Diana Ross Will Sign Off On Michael Jackson's Kids New Custody Agreement

[jobeterob]

Diana Ross Will Sign Off On Michael Jackson's Kids New Custody AgreementDiana Ross Will Sign Off On Michael Jackson's Kids New Custody Agreement 1 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Jul 31, 2012 @ 01:49PM print it send it
FameFlynet Inc.By Jen Heger - Radar Assistant Managing Editor

Diana Ross will sign off on a new proposed custody agreement in which Michael Jackson's three children, Prince, Paris, and Blanket will have two guardians, their grandmother Katherine Jackson and TJ Jackson, son of Tito, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

"Diana has no qualms whatsoever about the new custody agreement, she only wants what is best for the children. Diana knows that the children are old enough to decide who they want to live with and she defers to what they want. While Diana hasn't been a big part of their lives because she lives on the East Coast, she is very fond of them," a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com exclusively.



PHOTOS: Michael Jackson’s Kids: Three Years After His Death

Michael Jackson's will stipulated that if his mother was unable to care for the children, Diana Ross was his next choice.

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, last week, Judge Mitchell Beckloff, stripped the Jackson family matriarch of her guardianship of the three children because no one could reach her for over a week. The judge said he made the ruling not because of any wrongdoing on Katherine's behalf, but because she had been prevented from fulfilling her guardianship duties by an "intentional act from third parties." Judge Beckloff told all parties while in court last week, that Diana Ross, and Debbie Rowe, mother of the two oldest children, needed to be provided notice of what was transpiring.

PHOTOS: Michael Jackson's Kids Star In Tribute Concert

The children have been embroiled in a vicious family struggle for more than a week now as Randy, Jermaine and Janet Jackson battle over the late King of Pop's will, which they claim is fake. Michael's nephew TJ has been a constant presence in the children's lives and their attorney stated in court that they had no objections to him being appointed temporary guardian.

On Friday, it was announced that Katherine and TJ Jackson, would be petitioning to become co-guardians of the kids. The paperwork is expected to be submitted this week and the judge will have to sign off the proposed agreement.

[soulster]

Looks like half of the Jackson siblings didn't get their way, to get custody of the kids and control of the estate like they wanted. They just wanted the money. I have lost respect for Jermaine and Janet bigtime.

[REDHOT]

I could not believe Janet was a part of this mess,i'm feel really sorry for Miss Katherine Jackson,she's up in age,everyone should make sure she's happy,no matter what,Jermaine,that's another story,i'm trying
to stay positive LOL

[jobeterob]

Making a claim no TV that your brother's will is a hoax is one thing ~ making an actual claim in Court is another and of course, no Jackson has done that and they probably would not dare do that.

If such a claim were upheld and Michael died without a Will, the heirs of his estate are the children and Katherine would get nothing because children rank before parents.

Probate has already been granted and the will has been upheld.

Now that TJ is joint guardian [[or will be shortly), this means he will be getting money to raise the children from the Estate. When Katherine passes, she will have a will that deals with her estate as she sees fit. It will be interesting to see if she leaves her estate to Jermaine and Randy! Or all her children equally? Or only to the good ones - Marlon, Latoya, Tito? Maybe she'll leave her estate to Joe? Or all her grandchildren?

[jillfoster]

Making a claim no TV that your brother's will is a hoax is one thing ~ making an actual claim in Court is another and of course, no Jackson has done that and they probably would not dare do that.

If such a claim were upheld and Michael died without a Will, the heirs of his estate are the children and Katherine would get nothing because children rank before parents.


Probate has already been granted and the will has been upheld.

Now that TJ is joint guardian [[or will be shortly), this means he will be getting money to raise the children from the Estate. When Katherine passes, she will have a will that deals with her estate as she sees fit. It will be interesting to see if she leaves her estate to Jermaine and Randy! Or all her children equally? Or only to the good ones - Marlon, Latoya, Tito? Maybe she'll leave her estate to Joe? Or all her grandchildren?

Are you sure about that? I bet Canadian law differs from US law. I don't think EVERYTHING goes to children if there is no will. Especially if they are minors.... however, I'm not well versed on wills and probate, we don't DO wills in our family. But see, I TOLD YOU ALL that Diana didn't want those kids! I don't blame her in the least, I wouldn't want the spoiled ass crumb snatchers, either.

[Roberta75]

Are you sure about that? I bet Canadian law differs from US law. I don't think EVERYTHING goes to children if there is no will. Especially if they are minors.... however, I'm not well versed on wills and probate, we don't DO wills in our family. But see, I TOLD YOU ALL that Diana didn't want those kids! I don't blame her in the least, I wouldn't want to spoiled ass crumb snatchers, either.

"I wouldn't want to spoiled ass crumb snatchers, either." What a disgusting thing to write about Michael Jackson children. They are kids jillfoster, Kids who lost their dad at a very young age. Michael left them his money so they are not and never will be crumb snatchers.

May God forgive you for your insensitive and tasteless IMO remark.

Roberta

[jillfoster]

"I wouldn't want to spoiled ass crumb snatchers, either." What a disgusting thing to write about Michael Jackson children. They are kids jillfoster, Kids who lost their dad at a very young age. Michael left them his money so they are not and never will be crumb snatchers.

May God forgive you for your insensitive and tasteless IMO remark.


Roberta

They are kids have little regard for their elders and have obviously been raised with ZERO discipline. I'm with Gladys on this one!

[marv2]

Are you sure about that? I bet Canadian law differs from US law. I don't think EVERYTHING goes to children if there is no will. Especially if they are minors.... however, I'm not well versed on wills and probate, we don't DO wills in our family. But see, I TOLD YOU ALL that Diana didn't want those kids! I don't blame her in the least, I wouldn't want the spoiled ass crumb snatchers, either.

