Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Jackson Children

by James Denison / July 1, 2009 2:31 AM PDT

Three of them. Currently his mother has "temporary" custody. The two oldest have been reported to be children of Rowe and unnamed sperm donor. It's obvious no genetic material from Michael is in them. I don't know anything about the third, but looks like it could be part Michael. One rumor is that Jacko's dermatologist was the donor on the first two. He's released a statement in which he deliberately avoided any denial of that. Since there's reputedly a 2002 will that names the children, and even if there wasn't, there could be "per stirpes" suits initiated, it would seem much of the estate left might follow the children. This of course means whoever controls the children, will probably control the estate. My thought is someone ought to be doing some DNA testing real soon. Also read that no legal adoptions have been done if there is no DNA connection between Michael and the children. Rowe may come back into the picture now too, since she's claiming they are half hers and not from donated eggs. Thoughts?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Jackson Children
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Jackson Children
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
My thoughts
by Josh K / July 1, 2009 2:45 AM PDT
In reply to: The Jackson Children

There's going to be a lot of gossip and wild theories circulating around. It happens whenever someone of this magnitude dies (remember the years of Elvis sightings?).

The official story was that the children were his but were the result of artificial insemination, presumably with his own sperm. Lisa Marie Presley has acknowledged that although she did not feel their marriage was a sham and that she really truly loved him, they never slept together.

He was obviously a very troubled man who seemed incapable of sexual intimacy of any kind, at least with adults. He may well have died a virgin. I think the kids should be left alone unless the mothers start claiming he isn't their father, in which case DNA testing would be appropriate.

Collapse -
The worse pity
by Angeline Booher / July 1, 2009 6:28 AM PDT
In reply to: My thoughts

..... is that it is the children who suffer the fall-out from it all. Sad

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
And so do you think this could turn out to be like
by Steven Haninger / July 1, 2009 7:00 AM PDT
In reply to: The Jackson Children

when and an old and wealthy woman dies and leaves a fortune to her dog and now there's a brewing custody battle over who gets to care for that wonderful, lovable pooch? Happy

Collapse -
I think for now Jacko's mother wins.
by James Denison / July 1, 2009 9:13 AM PDT

The 2002 will also names here with Diana Ross as a backup guardian. I don't see Rowe entering and winning a battle against the family, especially where there's a will that proves valid.

Collapse -
The only real challenges Debbie Rowe would have.....
by Josh K / July 1, 2009 11:17 PM PDT

....would be:

1) She can convince a judge that MJ's choices for guardianship are unfit somehow.

2) She can prove that MJ is not the father of the children and therefore has no legal rights regarding them.

Collapse -
RE: winning a battle
by JP Bill / July 1, 2009 11:25 PM PDT

As a biological mother she has MORE rights to HER children than the rights Michael can "give" to his mother.

Collapse -
Maybe, maybe not
by Josh K / July 2, 2009 1:20 AM PDT
In reply to: RE: winning a battle

If she legally surrendered those rights then she may not have any legal grounds to challenge the will.

Collapse -
I would think that surrendering them to
by Roger NC / July 2, 2009 11:40 AM PDT
In reply to: Maybe, maybe not

Michael as the father would not necessarily automatically transfer to anyone else at his death, even someone picked by him.

Talking head this morning was pointing out that while much a will may be binding, guardianship of children is legally bound to be determined in the interest of the children.

What which judge or social services organization would rule was in the interest of the children would not be bound by his recommendations for their guardianship.

I least that is the impression I got.


Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!