Michael Jackson's Kids

It would seem that if he is not even the biological father, the Jackson family would have no claim whatsoever to the kids.
 
alfaniner said:
It would seem that if he is not even the biological father, the Jackson family would have no claim whatsoever to the kids.
Click to expand...

Courts consider what is in the children's best interest, not who has the most legitimate claim.

I heard on some interview the other day the opinion that since Rowe is all but a total stranger to the kids, a court might consider that their best interests lie with the family they've known all their lives. Biology doesn't count for as much as we might suppose.
 
Joe Jackson did such a marvelous job with his kids, it's only fair that he be permitted to destroy the lives of MJ's kids.
 
According to Perez Hilton's web site, The oldest son thought Jackson was joking when he collapsed in the living room.

Also, the lavish home the Jackson family was renting did not have a land line and the personal doctor worked on him for 30 minutes before someone called 9-11 on a cell.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
According to Perez Hilton's web site, The oldest son thought Jackson was joking when he collapsed in the living room.
Click to expand...

Other reports say the kids didn't see him.

Also, the lavish home the Jackson family was renting did not have a land line
Click to expand...

"[Dr. Murray] didn't know where he was, didn't know the physical address," Alford said in an interview with The Associated Press. "There was no land line, no phone in Jackson's room that would have allowed him to call. It was all happening so fast."
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31638932/ns/entertainment-music/

That there wasn't one in Jacko's room doesn't mean there wasn't one in the whole house. The articles aren't exactly clear on this.

I find it hard to believe the doc didn't have a cell phone, but apparently, he didn't. I find it hard to believe he'd been in the house, taking care of a man sick enough to have a personal doc in his home, and said doc had no clue where a phone was, nor made sure that he knew. That's weird.


and the personal doctor worked on him for 30 minutes before someone called 9-11 on a cell.
Click to expand...

That seems to be accurate, though NBC doesn't say it was either a cell or a landline.

And 9-11 is a date. 911 is the emergency number. :p
 
Bill Thompson said:
someone posted that MJ was not human.
you said it was a bad joke
I said that the poster was right because in Men In Black II, Jackson played an alien.
Click to expand...

I don't remember him in MIB II, but in the first movie it showed a brief shot of him among the aliens on Earth who were being monitored by the agency.
 
boloboffin said:
I've seen pictures of Michael without makeup, and he had vitiligo. And in his face, it was easier to go darker at first, but then paler later in his life.

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/vitiligo-photos-michael-jackson/

He was also diagnosed with lupus, which was in remission.

He did do cosmetic surgery, both for necessary reasons (the broken nose, etc.) and for superficial reasons (trimming the nose down).

And then he caught on fire in the Pepsi commercial.

He wore wigs thereafter, and I'm sure that his frequent surgeries after still had a medically necessary component to them. It is most probable to me that he was doing the best with what he had to work with after a couple of bad decisions, a couple of bad diseases, and a couple of bad accidents.

Whether he's the biological father or not - he could be, or maybe he's not. But he is their father.

I just pray to God that he's got a will. Please, Michael Jackson, have a will. I'll reconsider all the evidence that he was a child molester or pedophile if he just please has a will. PLEASE.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen those pics before. I guess maybe he didn't go deliberately white after all.

One of my mates has a mild form of that disease, it's not something I'd wish on anyone.
 
boloboffin said:
...

I just pray to God that he's got a will. Please, Michael Jackson, have a will. I'll reconsider all the evidence that he was a child molester or pedophile if he just please has a will. PLEASE.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bolo, bad news. They reported on NPR this morning (radio, so no link) that he did not have a will (or at least that they have not found one and do not expect to find one).

For me it is difficult to comprehend how somebody with so many assets and a very atypical family arrangement (kids via artificial insem with no clear cut alternative biological guardian) and having so many medical problems as mentioned above would not have a will.
 
cwalner said:
They reported on NPR this morning (radio, so no link) that he did not have a will (or at least that they have not found one and do not expect to find one).
Click to expand...


Last night, there were media reports that there is a will. Maybe it comes from this anonymous source reported by Associated Press today.


Complicating matters is that few, if any, people know all the details of the reclusive entertainer's financial affairs. His mother's filing, for example, declares that Jackson died "intestate," or without a will. But that is in dispute. Another person with knowledge of Jackson's business matters told The Associated Press last Friday that there is a will, which would take precedent in court. That person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the material.
Click to expand...
 
