Judge hears Joe Jackson's request for monthly allowance

[144000]

First, we know Mike isn't perfect. But it seems there are people who think the Jackson family are. That certain Jacksons are ALWAYS right (in everything they say and do) and if Mike says anything that contradicts them; he is delusional, out of his mind, a liar.

Please do say more about the police brutality. Why do you think MJ is a liar?

You don't know for a fact that Frank made up the sleeping in a oxygen chamber stories WITH Mike's approval. There are plenty of powerful people who have people working for them/under them that do things they don't know about. Read Katherine's book. She says Mike wasn't aware of some of the ridiculous rumors going around about him and she had to tell him about them. He was upset about them and told her they were hard for him to hear. Katherine had to confront Frank about spreading rumors about Mike. The chamber was at the MICHAEL JACKSON BURN CENTER. He went in. Somebody took a picture.

As for the beatings, MJ just didn't just get spanked and you know that. He went through MUCH MORE AND WORSE than that. You can read through the comments; its already been said.

As for the plastic surgery that's your personal opinion. You don't have his medical file. IMO, the "thinning" we see in his nose in the Invincible Era is because of Hofflin's original poor work. We know Mike was going to Klien for injections of collagen fillers in his nose. That obviously isn't the same thing as another nose job.

i appreciate ur support for MJ...don't mean to be picky. yes, u did specify that it's ur opinion. it's just that, as we get passionate, we tend to have our opinion represent everyone's opinion with the word 'we'.

i don't know that MJ was doing that.

like u said..ur right..we don't have MJ's medical file. and IMO, there are a lot of doctors wanting their fifteen minutes, right now.

the person you are disputing tends to be in a number of people who think, that because they see something dramatic, that that automatically means that a dramatic process took place to achieve it. but it has been known that a person can experience a dramatic 'looking' change, due to a very very small process.

for instance, a woman can go from looking like her face is really fat, to it looking reallly thin, with just a change of hairstyle.

there are people that have trouble believing that MJ's face changed dramtically, because of something he said. that he went on a diet. i have no trouble believing that.

it's a lot like those who believe MJ was remarkably more skinny, during the TII project. but, having looked at pics of him, purposely, from the OFF the wall era through TII -with some help from pics from a member, here, known as Chi Chi- i saw absolutely no noticeable difference in his body volume, throughout that stretch. it really is a case of eye of the beholder.

people tend to forget that what they see, is really the most deceptive thing there is. seeing really isn't always believing. and though some may not want to admit it, among those who like to believe that MJ got tons of surgery...their subjective eyes, plus a little help from multiple loud whispers from the media, into their ears, achieves what they end up thinking.(not talking about you, in this last paragraph)

 

[Sophielo]

In the end of the day everything is speculations and opinions. We do not know the facts about MJ's plastic surgeries and to be honest is it really any of our business? We love Michael for his music and his heart, his personality and his sense of humour, his dancing, his grace the list goes on. We don't love him for how many nose jobs he may or may not have had. I don't care if he had 100 of the damn things-he's my inspiration and my idol. What I care about is how wonderful his music is and how he helped so many people. Those are the important things here.

 

[MIST]

Even if you are family you might not know what´s going on.
There are girls who are sexually used by their fathers and their mothers don´t know about it.Children are loyal to their parents but the mothers should see the signs that something was wrong, if they weren´t so occupied with their careeer or other things. The mothers can be depressed or don´t feel well in other ways and don´t see what happens.

Michaels siblings can tell the truth that they didn´t see MJ was abused physical but it doesn´t mean that he wasn´t abused.

Frank DiLeo said in Raffles interview that MJ had signed a contract for something he really didn´t want to do.When DiLeo asked him why MJ said something about that his father was in the room and MJ just wanted to get away as soon as possible.

Facts are that MJ doesn´t mention his father or siblings in his will and they should respect that.