No Jill, I told you first over 2 years ago that she did not want those kids and it was a booby prize to her that Michael did that! LOL! Of course she is not going to have any qualms about someone else getting those kids, hehehehehehehe.....

[marv2]

"I wouldn't want to spoiled ass crumb snatchers, either." What a disgusting thing to write about Michael Jackson children. They are kids jillfoster, Kids who lost their dad at a very young age. Michael left them his money so they are not and never will be crumb snatchers.

May God forgive you for your insensitive and tasteless IMO remark.

Roberta

Yeah and their mothers gave them to Michael for CASH! Don't forget that fact either. They are more than likely very spoiled.

[marv2]

Gladys Knight knows the deal. Those kids have no place speaking back to Janet Jackson or any of their other older family members like that. They are lucky to be able to sit down that day.

[Roberta75]

They are kids have little regard for their elders and have obviously been raised with ZERO discipline. I'm with Gladys on this one!

So Gladys Knight thinks knocking a kid who sasses you in the mouth and knocking their teeth out? Not classy and not right IMO, plus you'd have Child Protective Services on your door so fast your head would spin. They would notify the police who would and should arrest you. Sadistically beating children is not a solution. Look at the mental damage Joe jackson's beatings caused.

Roberta

[marv2]

So Gladys Knight thinks knocking a kid who sasses you in the mouth and knocking their teeth out? Not classy and not right IMO, plus you'd have Child Protective Services on your door so fast your head would spin. They would notify the police who would and should arrest you. Sadistically beating children is not a solution. Look at the mental damage Joe jackson's beatings caused.

Roberta

Stick a sock in it and stop exaggerating while you are at it! Most people born in America before roughly 1970 were subject to spankings, whippings from their parents or other older close relatives. Gladys got it right and class has nothing to do with raising a well mannered, disciplined child.

Joe Jacksons children were not mentally damaged, another complete exaggeration. They got what we all got when we got out of line. You got your ass whipped! The Brady Bunch was only on television and that is not how it was in the average American home.

[marv2]

So Gladys Knight thinks knocking a kid who sasses you in the mouth and knocking their teeth out? Not classy and not right IMO, plus you'd have Child Protective Services on your door so fast your head would spin. They would notify the police who would and should arrest you. Sadistically beating children is not a solution. Look at the mental damage Joe jackson's beatings caused.

Roberta

Did you not notice the audience reaction to what Gladys Knight said? Sounded to me like they were in agreement with her.

[juicefree20]

I believe that anyone who believes that these kids are the problem here is more than a little misguided. And if anyone's been following this from the very beginning before that custody issue broke out & still believes that these kids are what's wrong here, then I believe that a re-read is in order.

I would expect kids to act like kids, but from where I sit, most of the adults have been behaving far worse than the kids & haven't comported themselves with any shred of dignity, much less respect & THESE are the folks whom Michael's kids should respect?

I don't think so.

What's being lost here is a lot of very common sense issues & I don't see how some of you are giving any of these adults a pass on some of their B.S.

Let's make believe that the name of a family is Seymour. Let's say that John Seymour was one of the most popular painters in the world, in fact, he was a combination of Picasso, Van Gogh & Michelangelo all wrapped up in one. Let's say that when he was still living, he was a part of a family of famous painters going back to the day when he was a prodigy with watercolors.

He grew older & became skilled with charcoals & was sheer perfection with an easel & oils. He became far greater than the family painting group that he began with & after awhile, he went on to do the Louvre, Sistine Chapel & everyone wanted him.

Then after his wild success, literally as a solo ARTIST [[pun intended), his brother Keith who has a little art gallery kinda thing happening gets mad, then one day rides the 4 train, writing grafitti against John, because John's no longer content to work with the family, nor with watercolors. You see since they all started out painting together, suddenly John thinks that he's too big to work with them anymore.

Forget the fact that Keith has the tendency to make public statemnets which seem designed to paint John into a corner that he doesn't want any part of, but who cares. Despite his obvious drive, hard work & insistence on making his work as close to perfection as possible, he's still the little brother whom obviously owes ALL of his success to the rest of the family, as opposed to his own smarts, hard work & business acumen.

I could say a whole lot more about this, things which are painfully obvious to anyone who's been following all of this but let me ask just 2 very simple questions about just a minute part of this & tell me what you think...

1. What would happen to you, me or ANYONE whom had guardianship of minors were we to leave them for 8 days, while refusing to call them, nor accepting any call from them? Exactly how & what would any agency or court respond or do to us were we to do something such as that?

2. If any relatives of the children whom we left in the care of another truly wanted to bring the children to see us after becoming aware of their worries via Twitter, etc., why wouldn't they have simply made a phone call to make them aware that they would be bringing them to see us, as opposed to operating like thieves in the night, like they were O.J. Simpson in a Vegas hotel room with shady memorabilia collectors?

Exactly what, if anything is there to respect about any of the behavior exhibited by the adults?

And that's just part of what WE know, which I'm willing to bet is a hell of a lot less than what those 3 kids DO know.

I wouldn't be so quick to drink the old, "those kids are disrespectful & should behave better" kool-aid just yet. Given the KNOWN & very PUBLIC history of the ringleaders here [[omitting Janet), it's not very hard to figure out what all of this is about.

And for those who believe that Michael's children should remain silent about an issue which involves THEIR money, then I really don't know what they're thinking. These kids are showing that they're no dummies, not by far & the way that I see it is that folks who believe that these kids should be silent about what's going on which is CONTRARY to what some of their more respected relatives floated out there BEFORE the kids ever said a word about anything, let me remind you that it was that same attitude about children being seen & not heard that led to a lot of kids being abused, molested or worse.

Usually where there's smoke there's fire & how anyone truly believes that these kids should've remained silent have obviously forgotten what it felt like to lose sight of a parent in a crowded store & the terror that was felt when they thought that they weren't going to see their parent[[s) anymore.

[rod_rick]

Stick a sock in it and stop exaggerating while you are at it! Most people bo

America before roughly 1970 were subject to spankings, whippings from their parents or other older close relatives. Gladys got it right and class has nothing to do with raising a well mannered, disciplined child.

Joe Jacksons children were not mentally damaged, another complete exaggeration. They got what we all got when we got out of line. You got your ass whipped! The Brady Bunch was only on television and that is not how it was in the average American home.

What did Paris call Janet? I have to agree with Gladys, kids have lost so much respect for their elders. You may not agree with they say [[elders) but you did not sass or back talk them at all. As far as Janet is concerned, something is up for her to get involved, because she's normally quiet. It can't be about her [[Janet) getting money because she has her own and a billionaire fiancee.

[jillfoster]

So Gladys Knight thinks knocking a kid who sasses you in the mouth and knocking their teeth out? Not classy and not right IMO, plus you'd have Child Protective Services on your door so fast your head would spin. They would notify the police who would and should arrest you. Sadistically beating children is not a solution. Look at the mental damage Joe jackson's beatings caused.

Roberta

You might have heard of these things before.. it's called a "figure of speech" , Gladys means the girl would have been strongly disciplined, not LITERALLY having teeth removed. All I saw in that video is Janet tryin to snatch the girls cellphone so she will quit puttin the family's business in the street.

[jobeterob]

Very well written Juice. And convincing. Time will tell but perhaps Michael did a reasonable job with these children.

[juicefree20]

Sorry, I love Gladys but having seen this play out from Day One, from the first missive about her displeasure with Paris' movie role, right down to the last missive that Randy sent out the other day, the only thing that anyone's upset about is the fact that when they throw out what they want to be their particular talking point, Paris, Prince or T.J. have Twitter, which puts the lie to what they're saying.

That's what folks are mad about, nothing less & nothing more.

Oops, that & the fact that their names aren't Paris, Prince nor Blanket because after all, it's going to be their money, now isn't it?

And one more thing to contemplate, if your mind is supposed to be on doing a tour, getting a CD out there & maximizing your earning potential, why in the name of all that's holy would you ever get mixed up in anything like this, ESPECIALLY when it's being spear-headed by a brother who IS NOT a part of your tour, therefore not exactly accentuating his potential for positive cashflow?

It's a very scary thing when LaToya turns out to be a voice of reason & given the lunacy of such a statement, is something that all involved should consider.

This is a situation which was handled badly & as I'm sure that Michael indeed told his children what to expect & whom to expect it from, all that any of this did was to confirm to his kids that he was right on. Had folks been smarter, the LAST thing that they should've wanted to do was to alienate Michael's children because they hold the keys to the kingdom. After this, I would say that any potential for future goodwill has been burned worse than a pair of gasoline drawers in hell.

This was simply a very bad move & very sad.

So tell me...who's really worried about the children & aren't they the ones who need protection from adults, rather than the other way around?

LaToya's right...this should've been kept quiet & behind closed doors. Paris didn't start this mess but she sure seems to have the gumption to finish it.

[Roberta75]

You might have heard of these things before.. it's called a "figure of speech" , Gladys means the girl would have been strongly disciplined, not LITERALLY having teeth removed. All I saw in that video is Janet tryin to snatch the girls cellphone so she will quit puttin the family's business in the street.

I am not a stupid woman jillfoster so I do understand what a "figure of speech" means. If by "strongly disciplined" you mean hitting, slapping or beating, then I couldn't disagree with you more. These are three kids who lost the only parent that they knew. Hitting them won't help.

BTW, your English is a tad sloppy. Tryin and puttin both have the letter "g" on the end.

Roberta

[Roberta75]

Sorry, I love Gladys but having seen this play out from Day One, from the first missive about her displeasure with Paris' movie role, right down to the last missive that Randy sent out the other day, the only thing that anyone's upset about is the fact that when they throw out what they want to be their particular talking point, Paris, Prince or T.J. have Twitter, which puts the lie to what they're saying.

That's what folks are mad about, nothing less & nothing more.

Oops, that & the fact that theire names aren't Paris, Prince nor Blanket because after all, it's going to be their money, now isn't it?

And one more thing to contemplate, if your mind is supposed to be on doing a tour, getting a CD out there & maximizing your earning potential, why in the name of all that's holy would you ever get mixed up in anything like this, ESPECIALLY when it's being speear-headed by a brother who IS NOT a part of your tour, therefore not exaclty accentuating his potential for positive cashflow?

It's a very scary thing when LaToya turns out to be a voice of reason & given the lunacy of such a statement, is something that all involved should consider.

This is a situation which was handled badly & as I'm sure that Michael indeed told his children what to expect & whom to expect it from, all that any of this did was to confirm to his kids that he was right on. HAd folks been smarter, the LAST thing that they should've wanted to do was to alienate Michael's children because they hold the keys to the kingdom. After this, I would say that any potential for future goodwill has been burned worse than a pair of gasoline drawers in hell.

This was simply a very bad move & very sad.

So tell me...who's really worried about the children & aren't they the ones who need protection from adults, rather than the other way around?

LaToya's right...this should've been kept quiet & behind closed doors. Paris didn't start this mess but she sure seems to have the gumption to finish it.

As usual my sweet Juice you are the voice of reason. Children should always come first and be protected the most.

God bless you dear Juice.

Roberta

[juicefree20]

Jill,

With all due respect, it wasn't Paris who put the family business in the street. That was done by one of the adults whom folks seem to believe deserves to be respected.

What Paris did was to respond to her uncle that her grandmother DID NOT have a stroke, which was the premise presented so that she would go to Arizona for some much-needed rest.

With that said, anyone whom actually believed that it would be a wonderful idea to whisk the grandmother away without

1. Telling the kids where she was
2. Allowing the kids to speak with her
3. Having her as their guardian speak with the children in order to ease their minds
had to be out of their minds & is evidence that this simply wasn't thought through at all.

For one thing, given the way that things were being tossed out there, who would expect mere children NOT to be emotional? The kids didn't play this crap out via social media, that was the adult who should be respected whom did that.

So first, the kids read on Twitter that their grandmother had a stroke, their grandmother was still with them & I believe that they would've had an idea had that been the case, you know with the doctors & all. Paris responded by saying that that wasn't the case & if her uncle could Tweet that info, then why couldn't Paris respond if that tweet wasn't quite what it purported to be. Or is it that if it was a lie that she was supposed to let it go at that?

Ok, so after reading that their grandmother had a stroke, suddenly, their grandmother disappears with absolutely no contact with the children, much less do they know where she is. Now we're talking about 3 kids, the oldest of whom is 14 & their grandmother is the last TRUE link that they have to their father & we all have read how Michael felt about his mom. So placing yourself in the shoes of those 3 kids, exactly how should they have felt about all of this?

And after reading all of what their relatives whom deserve to be respected continued to throw out there in the twitterverse, exactly how were they supposed to feel & what were they supposed to do about it when they were in the dark about what was going on with their guardian?

Furthermore, if the idea was to wrest control from the lawyers, then why in the hell would any of them have done somethin which would only guarantee that the courts could possibly have to become involved? In many instances, a guardian leaving their charges for any length of time with absolutely no warning could've possibly been the grounds for an abandonment case.

And as for the relatives who bum-rushed their home with the idea of bring the children to see their grandmother, under whose authority were they doing so & why wasn't it cleared with whomever the grandmother left in charge of the children?

Family or not, if you're not a guardian, you just can't do crap like that. And even parents can be arrested & stripped of visitation rights for doing something like that. Need I remind anyone that a mere month ago, the wife of Dwayne Wade was arrested due to failing to bring their kids back to him when she was supposed to have them back at the prescribe time?

Sorry, Michael's kids aren't the problem here.

[Roberta75]

I believe that anyone who believe that these kids are the problem here is more thn a little misguided. And if anyone's been following this from the very beginning before that custody issue broke out & still believes that these kids are what's wrong here, then I believe that a re-read is in order.

I would expect kids to act like kids, but from where I sit, most of the adults have been behaving far worse than the kids & haven't comported themselves with any shred of dignity, much less respect & THESE are the folks whom Michael's kids should respect?

I don't think so.

What's being lost here is a lot of very common sense issues & I don't see how some of you are giving any of these adults a pass on some of their B.S.

Let's make believe that the name of a family is Seymour. Let's say that John Seymour was one of the most popular painters in the world, in fact, he was a combination of Picasso, Van Gogh & Michelangelo all wrapped up in one. Let's say that when he was still living, he was a part of a family of famous painters going back to the day when he was a prodigy with watercolors.

He grew older & became skilled with charcoals & was sheer perfection with an easel & oils. He became far greater than the family painting group that he began with & after awhile, he went on to do the Louvre, Sistine Chapel & everyone wanted him.

Then after his wild success, literally as a solo ARTIST [[pun intended), his brother Keith who has a little art gallery kinda thing happening gets mad, then one day rides the 4 train, writing grafitti against John, because John's no onger content to work with the family, nor with watercolors. You see since they all started out painting together, suddenly John thinks that he's too big to work with them anymore.

Forget the fact that Keith has the tendency to make public statemnets which seem designed to paint John into a corner that he doesn't want any part of, but who cares. Despite his obvious drive, hard work & insistence on making his work as close to perfection as possible, he's still the little brother whom obviously owes ALL of his success to the rest of the family, as opposed to his own smarts, hard work & business acumen.

I could say a whole lot more about this, things which are painfully obvious to anyone who's been following all of this but let me ask just 2 very simple questions about just a minute part of this & tell me what you think...

1. What would happen to you, me or ANYONE who we have guardianship of were we to leave them for 8 days, while refusing to call them, nor to receive any call from them? Exactly how & what would any agency or court respond to us were we to do something such as that.

2. If any relatives of the children whom we left in the care of another truly wanted to bring the children to see us after becoming aware of their worries via Twitter, etc., why wouldn't they have simply made a phone call to make them aware that they would be bringing them to see us, as opposed to operating like thieves in the night, like they were O.J. Simpson in a Vegas hotel room with shady memorabilia collectors?

Exactly what, if anything is there to respect about any of the behavior exhibited by the adults?

And that's just part of what WE know, which I'm willing to bet is a hell of a lot less than what those 3 kids DO know.

I wouldn't be so quick to drink the old, "those kids are disrespectful & should behave better" kool-aid just yet. Given the KNOWN & very PUBLIC history of the ringleaders here [[omitting Janet), it's not very hard to figure out what all of this is about.

And for those who believe that Michael's children should remain silent about an issue which involves THEIR money, then I really don't know what they're thinking. These kids are showing that they're no dummies, not by far & the way that I see it is that folks who believe that these kids should be silent about what's going on which is CONTRARY to what some of their more respected relatives floated out there BEFORE the kids ever said a word about anything, let me remind you that it was that same attitude about children being seen & not heard that led to a lot of kids being abused, molested or worse.

Usually where there's smoke there's fire & how anyone truly believes that these kids should've remained silent have obviously forgotten what it felt like to lose sight of a parent in a crowded store & the terror that was felt when they thought that they weren't going to see their parent[[s) anymore.

Preach dear Juice. Preach.

Fondly,

Roberta

[smark21]

If Randy, Jermaine and Janet Jackson want their niece to respect them, then they need to act with some self respect and not tell lies and hatch harebrain schemes to get their hands on their late brother’s estate. Kudos to Paris for standing up for herself and her brothers. By spreading the word, she played a role in stopping Randy, Jermaine and Janet in their tracks.

[juicefree20]

Rob & Roberta

Thank you.

I saw this the other night & I swore to myself that I wasn't going to have anything to say here. But after I kept reading it seemed to me as thought folks seem to be forgetting how & why this all began & it's only natural for a child to defend it's parent, grandparent or guardian when they know that lies are being spread. It's only made more hurtful when those lies come via a family member.

While I understand where Gladys is coming from & she has always been one of my favorite artists, I believe that she's off-base here & is simply leaning more on that old-school training, than she is what really going on here. What she sees is a child who's speaking back against her elders. But in this case, she doesn't seem to be considering whether there's any merit to the child's actions. I believe that her first mistake was speaking about the microscope that they live under, as well as the dysfunction that most families have & that may well be true.

HOWEVER...in this case, no microscope was chasing them, no shining a light on their dysfunction. In fact, no one was saying very much about them at all. What she overlooked was that in this case, THEY sought out the microscope & THEY put that dysfunction out there on Twitter, the 5:00 news, the 6:00 news, "Inside Edition" & in the National Enquirer. THEY can't blame the media for this one. A few of them SOUGHT the spotlight, the spotlight didn't come looking for them, which makes all of this as sad as it is unfathomable.

And this is not your usual run of the mill situation that children from that era found themselves in. This is a situation where these kids are heirs to MILLIONS, which if invested & handled properly could easily equal a BILLION. And what's being lost or overlooked by Gladys & some who've been weighing in on this is that while power moves are being attempted, this money doesn't belong to the people whom are making these moves, the money belongs to Katherine & the children. And if anything happens to Katherine, then ALL of the money goes to the kids.

So who really stands to lose here?

With that as fact, exactly why should these kids remain silent about people doing things which can affect THEIR MONEY? Why are they supposed to sit in silence while events which could adversely affect them play out?

In a world of Twitter & Facebook?

I remember reading about the days of Jackie Coogan, whose situation was so muddled by family that they enacted the "Jackie Coogan Law", in order to protect minor children from parents. We've read about a host of others from Shirley Temple to Gary Coleman & countless others who've ended up messed up & financially ruined behind things such as what we're been witnessing over the past few weeks.

And no one seems to give pause to consider that Tito totally recanted his statement, Marlon was interviewed on tv & broke down over all of this, Jackie wants no part of it & even LaToya is against it. Which leaves exactly who to be in favor of going about this the way that they have?

That should say it all for everyone.

A couple of weeks ago before all of this broke loose, there was a thread here about Michael & how he may have blocked his brothers & I said that I didn't believe that any of that was necessary because the truth of the matter is that he never had to do any such thing. And to watch this play out is to realize that some folks are their own worst enemy & will always find a way to grab the wrong end of the stick.

Despite what common sense & public opinion would seem to dictate, they will always find a way to self-destruct because of what's in their hearts.

And if there's anyone who watched that reality show & didn't get an understanding of the dynamics involved, as well as how some folks operate & are shocked by any of this or can't understand what's the motivation for all of this, then I don't know how it could be made much more clearer than it already is.

[jillfoster]

BTW, your English is a tad sloppy. Tryin and puttin both have the letter "g" on the end.

Roberta

I just type how I talk, ozark farm people talk like that, it's just the way it is.

[marv2]

I just type how I talk, ozark farm people talk like that, it's just the way it is.

I understood what you were sayin'. Maybe Roberta just needs to get out more?

[soulster]

Now that TJ is joint guardian [[or will be shortly), this means he will be getting money to raise the children from the Estate. When Katherine passes, she will have a will that deals with her estate as she sees fit. It will be interesting to see if she leaves her estate to Jermaine and Randy! Or all her children equally? Or only to the good ones - Marlon, Latoya, Tito? Maybe she'll leave her estate to Joe? Or all her grandchildren?

I'm pretty certain Joe will get nothing from her! As for the spoiled ass crumb snatchers...Ha!

[marv2]

I'm pretty certain Joe will get nothing from her! As for the spoiled ass crumb snatchers...Ha!

So do you think they should get everything? What about Michael's neices and nephews?

[soulster]

Stick a sock in it and stop exaggerating while you are at it! Most people born in America before roughly 1970 were subject to spankings, whippings from their parents or other older close relatives. Gladys got it right and class has nothing to do with raising a well mannered, disciplined child.

Joe Jacksons children were not mentally damaged, another complete exaggeration. They got what we all got when we got out of line. You got your ass whipped! The Brady Bunch was only on television and that is not how it was in the average American home.

You are doing a lot of generalizing, Marv. First, from all I understand, what Joe did went wayyyy beyond "whuppins". He literally tortured the kids. he beat them. Also, we agree that before 1980, spankings were much more common, but I knew families more like the Brady Bunch [[without all those kids) back then.

[soulster]

And one more thing to contemplate, if your mind is supposed to be on doing a tour, getting a CD out there & maximizing your earning potential, why in the name of all that's holy would you ever get mixed up in anything like this, ESPECIALLY when it's being spear-headed by a brother who IS NOT a part of your tour, therefore not exactly accentuating his potential for positive cashflow?

No wonder these guys are hurting: they have no discipline and no work ethic! I am beginning to realize that Joe, and to an extent, Michael were their only real motivators. Janet only works when she's trying to rebel against somethig or someone, and Jermaine seems to only work when he has to.

This is a situation which was handled badly & as I'm sure that Michael indeed told his children what to expect & whom to expect it from, all that any of this did was to confirm to his kids that he was right on. Had folks been smarter, the LAST thing that they should've wanted to do was to alienate Michael's children because they hold the keys to the kingdom. After this, I would say that any potential for future goodwill has been burned worse than a pair of gasoline drawers in hell.

This was simply a very bad move & very sad.

This was someone's bad idea that never should have been followed. I just wonder who's idea it was.

LaToya's right...this should've been kept quiet & behind closed doors. Paris didn't start this mess but she sure seems to have the gumption to finish it.

