Metropolis Reality Forums - Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son

Sponsored by: The Fans!

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 25^th, 2024, 12:37pm

Upcoming Premiere Dates:
Survivor 23, Season premiere
Thursday, September 14 (8:00-9:30 PM, ET/PT) on CBS

Metropolis Reality Forums Ť Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son ť

   Metropolis Reality Forums
   Off-Topic Forums
   In the News (Moderators: lakelady, yesteach, MediaScribe, Bumper, Isle_be_back)
   Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son

Previous topic | New Topic | Next topic »

Pages: all 1 2

Add Poll

Notify of replies

Send Topic

Author

Topic: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son (Read 767 times)

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« on: Jan 27^th, 2004, 12:38pm »

Quote

Modify

Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
Mon, Jan 26, 2004, 12:01 PM PT

LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Who's your daddy? Not Michael Jackson, says one mother.

Debbie Rowe, the mother of Jackson's first two children says that the King of Pop is not their biological father, reports Los Angeles' KABC News.

Rowe says that she became pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor. Her surrogacy agreement with Jackson in 1996, which resulted in their paper marriage ceremony, only reportedly took place so he could secure parental rights.

She is now seeking temporary exclusive custody of the two children, Prince Michael Jackson I and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson.

Child welfare officials visited Jackson's Beverly Hills mansion on Friday, Jan. 23, interviewing the children's nannies and nurses. The officials maintain that the investigations are confidential, but some attorneys speculate that this could be the first step to determining Jackson's custody over the children.

In previous interviews Jackson has vowed to fight to keep his children. Jackson has one other child, Prince Michael Jackson II, who the pop star notoriously dangled over the balcony of a Berlin, Germany hotel in November 2002.

The question of Jackson's fitness as a father and mentor to children came to a head last November when a raid on his Neverland ranch led to his being charged with seven counts of child molestation. The charges include performing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent on the alleged victim, a cancer patient who Jackson befriended.

At his arraignment hearing on Friday, Jan. 16, the pop star entered a plea of "not guilty." A preliminary hearing on Friday, Feb. 13 has been scheduled to determine whether enough evidence exists to hold Jackson for trial.

IP Logged

azure
ForumsNet Member

Gender:

Posts: 4087

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #1 on: Jan 27^th, 2004, 12:58pm »

Quote

Modify

so why is she not going for the youngest child? Or is she not the mother of this one?

IP Logged

HELLO EVERYBODY!!

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #2 on: Jan 27^th, 2004, 1:09pm »

Quote

Modify

She is not the mother of the littlest one, as far as we can tell. People have speculated that she is, and Jackson isn't telling, but I'd say this lawsuit makes it perfectly clear she's not.

IP Logged

MzWings
ForumsNet Member

Praying for FN members/family health & happiness

Gender:

Posts: 0

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #3 on: Jan 27^th, 2004, 9:01pm »

Quote

Modify

This is ALL so disgusting - JMNSHO.

"Rowe says that she became pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor. Her surrogacy agreement with Jackson in 1996, which resulted in their paper marriage ceremony, only reportedly took place so he could secure parental rights."

Surrogacy? Then the eggs weren't hers either?

"She is now seeking temporary exclusive custody of the two children, Prince Michael Jackson I and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson. "

And if she was a true surrogte, why would she want these children (other than to protect them from MJ)?

http://www.surrogate-agency.com/Surrogacy.htm

http://www.surromomsonline.com/articles/define.htm

« Last Edit: Jan 27^th, 2004, 9:03pm by MzWings »

IP Logged

"Senility Prayer"...God grant me...
The senility to forget the people I never liked
The good fortune to run into the ones that I do
And the eyesight to tell the difference."

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #4 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 1:02am »

Quote

Modify

They may still be biologically hers. She was a surrogate for him in that she bore the children only to give them up to him and not raise or keep them as her own children.

IP Logged

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #5 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 1:04am »

Quote

Modify

From the second site you listed:

Traditional Surrogacy
In traditional surrogacy, the surrogate mother is artificially inseminated with the sperm of the intended father or sperm donor. The surrogate's own egg will be used, thus she will be the genetic mother of the resulting child.

Usually, the intended father's name is put directly on the birth certificate and the intended mother will need to do a step-parent adoption, however, laws regarding this issue vary from state to state. Consult a lawyer who is knowledgable about surrogacy laws in your state to learn more.

IP Logged

david
Guest

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #6 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 7:01am »

Quote

Modify

Remove

Well Ms. Rowe has done a complete turn around since her interview where she does nothing but praise Jackson and his Fathering skills even going as far as to say the children are where they belong with their Father! It seems Ms. Rowe (as speculated) gave birth for the money! If so although not accussed of abuse isnt much of a Mother either after all what parent willingly gives up her own children!

IP Logged

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #7 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 10:40am »

Quote

Modify

I still think she signed a "sold her soul to the devil" kind of contract and expected it to be differently. She obviously does care about the children in some small way if she's stopped supporting him publicly and has seized this opportunity to make a play for the children. She could be very damaging for him in court if she were called to testify. If you consider that she was probably contractually obliged to make supportive comments about him in a public appearance, etc. and probably signed away all custodial rights to the children, for her to come out at this point and make a move, will probably get her sued for breach of contract, etc. She's not likely making this move for money, but out of genuine concern for the children that she can no longer just sit back and swallow.

IP Logged

luci
ForumsNet Member

Gender:

Posts: 12045

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #8 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 11:33am »

Quote

Modify

Hmmmm, now tell me we are all surprized about this news!