 

[snowhite]

Again recently, Frank Dileo recounted how much MJ feared Joe Jackson. Joe and Katherine and their lackeys had requested a meeting with MJ (trying to badger him to tour with the brothers & hire Joe & co for his London tour) at the end of may, MJ sat in his car waiting for Dileo & Randy Philips to arrive to the meeting because he did not want to enter the hotel and have to face Joe alone.

I didn't know that this makes me so sad...it makes you realize how alone Michael really was I feel for him poor Michael

 

[xo_lola_xo]

Jermaine Jackson said it was ridiculous that his father even had to ask.

"That shouldn't even be," Jermaine Jackson told CNN. "The fact is my father is the estate. He created the estate."

If Jermaine said that in real life, close to me, you don't wanna hear my reply :angry: :angry:

HE CREATED WHATTTTT ESTATE?!?!?!?!

 

[helena22]

Again recently, Frank Dileo recounted how much MJ feared Joe Jackson. Joe and Katherine and their lackeys had requested a meeting with MJ (trying to badger him to tour with the brothers & hire Joe & co for his London tour) at the end of may, MJ sat in his car waiting for Dileo & Randy Philips to arrive to the meeting because he did not want to enter the hotel and have to face Joe alone.

I didn't know that this makes me so sad...it makes you realize how alone Michael really was I feel for him poor Michael

Yeah I feel so sad too...The kind of fear for his father is something I can totally relate to cuz I have similar fear for my own father. And Michael was abused, I wasn't, I got uh...some beatings and threatening cursing even though I never got into trouble and was a shy kid, but not to the point of the kind of abuse Michael went through. So I can imagine his fear is much deeper than mine.

The fear is something that some people never seem to understand. They're probably the same people who say "Michael was not abused."

 

[StaceyMJ]

Thread closed for review.

 

[StaceyMJ]

I have deleted some of the posts from this thread. Again, it is possible to have differing opinions without personally attacking each other, and arguing. If there's a problem, please use the report button and walk away.
I don't want to close this thread, but if it doesn't take a more respectful course from here on, then it will be closed.

 

[Mechi]

This was one of those stories that just made me shake my head for so many reasons.

I'd like to know when it became the childs responsibility to take care of the parent. I would also like to know why; when a person states in their last will and testament what they wanted it is blatantly ignored.

The family doesn't want to be seen as a 'circus' and yet they bring a lot of this on themselves.

Oh I pretty easily understand that. Again I don't know about the US... but in Germany it is well known that when parents become old and maybe do get sick and need whatever care and they can't pay it on their own and maybe do not have enough insurance, before they can go for public welfare (tax money) it's proven if direct relatives aren't wealthy (direct here means only the parent children relation) enough to support them.
I think that's an ok way honestly.
Parents do bring up children and support them usually till they are able to stand on their own feet (what's sometimes much longer than 18 years) so it's ok if in the later years children do give a bit back in the way they can.

BUT

all children should pay to the very same part!!!
So it's not that if there's a very rich one and lots of others not wealthy that it has all to be payed by the one who's able to keep financially not a complete failure.
If there's one able to pay and the others are not government is usually taking those others parts and make them pay back when they should finally financially get better.

Also over here Katherine would be the one to pay first as they are still married before the kids could be even challenged.
But if the money she gets out of the estate is payed to her obliged to go for a certain reason she can't pay Joe from that money. And maybe she has no other income?

Well I guess we don't know all the details.
But I would like to hear more about some USlaw details about this. How is it over there? Do children have to take care of their parents needs at all?
How much is the minimum Joe maybe could legally ask for? What's determining the amount he can ask for? And yes most important wouldn't really have all the children have to pay their share???

Sure it would be nice for Jermaine if his Dad would get money. I understand why they are for it. Probably Joe told them it's their way to get their share also if they didn't know already anyways?! It's really so ridiculous. Well unless Joseph makes it to spend it all (10000 a month wow think of that, do you guys have that money for yourself, even for a family? do you spend that much?) Joes children will get some of it one day also this way... only this way they will get a share also? With this in mind it looks almost not that much Joe is 'only' asking for 10000 a month.

