Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe...you are NOT the parents!

[SueM in MN]

Blanket was probably not his either. MJ so loathed himself because he looked like his father that he wouldn't want any of his children to resemble him or his father.

At least he had the sense to write a will years ago. This way Joe Jackson can't petition the court as next of kin, for the rights to the estate - if that would have even been legally possible, if all 3 children are not ruled as his.

Joe is apparently trying to say that was not a legal will because Michael later fired the attorney (I've heard he had recently hired him back again though and that Michael had a history of getting mad and firing people then hiring them back.)
apparently Joe is not happy with that will since it specifically stipulated he not get any money (I heard on the radio that the reason in the will was because he was 'evil'). If Joe can get that will ruled invalid, he will end up with control.

 

[RadioNate]

who cares if he was the real father or not he raised them.... so that makes him the real father!

I'm trying to remember that kidnapping case from a while back. The siblings were kidnapped and raised by another family. By all accounts they were treated well, had a great life, etc etc. By your standards does that make the kidnapper their "real" father. He raised them.

The fact is, in this case biology does matter. While I believe that they would be legally considered Jackson's children, if he wasn't willing to admit that they weren't his biologically there may be some missing dots and uncrossed T's in the paperwork. That could open serious amounts of loopholes regarding the custody of these kids.

Fan or not, I think everyone is concerned with the welfare of his children.

It would be easy if the world was so black and white but it isn't and these kids are (unfortunately) worth an amazing amount of money.

 

[MineMail]

I'm not an attorney, but I believe the children are immediately, legally his because they were born to his 'wife', no matter who the biological parents were. My guess (if this is true) is that this was the way they were able to get around the surrogate/adoption paperwork.

Oh, I had wondered about that when I read the earlier reports. Wouldn't lying on the birth certificate invalidate his parental rights as well as Rowe's?

Eeek. This could become really messy if the Jackson family decides that these aren't MJ's kids and they don't want them. Of course, they'll take the estate instead, which the kids would have no claim to legally. Those kids could lose everything.

Isn't it strange that they said his lawyer/manager had the will, now the Jacksons are saying there is no valid will? Wouldn't the witnesses who signed the will come forward?

ETA: I didn't realize that there IS a will, but Joe Jackson doesn't like it so he's claiming it's invalid becuase the lawyer was fired. That's BS. My will was prepared by one person and I used someone else to handle house closings. My will is my will until I file another one. If he didn't like it, MJ could have had another one drawn up.

Which is probably what Joe Jackson's hoping to find. Wouldn't it be a kick in the tush to find out that there IS another will and it ALSO leaves out Joe but gives other people money/assets? lol

 

[Imzadi]

Joe is apparently trying to say that was not a legal will because Michael later fired the attorney (I've heard he had recently hired him back again though and that Michael had a history of getting mad and firing people then hiring them back.)
apparently Joe is not happy with that will since it specifically stipulated he not get any money (I heard on the radio that the reason in the will was because he was 'evil'). If Joe can get that will ruled invalid, he will end up with control.

 

[EthansMom]

I saw the statement regarding the paternity of Jackson's kids on Perez Hilton, which I don't consider to be a reputable source.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

Oh, I had wondered about that when I read the earlier reports. Wouldn't lying on the birth certificate invalidate his parental rights as well as Rowe's?

I don't think it's lying. It would be no different if a couple had used a sperm donor because the husband was infertile. Or a donated embryo for that matter, which was apparently the case here. As long as they were legally married, he is the legal father.
A legal father (or mother) doesn't always equal a biological father.

 

[Metsfan520]

I have a feeling that this is all true, but I won't speculate on any of it because we don't know the truth. And we may never know all of it anyway.

 

[shortbun]

Michael Jackson was the father of these children. Genetics have little to do with being a parent although some people become parents through biology. What is the point of this thread. He was their father. He is dead. Sperm and egg donors have no parental rights.

 

[sbell111]

Joe is apparently trying to say that was not a legal will because Michael later fired the attorney (I've heard he had recently hired him back again though and that Michael had a history of getting mad and firing people then hiring them back.)
apparently Joe is not happy with that will since it specifically stipulated he not get any money (I heard on the radio that the reason in the will was because he was 'evil'). If Joe can get that will ruled invalid, he will end up with control.

I don't believe that this is correct, although I admit that California law is not my deal.

If someone dies without a will, their estate falls to their next of kin. The order that this generally goes is spouse, child, parent. Since he wasn't married at the time of his death, his children would inherit everything. As Imzadi pointed out, this would be quite lucrative for whoever is designated as their guardians, but that doesn't necessarily leave Joe Jackson with anything.

 

[MineMail]

I don't think it's lying. It would be no different if a couple had used a sperm donor because the husband was infertile. Or a donated embryo for that matter, which was apparently the case here. As long as they were legally married, he is the legal father.
A legal father (or mother) doesn't always equal a biological father.

I thought that when a surrogate was involved, the parents on the birth certificate are the biological parents (for health history purposes - they put "Unknown" or a code for anonymous donors) and the people who hired them do immediate adoption paperwork.

 

[momrek06]

ITA, I think Joe Jackson was the root of all evil for MJ. He said awful things to MJ growing up. He physically and verbally abused his children.

I live in CA (outside of LA) and we have had allot of "breaking news" on our tv's since MJ's death...and yesterday I was watching Young&theRestless when they broke in with Joe at MJ's estate and all these fans are all there mourning MJ's death and Joe is talking about HIS NEW RECORD COMPANY .....WHATTTTT. Then fans were asking him about funeral arrangements and he was ignoring them and they kept asking him and he finally turned to them and said they were going to do another autopsy before finalizing funeral plans................still Joe Jackson has become a MEDIA HOUND upon the death of his son.

JOE JACKSON IS THE NEW SPEIDI!!!!



To the OP, sorry if this is off topic BUT I have found every thread of MJ's tends to go OT!

 

[MineMail]

I don't believe that this is correct, although I admit that California law is not my deal.

If someone dies without a will, their estate falls to their next of kin. The order that this generally goes is spouse, child, parent. Since he wasn't married at the time of his death, his children would inherit everything. As Imzadi pointed out, this would be quite lucrative for whoever is designated as their guardians, but that doesn't necessarily leave Joe Jackson with anything.

But if JJ successfully contests both the will and the children's legal parentage* the parents are next in line, right?

* For the adoption advocates who say "but he WAS their father, day-to-day, that's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing whether or not MJ did the right thing from a legal perspective to protect the kids if he were to pass on. No one's discussing his role as a parent.

 

[sbell111]

... The fact is, in this case biology does matter. While I believe that they would be legally considered Jackson's children, if he wasn't willing to admit that they weren't his biologically there may be some missing dots and uncrossed T's in the paperwork. That could open serious amounts of loopholes regarding the custody of these kids. ...

Imagine a scenario where a wife has an affair and gets pregnant. The child may or may not be a product of that affair. The husband's name is put on the birth cert and he insists that the child is his.

Please show me the missing dot or uncrossed T in my hypothetical scenario.

I don't think it's lying. It would be no different if a couple had used a sperm donor because the husband was infertile. Or a donated embryo for that matter, which was apparently the case here. As long as they were legally married, he is the legal father.
A legal father (or mother) doesn't always equal a biological father.

Agreed, and with estate transfers, legal is the only thing that matters.

 

[sbell111]

But if JJ successfully contests both the will and the children's legal parentage* the parents are next in line, right?

No. He could dispute the childrens' biological parentage, but not their legal parentage. MJ was legally married to the mother of the two older children at the time that they were born and his name appears on the birth cert as 'father'. He was their legal father. This cannot be broken with a paternity test.

Plus, I don't think that he would have a prayer of having a properly executed will tossed simply because the attorney was later 'fired'.

He may want to fight the will and paternity, but the odds of him winning even one these fights are very small. He has to win all three fights to prevail.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

I thought that when a surrogate was involved, the parents on the birth certificate are the biological parents (for health history purposes - they put "Unknown" or a code for anonymous donors) and the people who hired them do immediate adoption paperwork.

