Comments on: Jackson never legally adopted kids; Debbie Rowe claims she is biological mom http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/ Stylish celebrity escapism Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:25:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mizz Thang http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374636 Mizz Thang Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:04:02 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374636 All of this shit is hilarious--who cares? And, if anyone is going to commit suicide over someone they've never even met, be my guest. Makes more room for the rest of us sane people. No wonder the world sees as loonies. All of this shit is hilarious–who cares? And, if anyone is going to commit suicide over someone they’ve never even met, be my guest. Makes more room for the rest of us sane people. No wonder the world sees as loonies.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: PJ http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374431 PJ Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:43:19 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374431 MJ's will lists the 3 kids as his children, but does not specify whether they were adopted or not. The court papers do not make any distinction between "natural" and adopted children. Apparently adopted parents have the same legal rights as birth parents. MJ’s will lists the 3 kids as his children, but does not specify whether they were adopted or not.

The court papers do not make any distinction between “natural” and adopted children. Apparently adopted parents have the same legal rights as birth parents.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: Gigohead http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374205 Gigohead Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:41:05 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374205 Jojo, I was thinking the same thing. He is listed on the BC as the father, although the kids were not biologically his. What did have planned for them? It's almost like human trafficking -- babies for sale to the most rich and famous. It's scary! Jojo,

I was thinking the same thing. He is listed on the BC as the father, although the kids were not biologically his. What did have planned for them? It’s almost like human trafficking — babies for sale to the most rich and famous. It’s scary!

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: Ceenitall http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374187 Ceenitall Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:19:21 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374187 First off... Just because a tabloid or a website says he never adpoted the kids DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!!! Let's look at it rationaly 1. He and the mother (bio mother) were married at the time of the first two childrens birth. The law then assumes he would be the father so no adoption would be needed. 2. If he is listed as the father on all of the birth certificates then he is the father and does not have to adopt his own children. 3. After his last arrest and trial don't you think that if there were ANY doubt at all as to who was the legal parent of the children the state of California would have stepped in and tried to take the kids away from him? Even if he was aquitted in a court of law, they would not have let him keep kids that were not legally his. If you stop for a second and think about it and stop listening to all the stupid bs that people are saying to sell magazines it doesn't make sense that the kids are not legally his. First off…
Just because a tabloid or a website says he never adpoted the kids DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!!!
Let’s look at it rationaly
1. He and the mother (bio mother) were married at the time of the first two childrens birth. The law then assumes he would be the father so no adoption would be needed.
2. If he is listed as the father on all of the birth certificates then he is the father and does not have to adopt his own children.
3. After his last arrest and trial don’t you think that if there were ANY doubt at all as to who was the legal parent of the children the state of California would have stepped in and tried to take the kids away from him? Even if he was aquitted in a court of law, they would not have let him keep kids that were not legally his.

If you stop for a second and think about it and stop listening to all the stupid bs that people are saying to sell magazines it doesn’t make sense that the kids are not legally his.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: aw! http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374149 aw! Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:42:46 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374149 I thought Debbie Rose & MJ were married, so he wouldn't have to adopt those kids. And who cares about the sperm donor? I doubt that the "father" would come out to claim the kids unless there's a fortune in it for him. I thought Debbie Rose & MJ were married, so he wouldn’t have to adopt those kids. And who cares about the sperm donor? I doubt that the “father” would come out to claim the kids unless there’s a fortune in it for him.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: Enonymous http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374119 Enonymous Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:09:41 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374119 gg, Britney Spear's case was much, much less dramatic and dangerous when compared it to Michael Jackson's life choices and with the media throwing serious allegations about her mental health at that time and her incapability of taking care of her kids and herself because she was a bad mother or a drug addict when she clearly was going through a bad period of depression and breakdown that could be helped, instead everyone was making her out to be this completely incompetent person who could not even think for herself and she was striped of her wealth and custody of her children, so yeah I do still think her situation was blown out of proportion. She needed help yes, of course, but not for her life to be taken over by everyone while someone like Michael Jackson was running around doing weird stuff and god knows what else for years, yet no one did anything about it and just seem to shrug and say "oh that is Wacko Jacko for you." I wanted to know why was not MJ's kids taken away from him or at least threaten to, I think MJ's kids where more in a disadvantage with a parent like him then Britney's kids. I have nothing against MJ and I do feel sorry for him but reading all these stuff (and despite what anyone says, it seems most of the information out there seem to be true one way or the other), it just seems he was not as gullible as we though, he knew when to use his wealth and power when he needed to to get what he wanted no matter how social or moral unacceptable it might be and that is unsettling to me. gg, Britney Spear’s case was much, much less dramatic and dangerous when compared it to Michael Jackson’s life choices and with the media throwing serious allegations about her mental health at that time and her incapability of taking care of her kids and herself because she was a bad mother or a drug addict when she clearly was going through a bad period of depression and breakdown that could be helped, instead everyone was making her out to be this completely incompetent person who could not even think for herself and she was striped of her wealth and custody of her children, so yeah I do still think her situation was blown out of proportion. She needed help yes, of course, but not for her life to be taken over by everyone while someone like Michael Jackson was running around doing weird stuff and god knows what else for years, yet no one did anything about it and just seem to shrug and say “oh that is Wacko Jacko for you.” I wanted to know why was not MJ’s kids taken away from him or at least threaten to, I think MJ’s kids where more in a disadvantage with a parent like him then Britney’s kids.

