was guilty of those child abuse charge or said something similar on a TV show. They certainly dont look as if they have any Airican American blood in them surely one would.I hopoe they have a happier life than their Dad did , Diana Ross isnt too good a choice but it'll be Nannies again, and actually there are some darn good nannies out there more caring than some parents in the show biz world
Let's see. I believe that MJ wrote his will in 2002. On December 30, 2002, Diana Ross was involved in a DUI in Arizona (link below). Apparently she was in Arizona being treated for her addiction and/or alcoholism.
As far as being fully recovered, I'm not sure if any addict could consider themselves as fully recovered. From what I've heard, addicts struggle with their addictions on the daily basis.. even when they are sober.
I heard on the news earlier that the Mom was going to try to get the children back, that she is the bio mom and is willing to take a DNA test to prove it, I personally think thats where they would be best off. .
I heard that too, the two eldest do resemble her a bit, now I had heard prio that they where not biologicaly hers she was a surrogate of donor egg and God knows whos sperm.I do agree they would be best with a younger person, hope Ms Rowe take child number three, I will forever be hope for the good in people, we shall see,poor kids,
If you take a look at the new pics of the children,dear little innocents, there is a godfather , he has a look of Blanket' .......It would be nice if they could all be togther and I do believe their Mom is the very best for these children e.
What a talented man and tortured soul Mr. Jackson was...his children deserve a better life.
I voted other choice.
IMNSHO, the children should be kept together and placed in a permanent foster home far away from any glow of limelight. Any visits with members of the Jackson family or other persons with involvement in the Jackson legacy would be strictly supervised. Fosterage with very carefully screened, genuinely caring folks, who would teach the children about their heritage, and help prepare them to face it on their own terms.
Im now changing my mind I think Aunt Janice would be best she would not be in it for the money she is the only one not trying to get her paws on Micheals she has pleanty of her own I watched who Paris turned to at the funeral, and saw the love and bone also Janet is the appropiate age. It would be great for those children to stay together "poor Blanket" he doesnt get mentioned too much, he needs his brother and sister.
Debbie gave up some other legal rights involving the kids awhile ago for money ( think that's what I read). And now, I read that again she's being offered a million dollars to relinquish all custody. I think she's just in it for the $ and really doesn't want the kids. 79 is a bit on the elder side for the 3 kids but there's enough $ to hire full time help in the home and have the Grandma oversee things.
I think Janet Jackson would be the best for these children. She seems to have a kind soul and if she kept the nanny that has helped to raise these children than that would be even better. I don't think the mother should have any rights, she gave them up without a fight, probably took a lot of money. So in the end, it seems all about the money with her. Most likely she will receive a lot of whatever he had left for the children since whoever is the primary caregiver will receive money to take care of them. Janet has her own money and doesn't seem to be interested in that. She will most likely keep them out of the limelight since she herself doesn't really talk about her personal life too much. She hid a 10 year marriage so I'm sure she can protect these children. She seemed to be the closest to Michael as well and will have the 3 children's best interest at heart. The mother is too old and frankly she allowed her husband to hurt her children. That is a big no-no in my eyes.
Copyright 1994-2016 MedHelp International. All rights reserved.
MedHelp is a division of Aptus Health.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.