One person who should NOT get custody of the Jackson children:

[pnwmom]

the grandmother, Katherine Jackson.

She proved her inability to protect her own children from her physically abusive tyrant of a husband, Joseph. And now she's back with him and they want the children. I hope the judge involved has more sense.

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20287787_20288068,00.html


Another source of deep concern for the family: The intentions of Debbie Rowe, Jackson's former wife and the mother of his two older children, whose lawyer yesterday confirmed that Rowe retains parental rights. The Jacksons apparently fear that Rowe, who has not lived with the children in year, may now want to raise them.

"They haven’t heard from Debbie Rowe and don’t know what’s going on in that respect, either. Joe and Katherine really want the children," says the source. "They for sure want the children."

Independent Autopsy
Another source close to the family tells PEOPLE that the family is so concerned about the reliability of Jackson's handlers that there is a possibility that patriarch Joe Jackson, now acting once again as the family chief, will request an independent autopsy.

"They're in shock and they want answers," the source says. "The issue is the people around him: vampires and blood suckers.”

About the only positive development, says this source, is the rare sense of unity that now unites the large and fractious family. "They are coming together and Joe is running the show. It was tough for them all growing up, but the parents never stole from Michael and they had his best interests at heart."

[p4poetic]

1. so..

You think Debbie Rowe should?

Grace (the nanny) will take care of the children. Its not only Michael's wish, but the children's too.

[pnwmom]

4. I don't know who SHOULD. I only know that those grandparents should NOT.

They had their chance at raising children, and they shouldn't get another.

[depakid]

66. I'm guessing that it might not be so fun to be raised as a Jehova's Witness

especially in LA.

[CC]

2. I would hope that as a parent that loved his

children Michael made plans just in case and left what his wishes are and arrangements for their care as part of a will. ALL parents should do at least that for their children, just in case.

[woo me with science]

21. Good point,

especially since there are reports that he predicted he would die early.

[Blue-Jay]

3. I believe the custody of the children automatically goes to Paul McCartney.

I might have to reread the contract, however.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. Only half of them -

it's gonna get messy............

[Maccagirl]

58. Well, he's done pretty well with his 5 children

It could be worse. And yes, I know you were not being serious.

[greguganus]

64. Ebony and ivoryyyyy........n/t

[Obamanaut]

5. What's with patriarch Joe maybe asking for an independent autopsy?

Didn't Jesse already do that?

[LynneSin]

6. Michael Jackson is a product of the way his parents raised him

Although Michael did many many good things for this world he was a very flawed man. But this poor guy never had a childhood and had an abusive father. People think it's amazing to make their children celebrities but they don't see the afteraffects of what it does to a child robbed of their ability to be a child.

[liberalhistorian]

54. It seems to me that the parents were much more interested in

the fame and money that the children could bring when trying to make them stars, rather than the best interests of their own children. They wanna talk about "vampires and bloodsuckers" around MJ, and it's very true that those exist, but they were and are one of them also.

[aquart]

7. Joe and Katherine want the money. But then, so does Debbie Rowe.

I can't imagine that Michael Jackson didn't leave a will with explicit instructions to NEVER let his parents get near the children.

[Cleita]

8. Katherine Jackson is way too old. Some say she would be at the bottom of the list

for this reason.

[pnwmom]

10. You're right, she's 79. In the photos I've seen , she looked much younger.

And I forgot to do the math.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. I agree,

but I read that Michael's sibling have a bunch of well-adjusted, healthy kids - the MJ kids' cousins - and perhaps custody should go to one of those intact families.

What ever happened to the girl named Rebbie? Was that her name? Maybe she's happily married with healthy, happy kids, and maybe she can give those poor Jacko kids the stable, normal home they've never had.

But Joe shouldn't even be allowed in the same state as any of those kids.............

[pnwmom]

18. If you're referring to Debbie Rowe, I read that she was still single

and living on a ranch with a bunch of animals. And that she very well might have the strongest legal claim for the older two since she never lost custody. But she let MJ have them in the first place; something's wrong with her!

Those three children are going to need a great deal of love and help finding their way in the world. I hope they get it. They're the real victims here.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. She tried to relinquish her parental rights,

and, at first, was allowed to, but that was later reversed.

The law doesn't allow you to sell your children, which is precisely what she tried to do. Jacko paid her off a couple of times - hence, her life raising horses on her farm instead of her old job as a nurse in Jacko's dermatologist's office - but she is still their legal mother.

Well, the first two, anyway.

I don't know who the biological mother of the third one is.

Can you imagine, when they're old enough to read about how they came into this world, how messed up their heads will be?

I also hope they land in a solid, loving place.................

[pnwmom]

37. Their heads are probably completely messed up already.

Living in isolation, forced to wear veils and masks when out in public, their father's health phobias and general paranoia, constant traveling, being given anything they WANT but not what they NEED -- i.e., a truly loving, stable home that serves as a base for moving out into the world. . . .