And Jackson might have had a will that is not legally valid.
I got a feeling that any will will be contested.
Jackson's death, no matter what , will keep a lot of lawyers busy for a long time.
BTW the consensus seems to be that although Jackson was cash poor, his assets are still worth a lot.
And I have a feeling that what happened with Elvis...the worth of whose estate more then doubled in the first couple of years after his death...will happen with MJ.
 
There is a will, but the parents think it is invalid. Here.

A lawyer for the family of Michael Jackson said Tuesday that a will had surfaced and would soon be presented in court, as a funeral service began to take shape at the pop star's Neverland Ranch. Attorney L. Londell McMillan said his clients are now aware of the will, and the late singer's advisers are looking for additional documents.

The existence of a will, and the likely appointment of an executor, could complicate a petition by Jackson's mother Katherine to become the administrator of his estate.

In documents filed in Superior Court, Jackson's parents say they believes their 50-year-old son died without a valid will.
Click to expand...
 
RandFan said:
That was resolved.

Who is "she"?
Click to expand...

I thought the person who made the post in question was a female. I don't know, the avatar looked female. I don't know why.

=============

Aw man, check this out.

Michael Jackson was not the biological father of any of his children. And Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother of the two kids she bore for Michael. All three children were conceived in vitro -- outside the womb.

It gets even more interesting.

The surrogate for Prince Michael II ("Blanket"), was never told of the identity of the "receiving parent". Three days after Prince was born at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego County, Jackson's lawyer came to the hospital to pick the baby up and deliver him to Michael.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/30/michael-jackson-debbie-rowe-surrogate-children-in-vitro/
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
There is a will, but the parents think it is invalid. Here.
Click to expand...

TMZ says that attorney John Brancha has the will and says Michael's will get the estate and the kids.

Oddly, Joe Jackson gets nothing.

Rowe was not the biological mom. I am still amaized.

Maybe one day this is how we will all have kids. Hand pick the genes we want.
 
I am no Jackson fan, but still I would want a better source then US magazine to believe the Sperm donor story.
 
dudalb said:
I am no Jackson fan, but still I would want a better source then US magazine to believe the Sperm donor story.
Click to expand...

The source of the story is actually the British rag, "News of the World", which seems even worse. I posted the link earlier in the thread, but it seems to have been overlooked.

orphia nay said:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/new...e-Rowe-confesses-he-was-not-their-father.html

Lots of news sites are quoting this article today.

MICHAEL Jackson's two eldest kids face a tug-of-love battle after their mum Debbie Rowe confessed he was not their father.
In an astonishing interview Debbie - mother of Prince, 12, and Paris, 11 - said she was artificially inseminated by an anonymous donor.

And she told how, despite Jackson's death, she does not WANT custody of the children and NEVER expects to see them again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bill Thompson said:
Who gets Jackson's kids now that he is gone? I can say that it is unlikely that he was ever the biological father anyway.

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/michael_jackson_shopping_for_comics#27861

Rowe has never given up any of her parental rights. As a result, under California law, Rowe is now presumed to be the person who will get custody. The only way Rowe can be denied custody is if a court determines it would be "detrimental to the children."
Click to expand...
Aside from your dubious choice of sources (TMZ appears to be the online equivalent of supermarket checkout tabloids), I'm pretty sure Jackson child #3 was not Ms. Rowe's, so why/how would she get custody of that one?
 
Bill Thompson said:
Rowe has never given up any of her parental rights.
Click to expand...

During the custody fight between Rowe and Jackson in 2005, Rowe sought to give up her parental rights, and lauded Michael as a good father. Retired Judge Stephen Lachs, who presided over the hearing, at first agreed to terminate them, but then Lachs changed his mind and returned the rights to her.
Click to expand...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31570056/ns/entertainment-celebrities/

Your use of "never" is apparently untrue and inaccurate.


As a result, under California law, Rowe is now presumed to be the person who will get custody. The only way Rowe can be denied custody is if a court determines it would be "detrimental to the children."
Click to expand...

How do you figure it would be the only way? If for some reason she decided she didn't want custody, that would be another way, yes?

If the children got their own lawyer(s) and fought to stay with their grandmother, that might be a way, yes?

Perhaps there are other ways. I don't think there's only one way to deny her custody.

It's not good to keep the imagination in too tight a box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom