I Predicted it! Michael Jackson saga is far from over. It has a life of its own.
By dloveli
@dloveli (4366)
United States
July 3, 2009 6:32am CST
As I predicted, the family and mother of MJ's children are not satisfied that the artist passed away and left specific wishes. They have to beat this thing to death. I just heard that the mother of MJ's two older children wants custody. Now this was a woman who married him specifically to give HIM a child. SHe initially signed her rights away.What about the other child that isnt hers. Why would she separate siblings. These kids had each other if nothing else... I am sorry I dont necessarily think she wants the children. I think she wants the money. I only hope that she smartens up. In MJ's will he specified his mother or Diana Ross to have the children. He didnt even mention the mother. Am I wrong? What do you think?
3 people like this
6 responses
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
3 Jul 09
From all I have heard the mother of the children does not have a hope in Hell of getting custody of her children. She signed all her rights away when she got millions in her divorce settlement, the kids do not even know her. She did have some visitation rights but missed most of the vists and did not reschedule them as it was too much trouble to go through all of Jackson's representatives. I do not think any court would give her custody as it is not in the childrens' best ineterst. I am kind of worried the MJ's mother and Diana Ross being in their late seventies are too old to raise young children. I hope that other members of the family take over the actual raising of the kinds and not just dump them on expensive nannies.
1 person likes this
@dloveli (4366)
• United States
3 Jul 09
Initially she signed away her rights. According to public court records, her rights were reinstated when MJ was charged for the second time. When the Not guilty finding came down it is said that she hasnt seen them since. From what I understand Lawyers have stated that she, more than anyone else, has a better chance of getting them. My question is this: If MJ legal staff was really doing its job, Why didnt they have her relinquish the rights after the second legal issue? Why didnt they have him update his will? Legally we dont know if they did try and have them update the will and he refused or what.. since they have said everything else good, bad, or indifferent, why would they leave that bit of information out? I think that the family is full of it as well. The first comment out the father, Joe Jacksons, mouth was " I wish my son could see my new record label. This was right before he attended the BET music awards. I think that these children should go with Diana Ross and her family. It much better than the Jacksons. I get so mad when I hear people talking about how bad they feel for the parents. The father abused him and the mother allowed it because thats what they did in those days. It not those days anymore mam! They could've stepped in many times and stopped their son from making a bunch of terrible decisions. Michael was big on family. Even though he may not have listened to the father, he would've listened to the mother. No excuse for such a talented man to have gone so wrong. dl
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
3 Jul 09
It is sad to think that the father was such a tyrant. He was just the same as the father of the Osmond's and I personally watched the Osmond's father during rehearsals when they were kids. MJ was indeed truly talented but I guess I lost my enthusiasm for him as a person when all the child molestation stuff came out.
@cyberfluf (4996)
• Netherlands
4 Jul 09
If she signed her rights away, and the children don't know better than another woman who has been taking care of them is their mother; why move these children around? Losing their father is bad enough as it is. If they have to go live with another person and being taken away from their relatives that would destroy them.
It's a personal motive; money, pride or what else; because anyone could predict that this would not be in the childrens best interest. If she cares about the children that much, she would do what's best for them.
@dloveli (4366)
• United States
4 Jul 09
Honestly I cant say that for sure. She already has money. MJ made sure she was set for life. I think it may be because of pressure. She doesnt want to seem like a monster. If the tabloids print that she didnt even attempt to see the children, think how hard it will be for her to live a semi normal life. People can be mean, judgemental. Imagine trying to walk down the street after the tabloids report you are a terrible person who doesnt even want her own children. It would be horrible. When MJ and her were married,she knew what he wanted and fully understood what her role would be. He hand picked her because of her characteristics and the fact that she was understanding to his plight. I dont think she thought she would ever even see them. When he was accused for the second time of child molestation she stepped forward to reinstate her parental rights. She later said that it was what MJ wanted. He had his reasons.If you think about it he probably didnt want his father getting his hands on them. Look at all the innuendos that surround his parenting of the Jackson children. When MJ was acquitted she left and had little or not contact with them up until now. She wants those kids just to protect her image. Sure having more money doesnt hurt either. Thanks Step! dl
@scarlet_woman (23463)
• United States
5 Jul 09
people sure do seem to change their mind when money's involved.
i don't think it's a good idea to seperate kids just in general.they've already been through enough.
@jillhill (37353)
• United States
3 Jul 09
Hmmmmmm took her a couple of days to decide that she wants them.....If it had been me I would have been standing on the doorstep trying to get them the minute that I heard the news.....I think Michael knew what he was doing...but of course there will be a battle...might even see some from his dad who was left out.
1 person likes this