[CatWoman]

45. yeah

she'd make an amazing choice, according to the OP's logic :eyes:

[pnwmom]

60. Why do you think I'm promoting Rowe? All I know is that that grandfather

shouldn't be able to get his clutches on them, and he and the grandmother are apparently back together and wanting custody.

As to who else it should be, I don't know. But not someone who is a proven abuser and the spouse who couldn't stop him.

[JaneQPublic]

56. No one knows who their biological father is, either...

considering all three kids are lily white.

[LisaL]

12. I wonder who actually is biologically related to these children,

and whether it will matter during the custody hearings? I personally don't see any resemblance to Michael Jackson in those children.

[Cleita]

14. I read that Debbie Rowe has actually said they were artificially inseminated from a

sperm bank. If it's true, I don't know legally how far that biological parent thing would extend under these circumstances.

[LisaL]

17. Is Debbie their biological mother, I wonder?

I know she gave birth to two of them, but it doesn't necessarily mean she is their biological mother.
Would that matter during the custody hearings?

[Cleita]

19. Well, it looks like DNA tests are going to be needed all around if the

biological parentage becomes an issue.

[pnwmom]

20. I think that was already proven when she instigated a custody action during

Michael's criminal trial.

[Stellabella]

55. Really? So Michael Jackson is the father?

I'm not being sarcastic - I want to know. The kids do not look at all like him.

[LisaL]

57. She is talking about Debbie being their biological mother.

[Stellabella]

61. Ah, thanks. I wonder if there will be a paternity test as well.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

25. Giving birth to them makes her

their biological mother.

She's still their legal mother. The law doesn't allow you to sell your children, which is what she tried to do...............

[LisaL]

28. Oh come on. Ever heard of a surrogate?

I believe Sarah Jessica Parker just welcomed twins via surrogate. Giving birth doesn't make that surrogate either legal or biological mother. I am not saying Debbie was a surrogate. But if it was proven she is actually a biological mother of the children I missed that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

29. Are you implying that Debbie Rowe had

someone else's eggs implanted for the conception of Jacko's kids? Because, yeah, that wouldn't make her the biological mother.

Did Sarah Jessica Parker have her eggs extracted and used in the surrogate pregnancy? I don't know.

But that idea never been mentioned, and those two kids are blond and fair like Rowe, so I just assumed she's the biological mother.

There's never been any question about her being the biological mother. That's why your question caught me by surprise.

Have you read about someone else's eggs being used?

[LisaL]

31. No I am not implying it.

I am saying such a situation is possible (in theory).
But if she is their biological mother, then I bet she has a priority over grandparents (such are US laws, that the parent has a priority over a grandparent).

[Tangerine LaBamba]

34. Yeah,

that's pretty much how it works. At 79, not in great health, the grandmother is a very poor candidate for custody.

Those poor kids..............

[LisaL]

35. So my bet is Debbie gets the two older ones.

I am not sure what would happen to the third.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. Two of them are hers -

the third one, I don't know anything about that woman.

I'm not sure she'll get them if it means splitting them up. Would she take all three? A middle-aged woman who's never raised kids?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.............

[LisaL]

39. As the youngest kid has a different mother,

I don't see how Debbie has a claim to that one. But as she is the mother of the two oldest, then she likely has priority over any other person, including Michael Jackson's parents or siblings.
Those are US laws.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

44. Well, California law would prevail,

but no law is applied without a lot of thought and care given to the realistic practicalities of any given situation. The children have never been apart, and splitting them up now would be immensely harmful for all of them.

So, it becomes very complicated if Ms. Rowe wants custody, but has a legal claim only to the older two.

What happens to the third child?

It may be that the court will determine that there is a better option available, something that will keep the three together.

CPS is gonna be working overtime on this one. It's a tough one, poor kids....................

[LisaL]

46. I can not believe that keeping the children together is the

first priority during custody hearings, considering family situation in the US, where people frequently have children from multiple marriages/partners. I think the law is clear that the parent has priority over others unless that parent is unfit.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

50. The best interests of the children - all the children -

is always the first priority.

If that means going outside the suggested boundaries of the law, then a judge will do that - with proper presentation of the case by the proper parties.

I've worked on cases where fathers got custody back in the seventies, when fathers NEVER got custody, but they were the better parent, and the court saw it that way. My first custody case, I represented a male friend of mine who'd gone through a messy divorce years earlier, and the mother had gotten custody of their three boys, but she'd made a mess of it, the kids were unhappy, and so he petitioned for custody. And we won.

The law, in those cases, is flexible, and can be interpreted any number of ways, given the circumstances. The word, "preference," is pivotal here. That leaves a lot of room for other placement of the kids...................

[LisaL]

51. There so many people in the US raising children from different

partners. If children have different mothers, I can't believe keeping the children together takes priority over the fact that they have different mothers.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

52. Keep in mind

that "family" now means all sorts of things beyond the traditional mother, father, kids, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins.

Now we have ex-wives and ex-husbands, step-children, half-sisters, half-brothers, and the attendant grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

It's all about who gets attached to whom, where the kids will best be cared for, what the history is with the children, and how they will fare. CPS will keep a very close eye on them for a long, long time.

