what would be BEST for Micheals children

[Cherie762]

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.

[Cherie762]

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..

[Cherie762]

To the best of my knowledge Mark Lester, former child star, is only Godfather to child number three, (Blanket) but has already come forth on interview to state he would take all three kids.

[teko]

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.

[margypops]

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....

[Cherie762]

agree yes I hope those three are kept together, and Yes Margy I would agree Granpa Joe is not a good choice,

[HelpinUtah]

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.  

[peekawho]

I don't think its really up to anyone but the courts to decide.  They will no doubt look at what his own wishes were, and will appoint someone to look after the best interests of the children.  

[April2]

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.

[Cherie762]

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.

[swampcritter]

Its seems pretty simple.

The biological surviving parent (in this case, Debbie Rowe) gets custody of the two children that are hers.

The third child gets to stay with the Jackson family, as that child was borne of an anonymous surrogate.

Michael's mother gets some modest amount of visitation for all children.

Then, if the surviving parent is either 1) unable to perform the duty of a parent, 2) unwilling to take the children, that should be a separate issue.

Had it been the biological mother who died, the children would automatically go to the biological father. Remember Elian Gonzalas? Same issue, but in reverse.

For some reason the mother has decided not to fight for custody.

[jdwithhcv]

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.

[jdwithhcv]

second sentence should say Ms Rowe may have relinquished...etc.

[teko]

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.

[April2]

Hmm, that IS interesting Teko! I did not know that! Still, I swear the youngest child looks so much like him. Don't you all think so?

[Melissa0116]

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.

[teko]

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?

[teko]

all his own children, omg! need coffee and time to wake up. lol

[Melissa0116]

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.  

[swampcritter]

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.

[jdwithhcv]

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.

[Melissa0116]

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.

[jdwithhcv]

The court will appoint law guardians, that is, attorneys who represent the children.  As you say, it will be interesting to see what the court deems best for the children.

This case will be complicated, considering the unusual family structure.  I wonder who else will come forward to ask for custody.  This is just getting started.

[swampcritter]

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.

[Melissa0116]

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.