Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Jackson ordered to pay ex-wife's lawyer fees

Michael Jackson Debbie Rowe Custody Case Jackson Children 2006

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 12:21 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 03:14 PM, said:

Children are not cars, and any adult who thinks Michael Jackson is fit  to raise children needs to have their head examined.

Granted, I'm not arguing that. I agree with you there. But at the same time I don't think it is fair to make him pay for both sides of the case.

Quote

Children are not treated like chattel. Both biological parents have rights which have to be addressed by the courts.


Except when they SIGN OVER those rights, or GIVE THEM UP...as she did previously.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 08:26 AM

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 14 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 03:14 PM, said:

Children are not cars, and any adult who thinks Michael Jackson is fit  to raise children needs to have their head examined.

Granted, I'm not arguing that. I agree with you there. But at the same time I don't think it is fair to make him pay for both sides of the case.

Quote

Children are not treated like chattel. Both biological parents have rights which have to be addressed by the courts.


Except when they SIGN OVER those rights, or GIVE THEM UP...as she did previously.

And she has been attempting to secure her rights to those children in court for some time.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#23 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:45 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 15 2006, 03:51 AM, said:

I just read seven definitions of 'dispute' and not one so much as hinted at "equal standing."  I even looked up the Indo-European root.  Nada.

Can you explain to me how something that has been decided in court can be in "dispute"? She's arguing about who should have custody; not who does have custody. If you have custody, there's no reason you should be prohibited from leaving the country.

Quote

It was his way of getting a rep as something other than a pedophile.

And she went along with it! And she was paid for it! And now she wants to change what she agreed to!

#24 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:49 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 14 2006, 07:14 PM, said:

Children are not cars, and any adult who thinks Michael Jackson is fit  to raise children needs to have their head examined.

Children not being cars is obvious. But when you take an example that isn't loaded with emotion, the answer is very clear and is just as applicable in emotional examples. As far as Michael Jackson's "fitness" to raise a child, that's not our decision to make. Would the children be any better off if he stayed married to the mother? Unless you can prove wrongdoing, they're his children, like it or not. The same rights that protect good parents also protect bizarre parents.

Quote

Children are not treated like chattel. Both biological parents have rights which have to be addressed by the courts.

She gave up those rights in court. Seems pretty clear to me how much she cared for those children.

#25 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:18 AM

You know, this discussion does seem to be splitting along the gender line as these discussions often do.

Stop and think for a minute. Do one thing that I tell everyone to do when similar discussions come up. Reverse the situation and tell me if you still have the same feelings.

Let's say that the ex-wife has custody and she's the one who has left the country and it's Jacko who is suing to get custody back.

Can you honestly say that the custody is in "dispute"? Can you honestly say that she shouldn't have left the country? Can you honestly say that she should bear some of the cost of his lawyers?

If you can't agree when the situation is reversed, then I don't think that your position is necessarily fair. You can't decide one way because he's a man. You can't decide one way because you think he's weird. Unless you know of some real harm that he's done to these children, he's their father and he does have custody.

#26 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:53 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 15 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

And she has been attempting to secure her rights to those children in court for some time.

And I have no problem with her attempting that. I DO have a problem with a Judge telling him he has to fund both sides of the case though.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#27 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 01:33 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 15 2006, 10:18 AM, said:

You know, this discussion does seem to be splitting along the gender line as these discussions often do.

Stop and think for a minute. Do one thing that I tell everyone to do when similar discussions come up. Reverse the situation and tell me if you still have the same feelings.

Let's say that the ex-wife has custody and she's the one who has left the country and it's Jacko who is suing to get custody back.

Can you honestly say that the custody is in "dispute"? Can you honestly say that she shouldn't have left the country? Can you honestly say that she should bear some of the cost of his lawyers?

If you can't agree when the situation is reversed, then I don't think that your position is necessarily fair. You can't decide one way because he's a man. You can't decide one way because you think he's weird. Unless you know of some real harm that he's done to these children, he's their father and he does have custody.

Yes I can honestly say that custody is in dispute as the legal process was started on the custody issue....she did ask for restoration of her parental rights...

I can also say that if it had been her that she should not have left the country until custody was settled.  

If Michael Jackson had moved to Bahrain several years ago, that would be one thing.  But he did not make the move until after she had already announced that she wanted to share or get custody and had already started the legal process.

I would feel the same way no matter what the gender of the parent.

My major issue...and in this one it does not matter whether it was the mom or dad...and the one I am most undecided about... is the payment of the court costs by, in this case, Michael Jackson.  I'm still not sure why this is needed at this point as it is usually rewarded at the end of the case. Not sure why the lawyer need their money now.  Many cases that I have heard of---granted they were lawsuits from car accidents, etc---the lawyers got the major money later

I feel like neither parent in this case is really all that good for these children.  But if Debbie Rowe really and truly changed her mind and decided to be a part of these children's life more fully than previously, I think she should have that chance.  Not to have these children taken far far away because MJ wanted to avoid a custody issue...which I have always believed was the real reason for this sudden decision to live overseas, not the criminal trial.

A child who is missing one parent always feels that absence.  Now if she does get custody or even shared custody, then she has to deal with the emotions of abandonment and/or anger that these children may feel.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#28 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 02:42 PM

Getting back to the subject of this thread ....the ordered payment of some of Debbie Rowe's attorney's fees.

I went back and read the article again and have to admit that I am not really sure WHY this action was ordered...okay, some reasons were given but again... usually these fees are ordered to be paid after the case is settled.  

