With all the past publicity about Joe Jackson being such a horrid father and a child molester, why do Joe and Catherine have custody of Michael’s children?
Katherine is the one named as getting sole custody of the children, but since her and Joe are still married he’ll get de facto custody.
Also, has Joe Jackson ever been accused of molestation? He was abusive physically I believe, but I’ve never heard sexual abuse included. Anyone know?
I couldn’t find anything to indicate Joe was a sexual abuser, but there’s plenty of physical abuse accusations. There is also the bit that Joe took these kids into bars and had them peform when they were little. Though I can’t find anything that indicates that he let them drink.
Maybe that’s where Michael got his ideas about “Jesus Juice.”
The will filed names Diana Ross as the second in line to get his kids should his mother not be available.
A more prosaic question is that how does a court think that a 79 year old, kind of heavy woman, and an 80 year old tubby guy are an actuarially sound choice to provide going-forward stability? Katherine (or Joe) could without anything too terribly unexpected happening soon be facing issues of whether they need guardians – they’ve both outlived their demographic life expectancy.
Honestly, how much worse could it be than their previous situation?
Uh, I think it was Michael Jackson that was accused of being a child molester.
Joe Jackson, however, was emotionally and physically abusive to at least Michael. He’s not much of a father.
They’ve probably mostly been brought up by a nanny up till now, and hopefully she’s still with them.
LaToya has said that Joe sexually abused the girls, but I think she has since retracted a lot of her claims, saying that her former husband/manager was physically abusive and forced her to say things about the family in order to sell her book.
It was my understanding that Joe and Katherine are separated anyway – maybe not legally divorced, but long estranged, and living in different states.
Honestly, what other options are better? I mean, Debbie Rowe supposedly isn’t even the biological mother of the two children she birthed and hasn’t seen them since they were very small (when they divorced) and she’s not the mother of Blanket. Would it be better for them to live with uncle Tito (or any of Michael’s brothers, from whom he was reportedly estranged), whom they don’t know? Would it be better for them to be with Auntie Janet who tours all the time and isn’t home to ever see them? Not saying Joe and Katherine are the best option, but those poor kids don’t have a ton of great options, IMHO.
What, you don’t think other grandparents haven’t taken custody of their grandchildren if something happened to the children’s parents? It’s not an uncommon choice for next of kin for orphaned children.
It’s also my understanding that Joe and Katherine are separated - didn’t she kick him out after he was caught cheating? They may be legally married, but the marriage was over years ago and they don’t even live together.
Katherine is 80 years old, though. She’s not exactly the best bet for making it into the kids’ adulthoods. Someone is going to have to figure out a contingency plan for custody regardless. I have no idea who that would be. It’s a mess, for sure. It will probably end up being one Michael’s siblings, if any of them are even close to normal.
According to the will it is Katherine, then Diana Ross re: guardianship of the kids. I imagine Katherine and Diana will have to amend their own wills for the contingency of their own passing.
There’s been a lot of speculation that MJ was estranged from his brothers; any reliable cites saying this? I can’t ever recall MJ making this comment. AFAIK he was close to Marlon and Randy especially. They both keep a low profile.
But Diana Ross is no spring chicken, either.
The absolute irony would be if MJ’s kids end up in the foster care system–from rags to riches to rags in one generation. I feel sorry for them (and for MJ’s parents–not many 80 year olds WANT to take care of small children or even school age children).
Well, gee, her skinny, physically fit son lived a really long life! Geez o’Pete…why should their wieght have anything to do with it! It seems to have worked better for them than fitness did for Michael…
Didn’t Rebbie accuse him of molesting her at one point when she was twelve?
The oldest one is 12 and that’s only 6 years till he’s an adult. The thing I’d be most concerned is that someone will cheat those kids out of their rightful share.
Fortunately those kids haven’t had much exposure, you could likely put them in North Dakota and few people would know. Many rich kids are sent to boarding schools and the like and they do fine.
I’m not claiming it’s ideal but it doesn’t automatically doom them either. Ross was born in 1944 so she’d 65. As long as she’s in good health she shouldn’t have any trouble. Especially as one poster said, the kids everyday needs will be met by nannies and such
“seems to have worked better for them than fitness [and tons of horse tranquilizers and Demerol and . . . ] did for Michael.” I’m also not sure that 112 lbs., for an adult man, equals “fitness.” Could that be skinny enough to have starved his heart muscle? IANAD, but he hardly seems to have been a gym rat. Drug-addled anorexia /=“fit.”
Weight corellates with morbidity – that’s just an actuarial fact. I agree that Katherine, like many black women who manage to live to a good age, seems to carry hers well, but it’s not a <positive, lifespan enhancing> trait nor one that makes her the ideal long-term guardian for kids who have a good number of years to go till majority.
But don’t they say it’s better to be a little overweight when you’re older? Not obese, but it’s better to carry a few extra pounds than to be thin, supposedly. Besides, she’s already lived to 80–if she does die soon, I’m sure it won’t be because she’s too heavy.
I think the phrase “Is it wise?” was jettisoned a long time ago in the lives of those children. Why bother with “wise” now?