Michael Jackson apparently cut his father out of his will - Page 3

McJag · July 1st, 2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cate

Michael did not need to adopt the children if they were born to Debbie Rowe while they were married or within x amount of time of a divorce (I think it's 9 months). The default legal father for children in the U.S. is the husband of the woman (if she is married). It doesn't matter if he never touched her (unless he protests it, but that is difficult.) The third kid? Now that could be an issue if there was no adoption.

I bet he was listed as father on the birth certificate.

Cate · July 1st, 2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McJag

I bet he was listed as father on the birth certificate.

If so, that would have required his signature, so I am guessing that makes him legally his son, too (even if the DNA doesn't back it, he was opting to take the responsibility.)

Bellatheball · July 1st, 2009, 02:44 PM

I heard on Nightline (their third freakin' broadcast in a row) that his parents don't live together but are still married.

Trixie · July 1st, 2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McJag

I bet he was listed as father on the birth certificate.

I saw a copy of it somewhere, TMZ probably. MJ is listed as the father and the mother's name is left blank.

Novice · July 1st, 2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McJag

I bet he was listed as father on the birth certificate.

He's listed as the daddy on all 3.

cmmdee · July 2nd, 2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McJag

I bet he was listed as father on the birth certificate.

Why wouldn't it be? He may not be the bio dad but he was legally their dad.

mistify · July 2nd, 2009, 03:49 PM

^ Yeah I do not understand how that could even be a factor.. I also think Katherine was in a whole different time period than us, I watched on some show how poor they were and how strong I am sure she had to be. A WHOLE DIFFERENT TIME. And if she is that much of a Jesus freak than the only way she thought she could morally get away was to live separately from him when she could do it. THat is why they are prolly still married. (My grandma (RIP) divorced over abuse in a time when you didn't) I do not agree with Katherine but Joe seems like a diabolical piece of crap who is not going back to the poor house even if it is on the backs of his kids, or grandkids.
She needs a high five on the forehead. Now she risks money on that asshat.

Sweetie · July 2nd, 2009, 04:25 PM

I heard he died intestate.

Beeyotch · July 2nd, 2009, 06:10 PM

I don't think it's as easy as everyone is assuming for Joe to have any control over MJ's estate. Katherine may have custody of the kids but as far as the estate is concerned, TMZ said control of that goes to the Michael Jackson Family Trust. The executors of that trust were at least two lawyers so even if Katherine has some control, Joe won't be able to manipulate her to gain any control over the $$.

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Lawyers for Michael Jackson filed the pop star's 2002 will in court on Wednesday that puts his multimillion-dollar estate in a family trust for his three children and his mother, but were denied a bid to take immediate control of his music fortune.

Funeral plans remained undetermined, and Jackson's family said in a statement that no public or private ceremony would be held at the singer's Neverland Valley ranch in central California.

The will, signed in 2002, values Jackson's estate at more than $500 million and puts his assets in the Michael Jackson Family Trust, which ultimately benefits his three children, his mother and unnamed charities.

The will names Jackson's mother, Katherine, 79, as guardian of the children: Prince Michael Jackson Jr. 12, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, 11, and Prince Michael Joseph Jackson, II, 7. If she cannot fulfill the guardianship duties, pop singer Diana Ross, formerly of the Supremes and a long-time Jackson friend, is nominated to be guardian of the children.

The five-page document said "I have intentionally omitted to provide for my former wife, Deborah Rowe Jackson."

On Monday, before the will was filed, Katherine Jackson was named temporary guardian of the children and administrator of the estate by a Los Angeles court until a hearing on July 6.

The 2002 document names Los Angeles-based attorney John Branca, a long-time Jackson lawyer, and music industry executive John McClain as co-executors. A third co-executor named in the will has since resigned.

Lawyers for Branca and McClain asked a judge on Wednesday to immediately appoint them executors and overturn Katherine Jackson's temporary administration of the estate, but the judge denied their request.

"I understand your argument that there was a race to the court house. It seems to me that we should know by Monday if there's another will out there,"' said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff.
[...]
Jackson will sets family trust, funeral undecided | U.S. | Reuters

Novice · July 21st, 2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistify

^ Yeah I do not understand how that could even be a factor.. I also think Katherine was in a whole different time period than us, I watched on some show how poor they were and how strong I am sure she had to be. A WHOLE DIFFERENT TIME. And if she is that much of a Jesus freak than the only way she thought she could morally get away was to live separately from him when she could do it. THat is why they are prolly still married. (My grandma (RIP) divorced over abuse in a time when you didn't) I do not agree with Katherine but Joe seems like a diabolical piece of crap who is not going back to the poor house even if it is on the backs of his kids, or grandkids.
She needs a high five on the forehead. Now she risks money on that asshat.

That was what was reported by AnswerBitch at E! - and it sounds realistic. They're still married but have lived apart for a long time.

Fly_On_TheWall · July 21st, 2009, 04:19 PM

Paris looks like Debbie. She's Debbie's child.

BBDSP · July 21st, 2009, 05:57 PM

Is there something wrong with me that I really can't bring myself to care about MJ? I have read, maybe, 1 or 2 articles about his death. I 'get' his status as a music/dance icon but I don't feel any sense of personal loss. I feel sorry for people who were close to him (esp. his kids) but that's all.

What is wrong with me?

Novice · July 22nd, 2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBDSP

Is there something wrong with me that I really can't bring myself to care about MJ? I have read, maybe, 1 or 2 articles about his death. I 'get' his status as a music/dance icon but I don't feel any sense of personal loss. I feel sorry for people who were close to him (esp. his kids) but that's all.

What is wrong with me?

Absolutely nothing, except perhaps you're not buying into the cult of celebrity.... which isn't a bad thing imo.