LaToya's wrong! Could you imagine what would have happened if this mess had remained hush-hush?

[juicefree20]

Soulster,

I don't mean that she's right in the sense that the dirt should've been able to be done in secret. She didn't seem to be directing her words to the children. From what I read as she seems to be aligned with T.J., the children, Marlon, Tito & Jackie, she seems to be directing her words to the other side because all of this exploded because a couple of them couldn't stay away from issuing statement which ended up on the news, in the papers & certainly escalated all of this to a whole 'nother level entirely.

And as they don't have custody, nor control of the children, it's not as though they could muffle them, nor stop them from offering their thoughts in response to all of this.

I still believe that this was a major mistake & in about 4 years or so, a few folks are really going to be sorry that they willingly chose to walk down this particular path.

This was a mistake...a MAJOR mistake.

[jobeterob]

A public airing of family business is always an embarrassment; it makes most everyone involved look bad.

Study after study shows that all physical violence and emotional abuse do is cause those it is inflicted on to use it against others; the best thing to do if you are involved in that is to educate and get professional assistance.

What this line up seems to show is that some of the Jacksons are short of money and made an attempt to get some through the back door ~ and it didn't work. I, too, think they will be sorry. The children have turned against them and the children will end up with most of the money.

The n'er do wells need to pray Katherine ends up with something and gives them a cut which they can use to live on.

[jobeterob]

Interesting. She says pretty much exactly what Juicefree said. It is a private matter that should stay private.

LOS ANGELES – Diana Ross says the recent turmoil involving Michael Jackson's children and the appointment of a temporary guardian is a private matter and shouldn't be playing out publicly.

The singer writes in a statement to The Associated Press that "all interests are best served if it remains private."

Ross was named in Jackson's 2002 will as a potential guardian for his three children if his mother was not available to serve. A judge suspended Katherine Jackson as the children's guardian last week after a 10-day absence and instructed the temporary guardian, TJ Jackson, to notify Ross of the changes.

Court filings on Friday indicated that Ross' attorney had been given notice.

The 68-year-old singer and Jackson were longtime friends before his death in 2009.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...#ixzz22GwlVhZu

[REDHOT]

Gladys is old school on this,no one can hit a child today,and i'm happy about that,yes we got hit,or whipping,it was wrong back in the day,and it's wrong today,there's other ways to discipline children without touching them,yes i got whipping back in the day,and i never like it,[[never)if we did what to kids,what was done to us,back in the day,we'd be in jail,why?because it's wrong,just my opinion,
please stay positive

[juicefree20]

A few other thoughts occur to me...

For those whom have gone on tv or in print saying how "disrespectful" & "spoiled" these kids are, I'd like for them to answer this...

Exactly at what point did the main protagonists involved announce to the media their concern for the childrens welfare? At what point did they ever profess to be acting on behalf of the chldren, much less express one iota of concern for them?

I saw a lot of things thrown against the wall, a lot of accusations which related to money, but not so much as even one statement or concern uttered about the welfare of the children to whom the money will eventually belong. I saw statements which seem to have been leaked which portrayed these children damn near as Satan's spawns. It was said that these kids were so horrible that they had to save their grandmother from them & exactly where did that account come from & who threw it out there?

Basically I saw what amounts to nothing more than character assassination of a 14 year-old...A 14 YEAR-OLD & it would seem to me that that is something which no loving adult would do to any child they profess to have love for.

Why was that the case & what's wrong with that picture?

Why would any young adult or even a pet rock be so foolish as to trust or respect those whom have shown exactly ZERO concern about their feelings & their plight during all of this? Unfortunately too many people, very often we adults seem to believe that respect is a one-way affair which should always be slanted in our direction. If thinking people truly believe that this is behavior which merits respect merely because the folks doing this crap happen to be adults, then that pretty much explains why things are as screwed up as they are these days.

It's disappointing to think that adults would place more responsibility upon children than they would upon the adults whose questionable [[at best) behavior that antagonized them to begin with.

"Houston...we have a problem"? Nah! Thinking like this indicates that our country is in deep trouble, deeper than we'd ever care to admit.

[juicefree20]

From the "Don't Blame The Messenger" files...

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...jackson-estate

[soulster]

Interesting. She says pretty much exactly what Juicefree said. It is a private matter that should stay private.

Kinda late for that now.

Juice, right on!

[smark21]

You are doing a lot of generalizing, Marv. First, from all I understand, what Joe did went wayyyy beyond "whuppins". He literally tortured the kids. he beat them. Also, we agree that before 1980, spankings were much more common, but I knew families more like the Brady Bunch [[without all those kids) back then.

And most of his kids keep it a great distance from him and Michael ended up hating him. In the end Joe hurt himself the most with the beatings he dished out.

[jobeterob]

Diana Ross ‘Has No Intention of Taking’ Michael Jackson’s Kids
Aug 1, 2012 4:45 AM EDT


Lost in the Jackson headlines is the reported stipulation in Michael’s will that Diana Ross get custody of his children if his mother were incapacitated. But a source tells Allison Samuels the singer doesn’t ‘want to get involved.’




As the sordid details of the Jackson family’s drama spills out in interviews and court documents in Los Angeles, one famous face once close to Michael Jackson has attempted to stay out of the fray. Although it has hardly been mentioned among the salacious details of Katherine Jackson’s mysterious disappearance just a week ago, her son’s will, released after his death in 2009, reportedly stipulated that his former mentor and icon Diana Ross should have custody of his children if his mother were not alive or able to care for them.




Friends of Ross say the singer, who befriended a young Michael Jackson some 40 years ago, was surprised by the contents of his will and never considered taking responsibility for Prince Michael, Paris, and Blanket after Jackson’s sudden death. While Ross is quite fond of Jackson’s children, the friends added, she feels strongly that they belong with his immediate family.


