Home
MJ’s Ex-Wife Interested In Her Kids
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Jul 3 2009
MJ’s mother wants custody of the children, which actually follows Michael’s will. The children’s mom, Deborah Rowe, has come into the picture and says she doesn’t want her ex-mother-in-law to have custody. Even if she...
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Marco, you give a reason not in evidence. There are many reasons why the spouse of a celebrity (or any other ex) might give up custody– not being able to produce the battery of lawyers necessary to fight the ex, even a belief that the children might be better off with the more financially solvent ex-partner.
Let the courts decide whether the mother is a fit one, and decide what’s best for the good of the children.
Children are not some possession that can be willed to another, like an old car. A court needs a good reason to deny a biological parent custody of their children.
It does happen sometimes, that decisions about child custody and divisions of property at a divorce are unequal and one-sided for a lot of different reasons. Would you deny any mother in the same situation the right to her children? Would you deny any father the right if it was the custodial mother who died?
In light of many of your past posts, I have to ask this: would you feel the same way if the mother wasn’t Jewish?
Let the courts decide whether the mother is a fit one, and decide what’s best for the good of the children.
Children are not some possession that can be willed to another, like an old car. A court needs a good reason to deny a biological parent custody of their children.
It does happen sometimes, that decisions about child custody and divisions of property at a divorce are unequal and one-sided for a lot of different reasons. Would you deny any mother in the same situation the right to her children? Would you deny any father the right if it was the custodial mother who died?
In light of many of your past posts, I have to ask this: would you feel the same way if the mother wasn’t Jewish?
Michael,
You may not have noticed, but I have actually made a practicing of ignoring you. Search you comments to my contributions, and you will see that not once in the last few months have I responded to you. I have decided to shun you because of your bigoted comments against Muslims, Arabs and specifically Palestinians.
But I have decided to break that practice for this one moment because you last comment was so outrageous.
I had no idea that the woman was Jewish. And even if I did it would not matter to me at all. That you would even raise that says so much about your paranoid self. Your petty comment trying to portray me as an anti-Semite because of my opposition to Zionism has reached a new obsessive low and further illustrates to me why I have decided to ignore you.
I will now resume with my shunning.
You may not have noticed, but I have actually made a practicing of ignoring you. Search you comments to my contributions, and you will see that not once in the last few months have I responded to you. I have decided to shun you because of your bigoted comments against Muslims, Arabs and specifically Palestinians.
But I have decided to break that practice for this one moment because you last comment was so outrageous.
I had no idea that the woman was Jewish. And even if I did it would not matter to me at all. That you would even raise that says so much about your paranoid self. Your petty comment trying to portray me as an anti-Semite because of my opposition to Zionism has reached a new obsessive low and further illustrates to me why I have decided to ignore you.
I will now resume with my shunning.
MV: “You may not have noticed, but I have actually made a practicing of ignoring you. Search you comments to my contributions, and you will see that not once in the last few months have I responded to you. I have decided to shun you because of your bigoted comments against Muslims, Arabs and specifically Palestinians.”
Contributions? Some of them are, some of them are just hate-filled propaganda based on lies, half-truths and innuendo. Senator Joseph McCarthy could have used someone like you. If you had just once condemned a Palestinian act or praised an Israeli achievement in any field, you might have some claim to being a real contributor instead of a biased person, but you haven’t.
MV: “But I have decided to break that practice for this one moment because you last comment was so outrageous. “
It’s been asked in a lot of papers… how is it outrageous, given some of your posts?
MV: “I had no idea that the woman was Jewish. And even if I did it would not matter to me at all. That you would even raise that says so much about your paranoid self.”
Really? Then you haven’t been reading many papers, I guess. It’s been all over a lot of them. Judging by your swift reaction, I have to resort to Shakespeare: “Methinks thou doth protest too much”. My other comments about child custody still stand, but you haven’t responded to a single one of them. It’s obvious you’re not a parent.
MV: “Your petty comment trying to portray me as an anti-Semite because of my opposition to Zionism has reached a new obsessive low and further illustrates to me why I have decided to ignore you.”
I don’t have to “portray” you as anything, Marco—your own posts do that well enough.
MV: “I will now resume with my shunning.”
The last resort of the coward without rebuttals is ignoring someone. Debate is the only thing that can achieve understanding, but that’s not what you want, apparently.
Contributions? Some of them are, some of them are just hate-filled propaganda based on lies, half-truths and innuendo. Senator Joseph McCarthy could have used someone like you. If you had just once condemned a Palestinian act or praised an Israeli achievement in any field, you might have some claim to being a real contributor instead of a biased person, but you haven’t.
MV: “But I have decided to break that practice for this one moment because you last comment was so outrageous. “
It’s been asked in a lot of papers… how is it outrageous, given some of your posts?
MV: “I had no idea that the woman was Jewish. And even if I did it would not matter to me at all. That you would even raise that says so much about your paranoid self.”
Really? Then you haven’t been reading many papers, I guess. It’s been all over a lot of them. Judging by your swift reaction, I have to resort to Shakespeare: “Methinks thou doth protest too much”. My other comments about child custody still stand, but you haven’t responded to a single one of them. It’s obvious you’re not a parent.
MV: “Your petty comment trying to portray me as an anti-Semite because of my opposition to Zionism has reached a new obsessive low and further illustrates to me why I have decided to ignore you.”
I don’t have to “portray” you as anything, Marco—your own posts do that well enough.
MV: “I will now resume with my shunning.”
The last resort of the coward without rebuttals is ignoring someone. Debate is the only thing that can achieve understanding, but that’s not what you want, apparently.
Add your Comment
She lost her chance and should not get them now. Of course, she should be in the kids’ lives, but Jackson stipulated that his mother will have custody and his will should not be overruled.