Again... I'm not an attorney.
But, in the case of a donated anonymous embryo, I can't imagine that a child could have a birth certificate with 'unknown' for both parents.
I don't have any experience with surrogates, but do they have to legally adopt the children?
I'm thinking that MJ got around this whole thing by being married to the surrogate.

 

[MineMail]

Imagine a scenario where a wife has an affair and gets pregnant. The child may or may not be a product of that affair. The husband's name is put on the birth cert and he insists that the child is his.

Please show me the missing dot or uncrossed T in my hypothetical scenario.

Agreed, and with estate transfers, legal is the only thing that matters.

Okay, I found a link that says that under California law, the "intended parents" are put on the birth certificate in the case of a surrogate birth (which is what this situation has become with Deb Rowe.)

http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/calaw.html
(Similar wording applies to donor situations)

I guess there could still be some issues, but the parentage can't be questioned if the will is invalidated. Interesting.

 

[MineMail]

Imagine a scenario where a wife has an affair and gets pregnant. The child may or may not be a product of that affair. The husband's name is put on the birth cert and he insists that the child is his.

Please show me the missing dot or uncrossed T in my hypothetical scenario.

In that case, let's say those two people split up and the father decides that he's not paying child support for a kid who isn't his. DNA testing proves his argument.

Now what? (Obviously, the kid is the one who gets hurt the most.)
Does the mother give up (most likely), try to fight it in court saying "he acted like a father and accepted it before?", or try to have the actual DNA donor contribute child support?

I'm thinking that MJ got around this whole thing by being married to the surrogate.

I think you're right. In any case, the kids seem to be in a good position to not be disowed, which was my main concern. That, and that they never, ever show any promise of being performers until AFTER JJ bites the dust.

He may want to fight the will and paternity, but the odds of him winning even one these fights are very small. He has to win all three fights to prevail.

I hope JJ wastes a lot of money to lose all these fights. If MJ did leave his estate to his kids and mother, with the intention of her caring for them, that was probably what he thought the right thing was to do.

 

[momrek06]

I guess there could still be some issues, but the parentage can't be questioned if the will is invalidated.

AND let's hope that does not happen; as JJ decides HE should be in control....oh my!
I wonder if any of the other Jackson children feel the same MJ did about JJ?

 

[Imzadi]

In that case, let's say those two people split up and the father decides that he's not paying child support for a kid who isn't his. DNA testing proves his argument.

Now what? (Obviously, the kid is the one who gets hurt the most.)
Does the mother give up (most likely), try to fight it in court saying "he acted like a father and accepted it before?", or try to have the actual DNA donor contribute child support?

I have heard about actual cases like that. (I am not a lawyer.) Women have stepped forward and suddenly announced to STBX hubby that they really aren't the biological father, as they don't want STBX to have custody rights. The cases I've heard about, the courts have ruled in favor of the father, saying that the wife allowed the hubby to be the believed & declared father for 6 years and had been raising him as such. In the best interests & welfare of the child, he is going to continue to be legally considered the father.

Same is true for a case when a husband found out right before divorce that the is not the biological father. He wanted to use that to get out of paying monthly child support. The courts ruled that in the 6 years he didn't know his wife had been flapping her legs around, he willingly accepted responsibility & care for the child, and assumed the role of being a "real father." Again, in the best interests & welfare of the child, they said he must continue to pay child support payments.

Now, if the biological father then steps forward and also wants visitation rights & some custody, that adds in another ball of wax... one the mother may not have intended.

 

[sbell111]

In that case, let's say those two people split up and the father decides that he's not paying child support for a kid who isn't his. DNA testing proves his argument.

Now what? (Obviously, the kid is the one who gets hurt the most.)
Does the mother give up (most likely), try to fight it in court saying "he acted like a father and accepted it before?", or try to have the actual DNA donor contribute child support?

In most jurisdictions, paternity would make no difference in your scenario. The man would still be the legal father and on the hook for child support.