IP Logged

"A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and
can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words."

MzWings
ForumsNet Member

Praying for FN members/family health & happiness

Gender:

Posts: 0

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #9 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 2:20pm »

Quote

Modify

on Jan 28^th, 2004, 1:04am, Rhune wrote:

Thanks for trying to straighten my brain out on this thing. I still have more questions buzzing about and I don't expect you or anyone to have all the answers. Sad

So Rowe, we can assume/alledge Rowe's egg(s) were used which - thus making her the genetic mother.

Quote:

Usually, the intended father's name is put directly on the birth certificate and the intended mother will need to do a step-parent adoption.....

What the ech-ee-double ell is an "intended" parent?

So according to what we've learned, MJ didn't physically implant his sperm (in Rowe) nor was his sperm used. Why then, in light of both these paragraphs would the genetic be subjected to do a step-parent adoption? I realize these supposed laws vary state-to-state. Roll Eyes

Regardless, when is a genetic mother NOT a genetic mother?

So maybe we can get the posse rounded up and go after MJ and charge him with "kid"-napping since (at least) the first two chilluns ain't hissun. :laff:

IP Logged

"Senility Prayer"...God grant me...
The senility to forget the people I never liked
The good fortune to run into the ones that I do
And the eyesight to tell the difference."

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #10 on: Jan 28^th, 2004, 4:18pm »

Quote

Modify

A genetic mother is not the "parent" when they sign away their custodial rights to another individual, basically renouncing any claim they have on the child or children despite the biological connection. I am quite certain that what MJ did, in order to obtain sole custody of the children, which was what he intended from the get-go I'm sure, is he married her then as his wife she was artificially inseminated with another man's sperm. Then after the children were born and healthy etc., he filed for divorce and part of the divorce was she agreed to sever her custodial rights to the children, giving him sole parental rights to the children in a legal sense. I'm sure the contract she signed with him when they first made this arrangement included that. I'm sure it sounded good on paper at the time she signed it, and she either hoped he would fall in love with her after all and they would have this perfect family, or she never counted on actually having feelings for these children, and found out after the fact that she did. I don't believe that Debbie Rowe is heartless and doesn't want her children, or is only doing this to hurt Michael Jackson. I think she got exactly what she signed up for, but when she signed it, she didn't realize what she giving up and how painful it really would be for her emotionally.

It's interesting that she has chosen this moment to enter the fray and to try to get them back. It's possible that she might actually get them despite her severing her rights, simply because of the circumstances surrounding this and the fact that the law is clearly gunning for an excuse to take the children from him. Whether they are right or not (I know we have people on both sides of the fence on this one), they clearly feel the children are in danger with him and will be looking for an excuse to remove them from him. With the charges on top of it coming to light that they are not biologically his children, it's very possible that she might get at least temporary custody of them. If Michael wins his trial, he will very likely get them back, as he is the custodial parent. Even if she does not get teh children back, she has hurt him in this trial. Michael has claimed in many interviews that the children are biologically his and has absolutely stood by that, and so this coming to light that he has been lying about that (if what she's saying is true) will hurt his credibility as a witness in the trial. I can think of several other occasions where I felt like Michael was just flat out lying in an interview, and none of that is going to help his case any. For example he stated several times in the Bashir interviews that all he had done was 2 minor plastic surgeries on his nose. If they want to attack his credibility they can potentially pull his medical records and compare that to what he's saying and I think we all know he's had more done than just 2 minor surgeries on his nose. At any rate, it feels to me like lying comes so easily to his lips during an interview with the press, I hope he's smart enough to not to try and pull that in court on the stand, because I think it will backfire on him badly.

IP Logged

luci
ForumsNet Member

Gender:

Posts: 12045

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #11 on: Jan 29^th, 2004, 1:08pm »

Quote

Modify

Geez, this is so horrible that I'm just going to Lips Sealed

IP Logged

"A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and
can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words."

Rhune
ForumsNet Administrator

Gender:

Posts: 292

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #12 on: Jan 29^th, 2004, 2:15pm »

Quote

Modify

IP Logged

azure
ForumsNet Member

Gender:

Posts: 4087

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #13 on: Jan 29^th, 2004, 2:28pm »

Quote

Modify

IP Logged

HELLO EVERYBODY!!

seaglass
ForumsNet Member

lobsters, lighthouses, L.L.Bean

Posts: 215

Re: Jackson: The Kid Is Not His Son
« Reply #14 on: Jan 30^th, 2004, 12:01pm »

Quote

Modify

Michael Jackson found the perfect way to buy his own children. He found a woman willing to be a surrogate, paid her enough money to give birth and then got paid for her time. Michael got the children he so obviously loves to have as playthings, Debbie got paid a handsome sum and no responsibility of motherhood. Did anyone really believe Michale was even part geneticlaly related to thse lovely children? He is African American, the children would at least show some resemblance to that heritage with darker skin and darker hair. Even if Michael has lightened his skin it is not passed on to offspring.
And who are the parents of those poor kids is the least of his worries now he is in deeper trouble that on ordinaly custody battle. If I had to say right now I'd say GUILTY of mistreating all this little boys who slept in his bed, drank wine out of soda cans because Michale said it was GOOD. Send him off to a real prison to mingle with hardened criminals and give him a taste of what real life is all about.
Sorry, my opinion is very negative of Mr Jackson and unless he is proven innocent I stand by my feelings he is not a nice person and is out of touch with reality.

IP Logged

Pages: all 1 2

Add Poll

Notify of replies

Send Topic


Previous topic \| New Topic \| Next topic »