I would like to know what Joe says about his own financial situation in court and how he justifies an amount of 10000$, how he justifies he's only asking one son of his many children to pay for his living. Again here in Germany he'd be directly sent home.
Michael is dead. Grandchildren can't be made to pay here in germany by the way. They have the right to secure their future and the future of their one day children first. If Katherine is getting support only for caring for the children now. And the whole estate will go to the children one day then Joe over here with such a claim would get NOTHING.
Sorry but that makes me laugh and I guess a judge here in germany would laugh about that also.
Probably courts advice would be: Get a smaller appartment Mr. and stop only drinking champagne and eating caviar... your living children can't be made to pay for all of that and it's not too healthy at your age anyways! You certainly can survive pretty well still without that.

 

[mickyj007]

Who the f$ck needs $86,000/year? Seriously, what a joke.

 

[loveforever]

To those who don't understand Michael's pain, abuse and the lost childhood, I recommend you to watch the movie "American Dream"(made by Jermaine), although the movie tried to portray the family in a good way, you still can get the glimpse of Michael's growth. I believe Michael's real life was much much worse than the movie's.

 

[Beachlover]

Here is the court petition for Katherine Jackson to receive a monthly allowance:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/24/katherine.pdf

In it you will clearly see that all the expenses of the home are being paid by the estate and have been paid by Michael all along. So, basically, this is free room and board all these years for the family living there.

They don't have to worry about paying for any of that. Michael was supporting the family all these years. The money Katherine receives is just for her own personal use and not to pay living expenses.

 

[Mechi]

Here is the court petition for Katherine Jackson to receive a monthly allowance:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/24/katherine.pdf

In it you will clearly see that all the expenses of the home are being paid by the estate and have been paid by Michael all along. So, basically, this is free room and board all these years for the family living there.

They don't have to worry about paying for any of that. Michael was supporting the family all these years. The money Katherine receives is just for her own personal use and not to pay living expenses.

Thanks interesting read.

Still a few questions on my mind maybe someone living over there can answer?

Is there a general legal obligation for children to support their parents at all?
How much is the minimum-income one is supposed to have to be secured in all basic needs... well if you want what would welfare pay for and how much?
Is it possible over there really to challenge only one single child when that is maybe extraordinary wealthy?
Is it possible to challenge grandchildren for paying support?

I would like some answers about the legal system in general.

Aside from that please know my personal opinion is surely that the kids estate doesn't have to pay for any of this for sure.
Still I could imagine I might would even pay for an official paper that therefore Joseph Jackson has to keep away from Michaels children and has to sh** up about them for the rest of his life.
But then again that's only my personal thinking probably.

 

[cleopatra09]

there was a time i liked Jermaine ... i thought he truly loved michael and cared of him...
i just feel heartbroken...

i just want to ask them:
WHY?



and michael said he did not think his brothers envy him ....
he was so kind....


poor children i wish they were older....

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Is there a general legal obligation for children to support their parents at all?

no. maybe only in some communist country or something lol (joking) the argument is based on joe saying he got money from mj via katherine b4 so believes it should stay the same now. frankly its shameful that no other siblings appear at this time to be stepping up to the plate to support their father instead leaving it to their dead brother.then again its the same with hayvernhurst. nothing changes then. and its made worse by the amount joe is requesting. some ppl earn less than that in a year yet he wants that amount a month. talk about greed.just another example to me of what mj really ment to some ppl in the family.and what they care about now hes not here.no wonder he kept his distance.i worry for the kids and how they will have the guilt pushed on to them in the years to come. hopefully they wont get full control of the estate for many years so pressure cant be placed on them

 

[Ramona122003]

no. maybe only in some communist country or something lol (joking) the argument is based on joe saying he got money from mj via katherine b4 so believes it should stay the same now. frankly its shameful that no other siblings appear at this time to be stepping up to the plate to support their father instead leaving it to their dead brother.then again its the same with hayvernhurst. nothing changes then. and its made worse by the amount joe is requesting. some ppl earn less than that in a year yet he wants that amount a month. talk about greed.just another example to me of what mj really ment to some ppl in the family.and what they care about now hes not here.no wonder he kept his distance.i worry for the kids and how they will have the guilt pushed on to them in the years to come. hopefully they wont get full control of the estate for many years so pressure cant be placed on them

In the US, there no legal responsibility for the child to support he parent. It is on the child's own free will that they chose to care for their parents.

From my own personal experience, parents that did a good job raising their kids have no problem getting support from their kids. They are happy to help the parent since they took care of them. My mom is like this to her parents and my dad was like this to his parents till the day they die.

Parents who did a bad job raising their kids get little to no support in their time of need. I have seen more than a few of them spend their last days in nursing homes where the kids don't even visit. There are exceptions, or course, but this tends to be the common pattern.

With that said, Michael had no problems supporting his mother even in death. He didn't do that for this father. Even if he did 'forgive' his father, take this situation at your chosen.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

agree

 

[Autumn II]

Thanks interesting read.

Still a few questions on my mind maybe someone living over there can answer?

Is there a general legal obligation for children to support their parents at all?
How much is the minimum-income one is supposed to have to be secured in all basic needs... well if you want what would welfare pay for and how much?
Is it possible over there really to challenge only one single child when that is maybe extraordinary wealthy?
Is it possible to challenge grandchildren for paying support?

I would like some answers about the legal system in general.

Aside from that please know my personal opinion is surely that the kids estate doesn't have to pay for any of this for sure.
Still I could imagine I might would even pay for an official paper that therefore Joseph Jackson has to keep away from Michaels children and has to sh** up about them for the rest of his life.
But then again that's only my personal thinking probably.

Hi Mechi, I'll try to answer these as best I can.

There is NO legal obligation for children to support their parents in the U.S. Depending on circumstances, some adult children may choose to support their parents if the the parents don't have enough resources, or to support them partially. Because there is no legal obligation for support, in a family with more than one child the amount of support from each would be decided among them informally, I'd expect. Parents in the U.S. are legally obligated to care for their children until they are 18, but not after (under the law). Most parents choose to continue to provide children with some support, i.e. paying for college, etc. But, they are not "required" to. The children are not required to provide support for the parents. It's a matter of means, and of choice.

I don't know what the minimum income is for people to be able to secure welfare, or that type of support.... ecxcept that it's extremely low. There is not much in the way of a government safety-net here.

Since there is no legal directive for adult children to take care of parents, there is no way ONE child could be charged with doing so.

It is not possible to legally challenge grandchildren with taking care of grandparents.

I'm not completely certain about the situation, but here is what i think may have happened. I think Michael was supporting his MOTHER. That support extended to whoever else she chose to support with that money, and included the expenses for the Encino household where Michael's mother has been living. In other words, Michael gave his mother money, but then she chose to do with it what she wanted. He might not have known, nor asked her, where the money was going?

If a couple divorces, if one of the two has been supporting the other, a judge may rule that the support will continue as part of a divorce settlement. So in that sense, if Katherine was supporting Joseph and they divorce, she might be ordered to continue to pay that support. Her money still comes from Michael, so in a sense, that would still be Michael paying for it. Not sure what the situation is if the couple does NOT divorce?

In terms of the grandchildren, Mrs. Jackson is getting a personal allowance, and the children are getting a separate allowance. Probably informally some of that income is mingled, i.e. out of what fund is the children's clothing bought, and so on? If Katherine chooses to continue to support Joseph, I'd assume that would come out of her own monthly stipend, and not the children's. If it came from the chidren's, that would be WRONG and could be challenged in court. But with Katherine as guardian, I'm not sure who would be able to challenge it? In that sense, informally it's possible Joe would be able to take some of the grandchildren's income, if Katherine shunted that money to him.. . kind of under-the-table.

Hope that explains, a little?

