[lovemy6]

Originally Posted by dpen6

You don't really beleive that it was a love marriage do you? These kids were not concieved out of love in the typical way at all. I beleive they got married only so she could have the children....she about said that in the interview I saw. I think it was with barbara walters..notsure though.

What if MJ married her bc he knew he couldn't have kids biologically, wanted kids, but didn't want to go through the adoption process (or wouldn't PASS the adoption homestudy)?

We don't know the motives of the bmom. We don't know what's in her heart. She has plenty of money with the settlement, so unless she is a cold-hearted, money-hungry, witch, she's set financially. What if she's, like so many bmoms, just wanting to be with her biokids?

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by dpen6

You don't really beleive that it was a love marriage do you? These kids were not concieved out of love in the typical way at all. I beleive they got married only so she could have the children....she about said that in the interview I saw. I think it was with barbara walters..notsure though.

I don't think Michael Jackson ever did anything that could be considered "typical". I don't know if he loved or even liked Debbie Rowe. But in the end, it doesn't matter. She wasn't a legal surrogate bound by a contract. She was the wife of Michael Jackson and the children were born of their marriage (regardless of parentage or how they were conceived). She wasn't a surrogate mom. She's was just a Mom who divorced her husband and walked away from her kids in exchange for cash. Regardless of whether that had always been the plan (for her to give birth and then walk away), it wasn't a surrogacy, egg selling, egg donation, embryo adoption, etc..situation. It was just a divorced couple in which one parent walked away and failed to support or visit her children for the next 11 years.

[dpen6]

manni,

I thought you all felt she should pay regardless of whther she had custody or not...

actually this is where the whole money thing makes me nauseous where kids are concerned, this is why I skeeve when I here how its ok to pay anyone to have children or bring money into adoption issues, or even in reunions(the adoptee is after the bparents money,,dontchaknow...bparents after adoptees money, aparents saying all the money I spent I want a refund!) because like strorm says the sleaze factor comes in andit becomes about the money and not the kids....

I think most of us want the children to be where they belong.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by lovemy6

What if MJ married her bc he knew he couldn't have kids biologically, wanted kids, but didn't want to go through the adoption process (or wouldn't PASS the adoption homestudy)

That is most likely the case. With a previous charge of child molestation, it's doubtful that any agency or attorney would be involved in an adoption. The only way to have kids was to get someone to do it in a way that would bypass 'adoption'. Marrying someone was the only way. If he & Debbie Rowe just had a pretend 'relationship' and she got pregnant, it would be too easy for her to come back later and say "He's not the father. I want the kids". Because they weren't married, a judge would automatically request DNA testing to see if he was the father. If he wasn't, he'd have no legal leg to stand on.

However, if he marries Debbie Rowe and she has children, they are born of the marriage and he's their legal father (regardless of any biological bond). So, even if they divorce and she says "Well, he's not even their father". It doesn't matter. At the time of their birth, he was her legal husband and the children were presented to the world as the children of Debbie & Michael. Therefore, regardless of bio ties, the children are legally his children. He can fight for custody and will have standing in the courtroom to seek custody.

However, in his situation with Blanket, a surrogate is the easiest way to go. A woman signs a contract offering to become impregnated. After the birth, the woman is paid and she walks away. There is no contact between Michael Jackson and the surrogate. He can take legal custody after birth as the 'father' regardless of whether or not a sperm donor was used. The child is his.

If he could do it over again, I bet he would have chosen surrogacy for all three children to avoid the difficulties he had with Rowe. She was a thorn in his side. Where with Blanket, there is no one to complain or interfere or request money to 'go away'.

[manni28]

What if MJ married her bc he knew he couldn't have kids biologically, wanted kids, but didn't want to go through the adoption process (or wouldn't PASS the adoption homestudy)?

We don't know the motives of the bmom. We don't know what's in her heart. She has plenty of money with the settlement, so unless she is a cold-hearted, money-hungry, witch, she's set financially. What if she's, like so many bmoms, just wanting to be with her biokids?

Love6;

Anytime a person "sells away" custody of their child it speaks volumes. She never wanted to be a "mom/parent" to those kids; she wanted/wants the money. If she wanted to be with her kids she would not have "sold away" her rights to them. I think she needs to go back to her horse farm and leave those children alone!

P.S. Not for nothing, but I think equating Rowe with bmothers is insulting, they were doing the best for their children at that time.


-Manni

[lovemy6]

Originally Posted by manni28

Love6;

P.S. Not for nothing, but I think equating Rowe with bmothers is insulting, they were doing the best for their children at that time.


-Manni

I wasn't equating her with bmothers, I was calling her one, which is what she is if she has been tpr'd.

I'm still confused about that part, bc I thought she still had parental rights, just didn't have custody. If that's the case, she's just mother.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by lovemy6

I wasn't equating her with bmothers, I was calling her one, which is what she is if she has been tpr'd.

I'm still confused about that part, bc I thought she still had parental rights, just didn't have custody. If that's the case, she's just mother.

She wasn't TPR'd. She tried to relinquish. However, you can't relinquish or be TPR'd by the courts in California unless you've been found unfit or the child is being adopted. So, even though she signed a voluntary relinquishment, it was overturned because it was illegal.

[lovemy6]

Originally Posted by Kat-L

She wasn't TPR'd. She tried to relinquish. However, you can't relinquish or be TPR'd by the courts in California unless you've been found unfit or the child is being adopted. So, even though she signed a voluntary relinquishment, it was overturned because it was illegal.

Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't know that she tried to vtpr, nor that CA doesn't allow it. Interesting.