Who Should Raise Michael Jackson's Kids?

Hjuasdfasef

Wed, 2010-03-03 17:09

Cool website. Found out about it on Nancy O'Dell's facebook. I am a mom with a lot of things I would LOVE to hear other moms talk about. As far as Michael Jackson. I have been so sad about the children from day one. As soon as I heard the news, that was what I thought about. I am so torn between wondering if Katherine Jackson will get the kids. I think she would be a good one as Michael talks so lovingly about her. But then again, she is older and I wouldn't want the kids to have to go through another loss if they were to get really close to her anywhere in the near future. I wonder if it is true that they are close to Janet. Since Janet doesn't have any kids of her own, maybe this would be the perfect solution. What a tough one!

Wed, 2009-07-22 09:06

I believe Nancy does a very good job outlining the story behind the "headlines" - needless to say, it is a very sad situation indeed. I believe that MJ's wishes should be granted and with the $$ available, his mother's age (79) should not be a factor as an appropriate & vetted staff may be available to assist. As an example, the children's Nanny should continue to be a part of their every day live's and let MJ's mother write in her will who should then become responsible guardians in the event of her death. Certainly noone is assuming that a 79 year old grandmother would be truly repsonsible for the day-to-day care but would be responsible for the day-to-day guidance as MJ surly desired. Thanks Nancy for a great piece! Keep up the good job and as I enjoy being "in the loop" with your up-to-the-minute Access!!

Mon, 2009-07-13 06:44

MJ's wishes should be granted- the least amount of the disruption in the childrens' lives, the better. It would be a great idea, too, to have their nanny involved in their continued care.

Sat, 2009-07-11 02:20

Here Here! I second the vote for Janet!

Fri, 2009-07-10 13:44

Givens: MJ loved and admired his mother Katherine, and Diana Ross. MJ loved his three children and endeavored to make them the center of his life. MJ sheltered his children using all resources available to him, with varied 'success'. MJ is a controversial figure, for good and for bad (however whitewashed of late.) MJ's judgment has been in question for decades, however grounded in traumas we may never fully appreciate or understand. Janet Jackson appears to be willing to step into family matters in ways that count. Joe Jackson is leading his own life, until convenient to do otherwise. The children are still children who need to be handled with sensitivity, yet their best interests should be served by wise adults entrusted for their care. Legally, MJ, as the dead father, has some say in the matter. Debbie Rowe, as the living mother, certainly does as well.

The Debate: At it's core, the real debate here is the judgment all are passing on Debbie Rowe, utilizing every negative soundbite the media can muster as if this were the final word. Did she get a paycheck/settlement for the children and her silence? Of course, but a fair-minded person would set this aside at the moment: MJ was the Goliath to this David, and pretty much what MJ wanted, MJ got, as a person of means and determination. Debbie's payday may have been reward or punishment, take your pick. What we do know is that she has her own regrets which she has tried to share, and has been slammed for it pretty much by everyone, very publicly, without mercy.

Did Debbie have feelings for MJ? It appears she sacrificed all for his happiness (whether you agree with her or not.) Did she love her children? It appears she sacrificed all for their protection (whether you agree with her or not.) Did she appear in court and bear witness in defense of MJ's custody over hers? She admitted that MJ's need, the children's needs and MJ's resources dwarfed hers, so to bow out of the children's life may have been, at least in part, (maybe even the largest one) an act of courage, or surrender (take your pick), when she could see a battle she could never win (and didn't want the children, nor perhaps MJ, to lose.)

The lady deserves some respect. She deserves to be heard. With the child support and a willing nanny, she would be as able to give the children as 'normal' a life as the next person.

Full disclosure, I met Debbie 10 years ago or more. She didn't strike me then, nor does she now, as a psycho, a starf****r, a greed-monster or the devil. What we can surmise is that she is in between a rock and a hard place financially, emotionally, and legally, with a hounding media and a public who appears to demonize her as 'the woman who sold her children.' Not easy, nor fun. But real life decisions are in the balance here, and, aside from the children, perhaps no one will feel its sobering effects more than she.

Has the Jackson family rallied as a clan? You betcha, and let's call it for all of the right reasons. Have they lovingly treated Debbie Rowe as the mother of their grandchildren/niece and nephews? It doesn't look good. Will they be willing to accept the courts ruling with grace and honor should Debbie prevail as the children's new guardian? If they really care about the children, they need to cut this very human person some slack and accept that a new day has dawned, and she is not the enemy.

Debbie has seemed to put others in front of her needs. Yes, she got paid, but she hardly 'walked away'. She appears to have fought for the scraps of relationships she could salvage in the face of animosity, and still seems to do so, so at least give her credit for that.

Does any mother/father who loses a custody battle but ends up with, say, a house and a car from a broken marriage deserve to be demonized? Do we erase her maternal/paternal rights then and there?

You can split hairs if you want, but the issue is the same.

And that is why this discussion is relevant, Nancy. Thank you.