In terms of Joseph, morally and legally he should keep his hands entirely OFF his grandchildren's money.. . formally, or informally through Katherine. His lifestyle, as detailed by the court documents, seems very extravagant. He could live on much less, and still be quite comfortable. The amounts for hotels (when he HAS a residence) and travel seem to be wasteful. In my opinion. Jermaine said the other night that it was JOSEPH'S ESTATE. No. It isn't.

 

[Mechi]

Thanks Victoria and others for answering.

Well I guess Michael wanted to strengthen the position of his mom even more in the family with his final will?
It will be her deciding if Joe will see money at all.

I personally hope the estate will not pay him and with what you guys said no judge will make the estate pay for him. Michael didn't pay him independently any amount of money before his death also obviously.
Please make them save the money for the children to decide one day and dear God make these children very very strong, smart and so very independent from this grandfather!

That long Joe can give countless interviews nobody wants to really listen to and make himself known as he always did as a ****** *******. He can live from that money alone. Emberassing? yes! but for himself and he'll be judged for his doing one day just as everybody else. That will be the day we all can't escape the truth anymore.
At least he shall have to move his own butt a little bit for still earning money only from the talent of his dead son. And come on he'll do that anyways. He loves the spotlight on himself. He's so hungry for it that he doesn't even notice when ppl don't... well can't take him serious.
He could have saved only some of the money he earned from selling his kids and could have lived happily for an eternity. He didn't. Well he was always living from selling Michael somehow with true or not true stories... he'll not change in his last years to come anyways even more since Michael can't call him out for it anymore... so Joe I say live from only that, selling your son. True or not what sells the best will be out there. Joe doesn't need this money he's asking the court for now as a plus. To me personally he simply doesn't deserve any, sorry.

 

[Beachlover]

Thanks interesting read.

Still a few questions on my mind maybe someone living over there can answer?

Is there a general legal obligation for children to support their parents at all?
How much is the minimum-income one is supposed to have to be secured in all basic needs... well if you want what would welfare pay for and how much?
Is it possible over there really to challenge only one single child when that is maybe extraordinary wealthy?
Is it possible to challenge grandchildren for paying support?

I would like some answers about the legal system in general.

Aside from that please know my personal opinion is surely that the kids estate doesn't have to pay for any of this for sure.
Still I could imagine I might would even pay for an official paper that therefore Joseph Jackson has to keep away from Michaels children and has to sh** up about them for the rest of his life.
But then again that's only my personal thinking probably.

Ok. Legally here is what I am sure of. No, you are not obligated in this country to take care of your parents. This is a personal choice.

Cost of living depends on where you live and how you live. If you live in the upper peninsula of Michigan you can buy a fairly large home for 40,000.00 and it is cheap to maintain and run there too. Everything is cheaper.

Now, if you live in New York City or Los Angeles the cost goes up considerably for that same house. (many hundreds of thousands)

From reading that document it would appear the estate owns that home. I don't know what Michael wrote in his trust. He could have written that the house may be sold after his mother passes. We don't know. At the time this will was signed he was living in Neverland, did he not? So, he would have no reason to keep that home but only his will would say his true intentions and there are parts of it hidden from the public. I only think that because he did say that when his mother passes, the money goes back to the estate and likely to his children which will make them the 'owners' of that house.

 

[Autumn II]

Ok. Legally here is what I am sure of. No, you are not obligated in this country to take care of your parents. This is a personal choice.

Cost of living depends on where you live and how you live. If you live in the upper peninsula of Michigan you can buy a fairly large home for 40,000.00 and it is cheap to maintain and run there too. Everything is cheaper.

Now, if you live in New York City or Los Angeles the cost goes up considerably for that same house. (many hundreds of thousands)

From reading that document it would appear the estate owns that home. I don't know what Michael wrote in his trust. He could have written that the house may be sold after his mother passes. We don't know. At the time this will was signed he was living in Neverland, did he not? So, he would have no reason to keep that home but only his will would say his true intentions and there are parts of it hidden from the public. I only think that because he did say that when his mother passes, the money goes back to the estate and likely to his children which will make them the 'owners' of that house.

