ABC Asks How Will MJ's Children Fare In Their Black Family?

Haven't they got a point?

They will fare okay, if the publicity is controlled, all the time they were with Michael life was okay, but if papa jackson gets a hold and record deals are put forward, then the rot will set in.
Let them be left alone until they rech 18 and go to college.
the children are white, no mistake but right now for other people to come forward and say, I am their father/mother. not good, but it will happen.

I heard that Joe Jackson is already planning to make a Jackson Three group out of the kids. His son just died and all he thinks about is money. Debbie Rowe is just thinking about money. The dermatologist who many say is the bio father, and who won't deny it when asked, is suspected of allowing Michael J. to have drugs that may have contributed to his death. I've heard that MJs mom is already raising several grandkids and MJ didn't seem to think any of his brothers and sisters were capable of raising his kids. The very way they were brought into the world was weird and I think cruel. They are going to have so many mental problems. If they would've been legitimately adopted in a normal adoption way or if MJ had had them with his own sperm it would've made sense, but this is so messed up. Most people surrounding the kids seem unfit except maybe the grandmother and she seems kind of docile and not willing to keep the creepy grandfather away from them.

Maybe the answer should be, "It's depends". It depends on whether the Jackson family pays their mother, Debbie Rowe,$4M.

How do Madonna's and Angelina Jolie's adopted kids get by? As long as a child is loved, does it matter the color of the parent? And even though Debbie Rowe is a questionable human being, at best, she is somewhat looking out for her children by trying to insist that Joe Jackson have no part in their upbringing.

Ransgrl wrote:

How do Madonna's and Angelina Jolie's adopted kids get by? As long as a child is loved, does it matter the color of the parent? And even though Debbie Rowe is a questionable human being, at best, she is somewhat looking out for her children by trying to insist that Joe Jackson have no part in their upbringing.

Where is the correlation of Rowe's "concern" when she is asking for $4M to surrender parental custody? Her alleged "concern" about Joe Jackson appears to be a red herring. At the end of the day, Rowe will have made over $18M from repeatedly surrendering custody of those kids.

morphus wrote:

<quoted text>
Where is the correlation of Rowe's "concern" when she is asking for $4M to surrender parental custody? Her alleged "concern" about Joe Jackson appears to be a red herring. At the end of the day, Rowe will have made over $18M from repeatedly surrendering custody of those kids.

I don't have any love for Debbie Rowe, but I also don't believe everything the media reports. She may just be collecting a lump sum of money which Jackson had already promised her and not anything additional. And considering the relationship Michael had with Joe during his adult years, I think it's pretty safe to say that HE wouldn't have wanted Joe around his children either. Hell, Katherine hasn't even lived with the man in years.

Ransgrl wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have any love for Debbie Rowe, but I also don't believe everything the media reports. She may just be collecting a lump sum of money which Jackson had already promised her and not anything additional. And considering the relationship Michael had with Joe during his adult years, I think it's pretty safe to say that HE wouldn't have wanted Joe around his children either. Hell, Katherine hasn't even lived with the man in years.

All most of us have is the media,books, etc. to be informed one way other another about this matter. And, all I can say, over a period of years, and from multiple sources, there appear to be no dispute about whether Rowe have received money to re-surrender parental control of those kids. She seems to understand that she can do this because of California's family law.

morphus wrote:

<quoted text>
All most of us have is the media,books, etc. to be informed one way other another about this matter. And, all I can say, over a period of years, and from multiple sources, there appear to be no dispute about whether Rowe have received money to re-surrender parental control of those kids. She seems to understand that she can do this because of California's family law.

I've also heard what you are alleging Debbie Rowe to be after moneywise. However, her lawyers are completely denying the current reports. I've heard some newsmedia reporting that she is using her custodial right to the children as leverage to make sure that Joe never has access to them and that when that has been legally established she will then officially relinquish custody with no additional payday. Two different sources, two different stories. I'll just wait for the final version of the story.

Ransgrl wrote:

<quoted text>
I've also heard what you are alleging Debbie Rowe to be after moneywise. However, her lawyers are completely denying the current reports. I've heard some newsmedia reporting that she is using her custodial right to the children as leverage to make sure that Joe never has access to them and that when that has been legally established she will then officially relinquish custody with no additional payday. Two different sources, two different stories. I'll just wait for the final version of the story.

I agree, by next Monday, after guardianship court hearing the record will speak for itself. Meanwhile ...

Three Mistakes Debbie Rowe Has Made This Week

1. Writing the following e-mail, and having the feelings said e-mail describes:

"Do I want the kids? Hell no. Does it look good for me to ask for them? Absolutely. I don't want to look like the woman who gave away her kids and just forgot about them."

2. Sending said e-mail to a "friend" who in the past has worked as a reporter, one whose beat appears to exclusively be Debbie Rowe. Said friend has now received a legal reprimand, which will only incite her to release more information, etc., ad infinitum.

3. Having her lawyer send a letter to the Post demanding they remove their anonymously sourced story claiming that Debbie was paid $4 million in order to give up her parental rights. Her attorney, Eric George, works primarily on business litigation, not family or crazy celebrity cases; we guess that's why he doesn't know that it's pointless to send threatening letters to the Post, who are "overzealous and inaccurate and sensational" about everyone, all the time. They're like flashers over there — if you get all worked up about what they do, it just excites them more.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/07/debbie_r...

Nope, that woman surely is not the finest of human beings. Notice that the woman who birthed Jackson's youngest has been decent enough to not come forward for a payday or to get media attention. Fingers crossed that she never does.

Ransgrl wrote:

Nope, that woman surely is not the finest of human beings. Notice that the woman who birthed Jackson's youngest has been decent enough to not come forward for a payday or to get media attention. Fingers crossed that she never does.

I agree.