Fri, 2009-07-10 08:50

I am familiar with this situation as it happened to a close friend of mine. The thing that they all decided was most important was to keep a person with whom the kids were familiar with as a big part of their lives. In my friend's case it was their grandmother. The kids of my friend adjusted very well and are doing fine. So, I hope this happens in the Michael Jackson scenario-whether it be the grandmother or the nanny or whomever. And it doesn't mean they take full custody, it just means they stay an instrumental part of the children's lives.
P.S. Love Nancy and that's how I found Momversation. She was on Twitter about it.

Fri, 2009-07-10 06:29

I don't really have an opinion on this other than I agree with Karen that the courts will surely rule in favour of the best interests of the children.

However, Dana? You crack me up! Your restraint, or borderline slippage of restraint, slayed me. I'm absolutely with you, I would not want to be involved in this. Pretty much everyone involved is just creepy and a little wrong, though Janet would definitely be a very interesting choice and probably one that the children would benefit from. Has she even come up in all this as a contender?

Whatever happens, though, I really hope it's sorted quickly and compassionately and doesn't descend into the media fray I suspect it will.

Thu, 2009-07-09 04:00

I don't know. This topic seems sort of inappropriate for Momversation. For the most part, these discussions (save Octomom) have been about aspects of parenting directly impacting the panelists. There have been issues, topics, questions of interest to regular parents. But this? This is gossip. Just because all the tabloids and other media are all over this doesn't mean it belongs on Momversation, but I'm assuming Nancy O'Dell influenced this one. I'm not an MJ fan, but frankly, none of these panelists (or any of the rest of us) have any insight to the particulars of the Jackson children and what might be best for them. This topic just seems....wrong.

Wed, 2009-07-08 13:17

Sorry Dana but "the ONE time we need someone to come and scoop up these kids?" As if their adopted children did not need homes and families???? I'm so sick of people assuming that just because you have adopted children you are now going to come along and adopt any and every child in need. Adoption isn't about saving a child it is about wanting to be a parent. Michael's children obviously have family that want them and are willing to raise them. Whether or not we trust his judgment he was the parent and his wishes should be honored.
Okay off my soapbox now.

Wed, 2009-07-08 10:51

Magic Johnson gave a huge shout out to Michael's mom, Katherine, at the Memorial Service yesterday. So, he too, I guess is weighing in on the big discussion in a way. I cried my heart out watching the service yesterday. When the daughter spoke, I just bawled and bawled forever.

Wed, 2009-07-08 09:19

We do not do an allowence because my kids are 7,6 and 5. But I do pay them quarters to vaccum, dust, clean bathrooms, do yard work etc. I am taking advantage of the fact that they actually enjoy the work at this age. And they like having projects on their own...seperate from each other, being so close in age.

Just wanted to give a heads up that my shopping blog is giving away an adorable kids lamps (though it could go anywhere). IF you like free stuff you can check it out here:
http://decorscout.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/give-a-way-contest-from-allmo...

Tue, 2009-07-07 09:50

For me as I explained in an earlier post on my blog how after Michael Jackson's death everyone wants to get the piece of the pie is this going to happen with the kids?

BUT I must say Dana you cracked me up!! Where is Angelina when three kids need to be saved?! Not to be insensitive of the whole thing but people like Jon and Kate and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford should be embracing the fact that their indiscretions are no longer on the front page of every magazine! Everyone wants to know what's going on with Jacksons estate, will, funeral and custody hearings.

Back to the topic:
I think that this is a private family issue that will be battled out in court, it doesn't have to be scrutinized by the public and splashed over the media.

I know that Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother will not get custody of the children because Michael wishes it. Her age will be a factor but if they were able to give her custody and have the nanny there to help with the children that would be the best solution. They kids all stay together with family and the nanny that have known them all their lives.
The only detail that is hard to swallow is Joe Jackson having the ability to be in the picture. Now we as the audience in Michael Jackson's life only sees the one side of it all, who knows what happens behind closed doors.

Now in my opinion, some people need to stop thinking of these kids as cash cows or their personal lottery ticket that they can claim. Debbie Rowe is one who I personally think has been flip flopping about custody for years. Now that Michael has passed she wants the kids. Does she want her two kids or does she want them all?

And what about Diana Ross? She is second in line in Michael's will if Katherine would be unable to care for the children. She's not a NUT in the Jackson family tree, maybe some normalcy is what these kids need in their lives.

At this point the kids need to stay together and they need a hero. They need someone who genuinely want the best for them.

Mon, 2009-07-06 16:56

I think this is an interesting discussion, but I don't feel all that equipped to contribute. MJ was a little before my time of musical/intellectual awareness. So I'll cop out and just say that I hope everything turns out the best for those kids.

Maybe the one good thing about their being in the public eye right now is that people WILL be monitoring where they end up and how they are treated. There are probably a lot of kids who become orphans and then just slip through the cracks...

Mon, 2009-07-06 11:04