Thanks. This all seems accurate, and likely.

It's pretty clear that Michael wanted his mother to be comfortable in life, but didn't feel obligated to care for anyone else except his children. If Katherine has been "paying" Joseph, that's been at her discretion. The money that flows now to "the family" comes only from the estate to Katherine, and she spends it at her choice. It appears that Michael didn't put any conditions on how she spent the money he sent her? Anything the siblings take will be at Katherine's expense (and she would have LESS. Her choice). The pressure some of them probably are putting on her must be quite severe? (We don't know WHAT is going on behind the scenes, but if Joe's court-case is any indication, it must be significant.)

But, it isn't really HER money. That was very wise of Michael. Instead of it's being "her" money, she gets a stipend for the rest of her life. She is not young. When she passes away, the flow of money to the wider family STOPS and there is no way the family can then leach off of the children's estate. There is a message in that. Michael loved his mother, and wanted to care for her. The rest of the family will have to take care of themselves, except for his children. Those were Michael's wishes, and they are quite clear.

 

[Beachlover]

Victoria, my biggest fear (which is really not my business anyway) is that the family knows this and they are getting into position as to who will raise the children, etc; having more to do with financial gain than truly being able to or caring about the children. I am not sure what is written in the 'trust' section regarding the children so I don't know.

It was quite clear though that Michael appointed ONLY his mother from the family and then someone entirely out of the family if Katherine was unable. That says a lot right there.

The money that goes to the children is FOR the children. My sister passed away leaving her under aged daughter with my other sister. I am pretty sure the money that goes to the children needs to be accounted for and records kept. They can't just take 20,000 a month away from that money and do whatever they want.

 

[twinklEE]

Thanks. This all seems accurate, and likely.

It's pretty clear that Michael wanted his mother to be comfortable in life, but didn't feel obligated to care for anyone else except his children. If Katherine has been "paying" Joseph, that's been at her discretion. The money that flows now to "the family" comes only from the estate to Katherine, and she spends it at her choice. It appears that Michael didn't put any conditions on how she spent the money he sent her? Anything the siblings take will be at Katherine's expense (and she would have LESS. Her choice). The pressure some of them probably are putting on her must be quite severe? (We don't know WHAT is going on behind the scenes, but if Joe's court-case is any indication, it must be significant.)

But, it isn't really HER money. That was very wise of Michael. Instead of it's being "her" money, she gets a stipend for the rest of her life. She is not young. When she passes away, the flow of money to the wider family STOPS and there is no way the family can then leach off of the children's estate. There is a message in that. Michael loved his mother, and wanted to care for her. The rest of the family will have to take care of themselves, except for his children. Those were Michael's wishes, and they are quite clear.

Agree, and his wishes are not even "unusual", its the norm to take care only of the parents and kids, many dont even take care of their parents but just of their own kids.

 

[Mechi]

Thanks. This all seems accurate, and likely.

It's pretty clear that Michael wanted his mother to be comfortable in life, but didn't feel obligated to care for anyone else except his children. If Katherine has been "paying" Joseph, that's been at her discretion. The money that flows now to "the family" comes only from the estate to Katherine, and she spends it at her choice. It appears that Michael didn't put any conditions on how she spent the money he sent her? Anything the siblings take will be at Katherine's expense (and she would have LESS. Her choice). The pressure some of them probably are putting on her must be quite severe? (We don't know WHAT is going on behind the scenes, but if Joe's court-case is any indication, it must be significant.)

But, it isn't really HER money. That was very wise of Michael. Instead of it's being "her" money, she gets a stipend for the rest of her life. She is not young. When she passes away, the flow of money to the wider family STOPS and there is no way the family can then leach off of the children's estate. There is a message in that. Michael loved his mother, and wanted to care for her. The rest of the family will have to take care of themselves, except for his children. Those were Michael's wishes, and they are quite clear.

