Court Voids Rowe\'s Loss of Parental Rights

[whisperAdmin]

Anne said the children should be of concern and not MJ or Debbie and that is correct. Whoever f*cked up in the past is out the window. Yeah she fucked up, it's not fair, and I don't like her ass either...but the children deserve a chance.

The 'deal' that MJ and Debbie had was dodgey in the first place and MJ should have known it would end up in a sticky situation. Any woman that will come to you and offer you children WHILE YOU ARE STILL MARRIED is a little more than just nice. But I know MJ was desperate. But he had other options, such as how Blanket was concieved.

Anyway.

Have her come in as a friend for awhile, FRIEND. So if she bails they wouldn't be missing much. They have ways of working things out. The courts will monitor things as well, if Debbie is a deadbeat mother then they will probably let MJ just kick her to the side for good.

This will probably end with her getting visitation rights.

Debbie and MJ's situation isn't rare. Father/Mother bails, then comes back years later begging for forgiveness...and sometimes eventually the bond can be created or mended.

Yeah, I know what she said. And I talked about children. HIS children deserve a stable as possible situation. Not someone who ducks in and out of their lives depending on how she's feeling.

The children deserve a chance at what? Are you saying they can't possibly be raised correctly without a mother? Millions of people do that everyday. And from all accounts -- even tabloid accounts from the likes of Jane Valez-Mitchell-- they are doing damn good without her.

Yeah she f_cked up. A lot of people in Mike's life f_cked up. Why doesn't he give the Arvizo's another chance too? Why not Bob Jones? Why not Lisa Marie Preseley? The past is the past. But there is a difference when it comes to children.

The best interest for those children is not to have some mama-friend come in and see how she likes being around them, and have the option to bail again if she feels like it. She's not test driving a new car where she tries it out and sees how she likes it. I'm sorry but there is simply nothing you can say that will convince me of that.

Michael is a target and he can't take chances like every other person can take. Hasn't that been made painfully obvious to us all?

 

[Anonymous]

I feel really bad for his children, they are going to be questioning alot of things when they get old enough to understand whats going on around them.

I know this is an old comment, but I agree with that too.

Unless Michael explains everything to them before they learn it from somewhere else. There will be so many questions.

This is why I say custody battles are bullshit. When the parent(s) can't get it right the kids end up paying for it.

 

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't he give the Arvizo's another chance too? Why not Bob Jones? Why not Lisa Marie Preseley? The past is the past. But there is a difference when it comes to children.

I think you answered your own question there.

 

[whisperAdmin]

I think you answered your own question there.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with Vicky. I think Debbie was just doing what she felt was right at the time. Feelings change.

If the kids want a mother figure, and Debbie wants to be that person, then I don't see why not. If it all goes pear-shaped, at least Michael can close the book on it and said he tried.

Obv I'm not Michael.. but I'm speaking as if I were in his position.

:lol

I'm not on Debbies side at all. Did you read the article? Yikes! She's iffy, you really don't know what she wants. She kinda pisses me off too.

But Debbie isn't Bob Jones, she's not the Arvizos..ect. She's shown that by not going to the tabloids to blab about whatever personal crap she can blab about concerning Michael. Also during the trial as well. She didn't just testify, she really defended Michael.

So this is why I say they should just try, I agree with you there. Even if what she wants is to be with Michael again which I think is a big factor in what she's doing, if she will embrace the children as well in order to do that...then it's benefiting them and that's all that matter. Visitation won't hurt anyone. She doesn't and isn't I'm sure going to run in there and say 'I'm your mommy. Call me mommy.' on the first day. The courts and also family services have ways of making these things work out smoothly.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah exactly? Why did you mention Bob Jones and the Arvizo's in the first place then? :lol What relevence does it have? Debbie is a totally different story because she is their mother and you can't even compare her to either of those situations. She's nowhere near the level they are. They lied on Michael and contributed to something that could have killed him (putting him in prison). Debbie did the exact opposite and she's continued to do so by not saying shit.

 

[Anonymous]

Anyway, our endless bickering won't change shit, because we don't know shit.

We'll see what happens. I'm done.

 

[whisperAdmin]

But Debbie isn't Bob Jones, she's not the Arvizos..ect. She's shown that by not going to the tabloids to blab about whatever personal crap she can blab about concerning Michael. Also during the trial as well. She didn't just testify, she really defended Michael.

So this is why I say they should just try. Even if what she wants is to be with Michael again which I think is a big factor in what she's doing, if she will embrace the children as well in order to do that...then it's benefiting them and that's all that matter. Visitation won't hurt anyone. She doesn't and isn't I'm sure going to run in there and say 'I'm your mommy. Call me mommy.' on the first day. The courts and also family services have ways of making these things work out smoothly.

She isn't a lot of people. But solely based on your 'she f_cked up' analysis, yeah. she did. And so did a lot of people whom he can no longer afford to be around or have his children around. THAT'S where the Jones and Arvizo comparisons comes in, Vicky. If he were to grant a pardon to people who have 'f_cked up', he'd be right back in the same position he was before.

Again, children are another issue and that's why the 'she f_ck up' analysis makes no sense. You can't keep putting people in positions of proximity and hoping they don't f_ck up again; especially from someone who seemingly wanted no connection to them.

She told the truth under oath. She could have lied, but then she would have been torn up by Mesereau. The question is what did she tell police and prosecutors to get there in the first place?

I remembered thinking that prosecutors wanted to back-door her into this trial. But further information came to light about what she was supposed to have told police to put her on their radar in the first place; things I'm sure the defense were made aware of before her court appearance.

So will I cut her some slack for looking out for herself by not committing perjury? That's what she was supposed to do.

How do you know that visitation won't hurt anyone? What if his kids don't particularly care for her company? You want to force them to spend time with her? I thought we were supposed to be thinking about the children? I guess they'd have to fly from Bahrain to spend a few hours with their absentee "mommy" in name only. Nah.

The problem is that the courts shouldn't have to work this out. She decided how she wanted this to go when she filed for divorce and filed to have her visitation and parental rights terminated. That's on her.

Michael and his children shouldn't have to hang around until she gets it together or until she decides she wants to be a parent.

It would be absolutely ridiculous and detrimental to force them into that position of waiting to see what she wants to do with children she had no intention of parenting even after they were born.







And you know what? This is an old a$$ thread that probably should have been closed a long time ago. So closed it is.