I have nothing against MJ and I do feel sorry for him but reading all these stuff (and despite what anyone says, it seems most of the information out there seem to be true one way or the other), it just seems he was not as gullible as we though, he knew when to use his wealth and power when he needed to to get what he wanted no matter how social or moral unacceptable it might be and that is unsettling to me.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: TaylorB http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374093 TaylorB Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:43:26 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374093 His name is on the birth certs as 'father' so he can get all documentation he needs, SS cards, etc. Hospitals assume that the person named as 'father' is in fact the father, it isn't like they are going to question the mothers word and request a paternity test before filling out the birth cert. First of all that would be terribly rude, can you imagine 'Miss, are you SURE that man is the father and not some other person you were banging?', secondly it would be a logistical nightmare especially in the cases involving donor sperm or eggs, it isn't like if a woman uses a donor egg they list it as 'Who the hell knows?' under mother on the birth cert. If a woman, or her legal representative, says Mr X is the father then that is what goes on the birth cert, and he has all the 'proof' he needs by law unless later it is questioned and a paternity test is requested. His name is on the birth certs as ‘father’ so he can get all documentation he needs, SS cards, etc. Hospitals assume that the person named as ‘father’ is in fact the father, it isn’t like they are going to question the mothers word and request a paternity test before filling out the birth cert. First of all that would be terribly rude, can you imagine ‘Miss, are you SURE that man is the father and not some other person you were banging?’, secondly it would be a logistical nightmare especially in the cases involving donor sperm or eggs, it isn’t like if a woman uses a donor egg they list it as ‘Who the hell knows?’ under mother on the birth cert.

If a woman, or her legal representative, says Mr X is the father then that is what goes on the birth cert, and he has all the ‘proof’ he needs by law unless later it is questioned and a paternity test is requested.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: gg http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374089 gg Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:40:22 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374089 @ Enonymous, who said "... like it was for Britney Spear’s situation a year ago were she was vilified by the media, having her life taken over and her kids being taken away from her because it was blown out of proportion that she was suffering from some kind of mental problems." Britney's problems were not "blown out of proportion". We saw the photos of her crying on her curb, we saw her attacking people with an umbrella and shaving herself bald for the cameras, just for a start. She was clearly losing it and too focused on that to safely deal with children. But yeah, most definitely in MJ's case, he had the dough, he could do ANYTHING he liked to whomever. Which is wrong. I hope the courts start cracking down on this BS. Children are not accessories or puppies. @ Enonymous, who said “… like it was for Britney Spear’s situation a year ago were she was vilified by the media, having her life taken over and her kids being taken away from her because it was blown out of proportion that she was suffering from some kind of mental problems.”

Britney’s problems were not “blown out of proportion”. We saw the photos of her crying on her curb, we saw her attacking people with an umbrella and shaving herself bald for the cameras, just for a start. She was clearly losing it and too focused on that to safely deal with children.

But yeah, most definitely in MJ’s case, he had the dough, he could do ANYTHING he liked to whomever. Which is wrong. I hope the courts start cracking down on this BS. Children are not accessories or puppies.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: Feebee http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-374011 Feebee Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:10:26 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-374011 This will be a saga for the ages. Why would they bury him in Gary and not near Encino, CA where they had lived since he was 11? I know Gary would love the tourists but really? This will be a saga for the ages.

Why would they bury him in Gary and not near Encino, CA where they had lived since he was 11? I know Gary would love the tourists but really?

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]> By: Enonymous http://www.celebitchy.com/58175/michael_jackson_never_legally_adopted_kids_debbie_rowe_claims_she_is_biological_mom/#comment-373818 Enonymous Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:15:28 +0000 http://www.celebitchy.com/?p=58175#comment-373818 I was always surprised how a court can strip a parent's right to have custody of their own children for going through a hard period in their life like it was for Britney Spear's situation a year ago were she was vilified by the media, having her life taken over and her kids being taken away from her because it was blown out of proportion that she was suffering from some kind of mental problems. Yet, Michael Jackson was numerous times accused of child molestation, being seen as the epitome of crazy and a weird human being and just plainly looking at his kids, none of the looked that were biologically related to MJ yet I don't remember anyone trying to take any of those kids away from his custody. MJ seems to have always used his wealth and celebrity power to get what he wanted even if it was socially abnormal and very unacceptable and the depressing thing is that people let him get way with it all these years. I was always surprised how a court can strip a parent’s right to have custody of their own children for going through a hard period in their life like it was for Britney Spear’s situation a year ago were she was vilified by the media, having her life taken over and her kids being taken away from her because it was blown out of proportion that she was suffering from some kind of mental problems. Yet, Michael Jackson was numerous times accused of child molestation, being seen as the epitome of crazy and a weird human being and just plainly looking at his kids, none of the looked that were biologically related to MJ yet I don’t remember anyone trying to take any of those kids away from his custody. MJ seems to have always used his wealth and celebrity power to get what he wanted even if it was socially abnormal and very unacceptable and the depressing thing is that people let him get way with it all these years.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

]]>