But, no one knows who the third child's mother is, and if she comes forward, I don't know that she'd get any serious consideration, since I'm sure the contract she signed when she agreed to the surrogacy effectively precludes her from ever asserting any parental rights.

If the sperm donor came forth, the same kind of clause would also keep him from trying to get custody. Those contracts are iron-clad things that take just about every eventuality into consideration.

My understanding, from what I've read, is that people are saying that their nanny, who has apparently been with them from the beginning, is the one Jacko always said he wanted to have his kids if anything happened to him.

So, we'll see....................................

[kickysnana]

62. Nanny dismissed in Dec. Xpost

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5944707

[pnwmom]

38. It was proven during her earlier custody action. n/t

[LisaL]

40. I missed that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. The same sperm donor for all three

was a man selected by Jacko, who didn't want to use his sperm because he didn't want any kids who might look like his father.

I think that was code for "kids who looked African-American," myself.....................

[pnwmom]

22. So sad. And now that father's demanding custody. Figures. n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

26. He IS?

That's news to me.

Where did you read that?

Oh, man, if this is true, it's getting messier even faster than I expected........................

[pnwmom]

32. That's how I interpreted the article in the OP:

"The Jacksons apparently fear that Rowe, who has not lived with the children in year, may now want to raise them.

'They haven’t heard from Debbie Rowe and don’t know what’s going on in that respect, either. Joe and Katherine really want the children,' says the source. 'They for sure want the children.'"

And now that Michael's out of the picture, Joseph's back to being the family patriarch:

"About the only positive development, says this source, is the rare sense of unity that now unites the large and fractious family. "They are coming together and Joe is running the show. It was tough for them all growing up, but the parents never stole from Michael and they had his best interests at heart."

[Tangerine LaBamba]

33. Oh, I thought you said

the biological father of the children was stating a claim.

THAT would be messy..................

[pnwmom]

41. I did read some "source" saying that that could very well happen.

That there was a sperm donor for the kids who could come forward.

It would be messy indeed.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

43. It was the same donor for all three kids,

that's what I read, and what a circus that would be, but any sane man would stay the hell out of all of it.

By the way, there's a wealth of information in this book, which I just took from the shelf the other day, and am re-reading - "Be Careful Who You Love," by Diane Dimond. Coverage of the whole molestation trial, with tons of backstory. A good read........

[LuvNewcastle]

13. I think they should go to....

Uncle Tito!

[TK421]

15. This says it all

"It was tough for them all growing up, but the parents never stole from Michael and they had his best interests at heart."

BULL-SHIT....Joe Jackson was a fucking tyrant by all account and shouldn't be let anywhere near these kids, lest he contribute to the fucking-up of their lives as well.

What's he gonna contribute....an ass-whoopin?

[pnwmom]

23. I agree. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

27. One person who should note get to decide who gets custody of the Jackson children:

Random internet blowhards.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. You think that's possible?

Wouldn't that be something?

How would they choose just two? Or one?

[Berry Cool]

42. Dear God, whatever happens,

don't let them go to their grandfather so he can screw up yet another generation.

[pnwmom]

59. Unfortunately, the grandparents appear to be back together

and unified in their desire to get custody of the children.

[gauguin57]

47. I nominate either Marlon or Rebbie Jackson. Both got married young and LEFT HOME!

I believe they're the most well-adjusted of the whole family BECAUSE they got the HELL OUT of that House of Horrors when they were relatively young.

They're the only Jacksons still married to their original partners ... one since the '60s and one since the mid-'70s. They've each raised a few kids.

They're Mike's siblings, but they found a way to get away from the Devil Dad and make better lives for themselves.

(Marlon was the next oldest to Michael, and you may remember Rebbie's hit "Centipede.")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7MidxMUcJg

And here's a minor dance hit from Marlon (Baby Tonight)

mahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kbQXIuk7E

[Raine]

48. I hope he left a will with his wishes clearly stated

that would be the best case.

[LisaL]

49. Would the will matter when at least the oldest two have a

biological mother?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

53. If the designation in the will

makes sense and doesn't direct anything goofy - like, "I want my daughter to be raised by Paris Hilton" - then, sure, the court is certainly going to take it into consideration.

But, whatever the will says is not necessarily controlling......................

[earth mom]

63. Give Oprah the children.

She's rich enough not to exploit the hell out of them and even though I disagree with Oprah about Obama, I think she's smart enough and caring enough to not screw them up.

I feel really sorry for those kids because they didn't ask for this and don't deserve this.

IMO, they need to get the hell away from that family.

[LisaL]

65. Maybe Bill Gates should get them.

:sarcasm:
You can't just give children to random strangers just because those strangers are rich or famous.

[earth mom]

67. So who in the hell in that family is normal enough & has no hidden agendas to care for the kids?

Maybe Janet, but I don't think she wants kids and she probably has some major baggage herself.

You have to admit that the entire family is screwed up.

[SoCalDem]

68. The children are old enough to have a say in this.

Their lives are being decided for them, at least give them a say in it..