“Diana has no intention of taking those kids,” said a source close to Ross. “She has her own life on the East Coast and wouldn’t want to uproot them to come live there. That wouldn’t be fair to anyone, particularly those kids.”


Ross is said to be in agreement with the decision to appoint T.J. Jackson and Katherine Jackson as co-guardians of the three children. The elder Jackson and her grandson petitioned the court for shared custody after Katherine Jackson was stripped of her guardianship last week by a family court judge at the request of Michael Jackson’s estate. The matriarch was apparently out of touch with her grandchildren for more than a week, and the reasons surrounding her absence continue to baffle many inside and outside the Jackson family. Ross is said to be aware of recent events but not directly involved.


“Miss Ross believes this is a private matter involving minor children, and that everyone’s best interest is served if it remains private,” said Ross’s lawyer John Frankenheimer.


Ross was just as protective of the children’s father, whom she met at Motown Records when he was just 9 years old. The two immediately became good friends despite the age difference and developed a lifelong bond, say friends and family. As a young boy, Jackson idolized the Supremes lead singer, and some have suggested the King of Pop’s many plastic surgeries were an attempt to look more like Ross, who starred in the films Mahogany and Lady Sings the Blues, among others.


Jackson made his solo singing debut in 1971, on Ross’s television special, and made several other appearances on her annual shows. In his autobiography, Moonwalk, Jackson called Ross his “mother, love and sister all rolled up in one.” And in her book Call Me Ms. Ross, the Oscar-nominated actress recounted finding Jackson in her dressing room one day putting on her makeup.


“She always knew about the problems he had with his family and felt he left the kids to her to avoid leaving them with his siblings.”

Larry Busacca / Getty Images; Samir Hussein, WireImage / Getty Images


“Diana did love him in a motherly way,” said a friend of the singer. “He lived with her when he first moved to L.A. as a kid, and she tried to look out for him in every way she could. But there was no romantic relationship, no matter what Michael said or thought. He just loved her glamour.”


Ross has not spoken publicly about Jackson’s death except for a statement she made shortly afterward, saying she was heartbroken.


“At the time of his death they weren’t particularly close, so she was surprised by the will on some level,” said the source close to Ross. “But she always knew about the problems he had with his family and felt he left the kids to her to avoid leaving them with his siblings. She knows the entire family, which is one big reason she didn’t want to get involved with this custody issue. That’s a headache she doesn’t need.”


As a result of an alleged altercation at the Jackson family home last week in California, Jackson siblings Janet, Randy, Jermaine, and Rebbie reportedly have been barred by Michael Jackson’s estate from the home where their mother lives with his three children. The estate requested the siblings be barred for the safety of the children. Video released last week showed a verbal argument among several family members as well as footage of Janet Jackson attempting to the take a cell phone from Paris Jackson.



Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Allison Samuels is a senior writer at Newsweek. Her work has also appeared in Rolling Stone, O, Essence, and Vibe. She’s also the author of Christmas Soul, published by Disney/Jump at the Sun, and Off the Record [[Harper Collins/Amistad).


For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

[marv2]

Diana Ross ‘Has No Intention of Taking’ Michael Jackson’s Kids
Aug 1, 2012 4:45 AM EDT


Lost in the Jackson headlines is the reported stipulation in Michael’s will that Diana Ross get custody of his children if his mother were incapacitated. But a source tells Allison Samuels the singer doesn’t ‘want to get involved.’




As the sordid details of the Jackson family’s drama spills out in interviews and court documents in Los Angeles, one famous face once close to Michael Jackson has attempted to stay out of the fray. Although it has hardly been mentioned among the salacious details of Katherine Jackson’s mysterious disappearance just a week ago, her son’s will, released after his death in 2009, reportedly stipulated that his former mentor and icon Diana Ross should have custody of his children if his mother were not alive or able to care for them.




Friends of Ross say the singer, who befriended a young Michael Jackson some 40 years ago, was surprised by the contents of his will and never considered taking responsibility for Prince Michael, Paris, and Blanket after Jackson’s sudden death. While Ross is quite fond of Jackson’s children, the friends added, she feels strongly that they belong with his immediate family.


“Diana has no intention of taking those kids,” said a source close to Ross. “She has her own life on the East Coast and wouldn’t want to uproot them to come live there. That wouldn’t be fair to anyone, particularly those kids.”


Ross is said to be in agreement with the decision to appoint T.J. Jackson and Katherine Jackson as co-guardians of the three children. The elder Jackson and her grandson petitioned the court for shared custody after Katherine Jackson was stripped of her guardianship last week by a family court judge at the request of Michael Jackson’s estate. The matriarch was apparently out of touch with her grandchildren for more than a week, and the reasons surrounding her absence continue to baffle many inside and outside the Jackson family. Ross is said to be aware of recent events but not directly involved.


“Miss Ross believes this is a private matter involving minor children, and that everyone’s best interest is served if it remains private,” said Ross’s lawyer John Frankenheimer.


Ross was just as protective of the children’s father, whom she met at Motown Records when he was just 9 years old. The two immediately became good friends despite the age difference and developed a lifelong bond, say friends and family. As a young boy, Jackson idolized the Supremes lead singer, and some have suggested the King of Pop’s many plastic surgeries were an attempt to look more like Ross, who starred in the films Mahogany and Lady Sings the Blues, among others.


Jackson made his solo singing debut in 1971, on Ross’s television special, and made several other appearances on her annual shows. In his autobiography, Moonwalk, Jackson called Ross his “mother, love and sister all rolled up in one.” And in her book Call Me Ms. Ross, the Oscar-nominated actress recounted finding Jackson in her dressing room one day putting on her makeup.


“She always knew about the problems he had with his family and felt he left the kids to her to avoid leaving them with his siblings.”

