This is from TMZ which broke the story of Jackson’s death.
The article goes on to say the third kid of Michael Jackson, was conceived by an anonymous sperm donar and egg donar. That surrogate didn’t know she was carrying what would become Michael Jackson’s third kid - Prince Michael II. Jackson’s lawyer took the baby after it was born from a hospital in San Diego and gave it to Michael Jackson.
Now the funny thing is there is no offical adoption by either Jackson or Rowe for any of these kids.
If this turns out to be true it would be so weird.
I’m sure this surrogate thing, has happend like this before, but I wonder if the parents who will raise the baby have to adopt him
If it is true, expect people to be coming out of the woodwork to get those kids now.
I expect that it doesn’t matter. If people are married when a child is born the male partner is considered the child’s father by law. DNA evidence is not considered. I would kind of assume that the same would be the case for the female as well. I kind of remember they were married at least until the kids were born, but that could be faulty.
As much as I think those kids would be better off raised damn near anyone else than the prospects at hand, the court is unlikely to allow itself to be drawn down that slimy slope.
I’m shocked, shocked to find out that Michael’s kids are not his biological offspring! On the other hand, I’ve got to admit, they really don’t look much like him. Well blanket (PM2) looks a little like him.
The funeral procession is coming through town on Thursday. Maybe I should jump in there and claim the kids.
So does it go by whoever the child is literally born to? Like, the babies came out of Debbie Rowe but they weren’t related to her. Is she still considered the mother, then?
Unless there’s paperwork to the contrary, yes. That’s how egg donations and embryo adoptions work, the woman carrying the baby to term is considered the mother. In the case of surrogate mothers, the woman carrying the baby relinquishes maternal rights.
Presumably this is treated like a case where a child is adopted, and the adoptive parents subsequently die, right? The biological parents have no rights in that situation, do they?
Innocent until proven guilty means that an “alleged pedophile” is not a pedophile until he is proven to be. Therefore a man had 3 adopted children, or 3 children of whom he had custody. Unless you think that adoptive parents are not “real” parents, and someone other than a direct relative having custody of a child is a bad thing, of course. (There are going to be a lot of widowed stepfathers/stepmothers losing “their” kids, then.)
*Personally I believe that it is shameful because I think he managed to buy his way out of trouble, but I have to support the legal system in this case. IANAL.
Would any legitimate agency have allowed someone like Jackson to adopt a child through normal channels?
Pedophiles have been known, on rare occassions, to adopt their victims. This is not an indictment of adoption, but rather a description of a certain criminal M.O.
Folks, there’s a lot of glurge being spewed concerning MJ now. Almost all of it is false. The chances of this being true (at least the biological mom part) is so low that it’s practically negative.
The official autopsy will be completed, the will will* be probated, the custody of the kids will be sorted out. It’s going to take time. Then you can have fun discussing the facts of the matter.
Just ignore all the media mania and get on with important things.
*I couldn’t figure out how to avoid that pairing. So sue me.
Honestly, I don’t think a U.S. adoption agency would have MJ at the top of their list for many reasons (potential pedophilia is not near the top of that reason list). MJ could easily have gone overseas to adopt like many other celebrities, but he chose the methods he chose for personal reasons possibly centered around the selected genetics of the children. The world may never know, but he may have been doing any number of things that we can think of and many things beyond our ken. It could have been as simple as choosing not to procreate genetics he had decided were flawed (or he carried some sort of genetic condition that he refused to pass on), to selecting genetics with a particular look in mind, to selecting for particular recessive traits that will allow, in his mind, his children (biological or not) to genetically take over the world. <insert Pinky and the Brain here>
Obviously, we know nothing yet. I’m just watching the circus and waiting for the clowns to start falling. If it turns out that MJ created the kids for the sole purpose of growing his own personal sex slaves, then you heard it here first. If not, then who cares what I wrote? It’s not as if he’s reading.
The official autopsy will be completed, the will probated, and the custody of the kids sorted out
There is a family in our school district that the Dad is Causasian. Mom looks 95% caucasion, her nose is just a bit wider. The rest of her is as pale as me and limpy white girl flat hair.) and their 5 children are light skinned blacks.
They always get a second look sitting as a family.
Their kids are freaking gorgeous. I mean freaking gorgeous.
Then there was this family in our school that had three kids. Since they had a common last name, JOnes or something, I never knew they were related.
Light skinned black girl, tall and wirey with a fro.
Pale skinned white girl with blue eyes and wirey blondish hair. stouter build.
Medium skinned black boy with a fro and brown eyes. Wirey build.
When I saw the three of them sitting with their parents it ‘clicked’ in my brain that it was a mixed race family. Mom was white. Dad was black.
Side question: Is “Blanket” a not only common but also accepted nickname for the kid? I mean, I laughed when I heard it used on South Park, but yesterday I heard it used by a commentator on MSNBC, and some guest on NPR’s Talk of the Nation from their Monday show also said it, both in an apparently non-derisive fashion.