I agree! very clear message! :yes:

 

[Soundmind]

the brothers neglected their own children , why anyone would believe they would have those kids' best interests at heart?

 

[Autumn II]

Victoria, my biggest fear (which is really not my business anyway) is that the family knows this and they are getting into position as to who will raise the children, etc; having more to do with financial gain than truly being able to or caring about the children. I am not sure what is written in the 'trust' section regarding the children so I don't know.

It was quite clear though that Michael appointed ONLY his mother from the family and then someone entirely out of the family if Katherine was unable. That says a lot right there.

The money that goes to the children is FOR the children. My sister passed away leaving her under aged daughter with my other sister. I am pretty sure the money that goes to the children needs to be accounted for and records kept. They can't just take 20,000 a month away from that money and do whatever they want.

I think Michael knew his family very, very well. He clearly loved his mother, wanted to take care of her, and he trusted her with his children. But, no one else in the family. . . not even Janet. He felt no obligation to "take care of" his father or his siblings. All of them are adults. He tried to do the very best he could for his children financially and emotionally. He obviously felt that someone OUTSIDE of the family would be best for those kids, when his mother passes on. I hope she remains healthy and continues to raise the children, but if she does not, he clearly didn't want money to be an issue with custody and chose someone OUTSIDE of the family to be next-in-line to raise them. I think Diana Ross is an odd choice, but then, the will wasn't written recently. . . . If Katherine passes on when the kids are still minors, Debbie Rowe could challenge the will for custody, and as the biological mother of two of them, she'd have strong legal grounds. She has already said that if it comes to that, she'd take Blanket too, and keep them together. So. . what will be, will be.

I'm pretty sure the executors will keep a close watch on the children's interests. That Hayvenhurst household is one place where I would NOT want to be a fly-on-the wall. . . . .

 

[twinklEE]

I think Michael knew his family very, very well. He clearly loved his mother, wanted to take care of her, and he trusted her with his children. But, no one else in the family. . . not even Janet. He felt no obligation to "take care of" his father or his siblings. All of them are adults. He tried to do the very best he could for his children financially and emotionally. He obviously felt that someone OUTSIDE of the family would be best for those kids, when his mother passes on. I hope she remains healthy and continues to raise the children, but if she does not, he clearly didn't want money to be an issue with custody and chose someone OUTSIDE of the family to be next-in-line to raise them. I think Diana Ross is an odd choice, but then, the will wasn't written recently. . . . If Katherine passes on when the kids are still minors, Debbie Rowe could challenge the will for custody, and as the biological mother of two of them, she'd have strong legal grounds. She has already said that if it comes to that, she'd take Blanket too, and keep them together. So. . what will be, will be.

I'm pretty sure the executors will keep a close watch on the children's interests. That Hayvenhurst household is one place where I would NOT want to be a fly-on-the wall. . . . .

The point here is that I strongly doubt the kids wanting to go to Diana Ross, if anything happens to Mrs. Jackson, I cant see this scenary happening (them going to Diana Ross) , Prince and Paris woud be teenagers by that time anyway free to stay where they wish. The only one who would be in the position to take the kids away fromt the family is Debbie Rowe, she'd be granted custody of Blanket as well as P&P are his next to kin, while Debbie is theirs.

 

[Sophielo]

The kids are strong and what happens when they reach 18 will be on their terms. Prince is 18 in only five years so it will be interesting to see what happens with the estate then. The kids are strong and take no messing-they'll know what to do to preserve their father's legacy.

 

[twinklEE]

the brothers neglected their own children , why anyone would believe they would have those kids' best interests at heart?

Because they are family dont you know. (NOT MY OPINION)

 

[snowhite]

The kids are strong and what happens when they reach 18 will be on their terms. Prince is 18 in only five years so it will be interesting to see what happens with the estate then. The kids are strong and take no messing-they'll know what to do to preserve their father's legacy.

yes the kids are strong and very bright but still they are only kids and they were left with such a heavy burden to carry, I remember during the trial Michael was always afraid for his kids and what would happen if he won't be here anymore