Larry Busacca / Getty Images; Samir Hussein, WireImage / Getty Images


“Diana did love him in a motherly way,” said a friend of the singer. “He lived with her when he first moved to L.A. as a kid, and she tried to look out for him in every way she could. But there was no romantic relationship, no matter what Michael said or thought. He just loved her glamour.”


Ross has not spoken publicly about Jackson’s death except for a statement she made shortly afterward, saying she was heartbroken.


“At the time of his death they weren’t particularly close, so she was surprised by the will on some level,” said the source close to Ross. “But she always knew about the problems he had with his family and felt he left the kids to her to avoid leaving them with his siblings. She knows the entire family, which is one big reason she didn’t want to get involved with this custody issue. That’s a headache she doesn’t need.”


As a result of an alleged altercation at the Jackson family home last week in California, Jackson siblings Janet, Randy, Jermaine, and Rebbie reportedly have been barred by Michael Jackson’s estate from the home where their mother lives with his three children. The estate requested the siblings be barred for the safety of the children. Video released last week showed a verbal argument among several family members as well as footage of Janet Jackson attempting to the take a cell phone from Paris Jackson.



Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Allison Samuels is a senior writer at Newsweek. Her work has also appeared in Rolling Stone, O, Essence, and Vibe. She’s also the author of Christmas Soul, published by Disney/Jump at the Sun, and Off the Record [[Harper Collins/Amistad).


For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

I told you this nearly 3 years ago, but NOOOOOOOO........ hehehehehehehe!

[Roberta75]

Gladys is old school on this,no one can hit a child today,and i'm happy about that,yes we got hit,or whipping,it was wrong back in the day,and it's wrong today,there's other ways to discipline children without touching them,yes i got whipping back in the day,and i never like it,[[never)if we did what to kids,what was done to us,back in the day,we'd be in jail,why?because it's wrong,just my opinion,
please stay positive

I got whipped by my aunt and my papa and I was slapped by the nuns at school and it didn't endear me to any of them. I agree with you redhot. whipping kids is just wrong and thank the good Lord that Child Protective Services no it's wrong.

Fondly,

Roberta

[REDHOT]

Thank you Roberta,It's Wrong,Wrong Wrong.
Please stay positive

[Roberta75]

Thank you Roberta,It's Wrong,Wrong Wrong.
Please stay positive

I agree, agree, agree redhot and yes, I will say positive. It's the best way to live.

Bless you.

Roberta

[Kamasu_Jr]

The whole thing was just sordid and embarrassing. The Jacksons are so dysfunctional. We love you mother, but we will stick a knife in your behind for that money.

[marv2]

The whole thing was just sordid and embarrassing. The Jacksons are so dysfunctional. We love you mother, but we will stick a knife in your behind for that money.

You are going to see just what the Jacksons are capable of ! They are going to make the Borgias look like the Brady Bunch. They are going to get that money! LOL!

[REDHOT]

Bless you also Roberta,it is Embarrassing Kamasu_Jr,they can't blame Mr.Joe Jackson for this.
Please stay positive

[jobeterob]

There are lots of good people in the world and on this Forum.

Violence and threats and abuse are never good.

Although Michael Jackson was an addict, I'm seeing in all of this that he was a smart man; he learned from Berry and Diana. He appears to have tried to protect his children and he appears to have known that he had a significant crew of pirahna's for siblings. With his Will, he shut them out effectively.

With the steps taken by TJ, Katherine, Diana and the estate, the final nails are going into the coffin in terms of the siblings ever being able to get at anything. And as Roberta spells out above, the children will not put the final nails in the end of the relationship with their bad aunts and uncles.

[marv2]

There are lots of good people in the world and on this Forum.

Violence and threats and abuse are never good.

Although Michael Jackson was an addict, I'm seeing in all of this that he was a smart man; he learned from Berry and Diana. He appears to have tried to protect his children and he appears to have known that he had a significant crew of pirahna's for siblings. With his Will, he shut them out effectively.

With the steps taken by TJ, Katherine, Diana and the estate, the final nails are going into the coffin in terms of the siblings ever being able to get at anything. And as Roberta spells out above, the children will not put the final nails in the end of the relationship with their bad aunts and uncles.

You consistently refer to Michadl Jackson as an addict, like that was a central part of his character. Yet, you continually dog his brothers and sisters as being nothing more than money hungry leeches. However, from what we know, none of them are addicts. It was Michael who estranged himself and his children from his family. It was they that were with him everyday in court when he was defending himself against molestation charges. It was Janet and some of the others that tried to stage an intervention when Michael was going through his problem with the drugs, but he shut them out. Diana Ross was never there, so I think his family deserves more respect than they get from the unknowing. They loved Michael.

[jobeterob]

You consistently refer to Michadl Jackson as an addict, like that was a central part of his character. Yet, you continually dog his brothers and sisters as being nothing more than money hungry leeches. However, from what we know, none of them are addicts. It was Michael who estranged himself and his children from his family. It was they that were with him everyday in court when he was defending himself against molestation charges. It was Janet and some of the others that tried to stage an intervention when Michael was going through his problem with the drugs, but he shut them out. Diana Ross what never there, so I think his family deserves more respect than they get from the unknowing. They loved Michael.

And your point is?

So, Michael didn't love them back and now his children don't love them back either. They probably weren't convinced the love was real ~ something like they loved his money, instead of him; whereas with Diana, he knew it was real and she could be trusted.

I suspect this is something like "what goes around comes around", doncha think?

[milven]

.....Diana Ross what never there, so I think his family deserves more respect than they get from the unknowing. They loved Michael.

They also needed his money. They would lose out if he went to jail. And they lose out again when their mother dies. Her portion reverts to the estate. I agree with you that Diana probably doesn't want the responsibility of taking care of three strangers. I do wonder if Michael ever asked Diana if she would accept this responsibility, or if he just put it in the will without her consent and she found out about it when we did.

As for Janet, she has her own money and probably feels that her siblings will go to her after Katherine dies unless they can get control of the money.