Quote

Rowe had sought $195,000 toward her attorney fees but Schnider declined to award it, noting that she had received an $8 million divorce settlement.

“She has millions of dollars, so she should be able to contribute to her own fees,” Schnider said.

So if he thinks she has all these millions as he says....then why this order?

One of her attorneys says she does not have the money because of a lawsuit Michael Jackson is bringing against her for breach of confidentiality plus they say he stopped making payments (amount of those payments unspecified) in 2003

Quote

That lawsuit is pending, but the legal costs, coupled with the halting of her divorce settlement money, have “been very draining on her funds,” Almli said.

From MJ's own attorney...and this makes it sound like maybe Michael Jackson is not having such an issue with making this payment...

Quote

Hopefully all issues will be settled,” Jackson attorney Michael Abrams said. “In one week, this case may be over.”

Abrams said the $60,000 award was a “reasonable resolution for the time being.” He also said Jackson has made payments called for in the divorce settlement.

If Michael Jackson---or his attorney---were yelling and fussing about this order, it sure does not sound like it from this statement.  

There is a whole story that seems to be going on here of  things unsaid or not explained adequately.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#29 Natolii

Natolii
  • Islander
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 06:39 PM

Actually My Boyfriend is in the situation where the ex-wife has sole-custody of their son and he has not seen his child in 5 years.

The State of Washington and his ex-wife are putting the screws to him and he doesn't even have the opportunity to see his son. There is evidence that she is not a fit parent, but he and his family cannot bring action because it would be seen as biased. She calls his place of employment and harasses them until they fire him.

The only protection he has is that he is now living and working in Massachusetts and Washington has to follow their rules in support enforcement. But he feels that he has to warn his employers of her tactics and hope she doesn't destroy another job so he can fulfill his responsibilities.

And he still cannot see his child!

You tell me where the justice is in that?
"I have on this board written pages and pages pointing out the science, and I will be dammed if I am going to attempt to reach closed minds that don’t even know how to use a reference library." -emsparks (Fenton E. Magill, dec. 1/25/07 - Love you Dad)

#30 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 08:20 PM

View PostNatolii, on Sep 15 2006, 07:39 PM, said:

Actually My Boyfriend is in the situation where the ex-wife has sole-custody of their son and he has not seen his child in 5 years.

The State of Washington and his ex-wife are putting the screws to him and he doesn't even have the opportunity to see his son. There is evidence that she is not a fit parent, but he and his family cannot bring action because it would be seen as biased. She calls his place of employment and harasses them until they fire him.

The only protection he has is that he is now living and working in Massachusetts and Washington has to follow their rules in support enforcement. But he feels that he has to warn his employers of her tactics and hope she doesn't destroy another job so he can fulfill his responsibilities.

And he still cannot see his child!

You tell me where the justice is in that?

There isn't. I'm curious though, how would his filing a legal suit in court be seen as bias? He should have the right to file a suit, it's not like he would be making the final decision. As for her constantly calling his jobs...have him file a police complaint against her for stalking. Once that's done, if she calls again, she will be the one in hot water.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#31 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:07 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 15 2006, 07:45 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 15 2006, 03:51 AM, said:

I just read seven definitions of 'dispute' and not one so much as hinted at "equal standing."  I even looked up the Indo-European root.  Nada.

Can you explain to me how something that has been decided in court can be in "dispute"? She's arguing ....
Looks like you answered your own question.   :)  

Quote

Quote

It was his way of getting a rep as something other than a pedophile.

And she went along with it! And she was paid for it! And now she wants to change what she agreed to!
Sounds to me like she was some starstruck moron who grew up and grew a brain and now realizes what a tragic mistake she made.  Mistakes can be fixed, and she has the right to try to change this.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#32 Natolii

Natolii
  • Islander
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 06:29 AM

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 15 2006, 09:20 PM, said:

View PostNatolii, on Sep 15 2006, 07:39 PM, said:

Actually My Boyfriend is in the situation where the ex-wife has sole-custody of their son and he has not seen his child in 5 years.

The State of Washington and his ex-wife are putting the screws to him and he doesn't even have the opportunity to see his son. There is evidence that she is not a fit parent, but he and his family cannot bring action because it would be seen as biased. She calls his place of employment and harasses them until they fire him.

The only protection he has is that he is now living and working in Massachusetts and Washington has to follow their rules in support enforcement. But he feels that he has to warn his employers of her tactics and hope she doesn't destroy another job so he can fulfill his responsibilities.

And he still cannot see his child!

You tell me where the justice is in that?

There isn't. I'm curious though, how would his filing a legal suit in court be seen as bias? He should have the right to file a suit, it's not like he would be making the final decision. As for her constantly calling his jobs...have him file a police complaint against her for stalking. Once that's done, if she calls again, she will be the one in hot water.


Everytime he has gone to a Lawyer, they mull it over and the next day to call him to refuse the case.

The bias comes in should his family call DSS on her. Frankly, the child's grandmother saw the child one day and she was appalled by how dirty he was at a Psychiatrists office.

I am hoping that the company he is at has enough warning to prevent her from continuing. I know the Center Manager will not permit her to harass him and Massachusetts does indeed have Stalking laws.

I personally am dealing with Child support issues of my own. However, Broph was the one to call it gender biased. However, it is women like my b/f ex wife, that make it harder on those like me that are taking the screws.
"I have on this board written pages and pages pointing out the science, and I will be dammed if I am going to attempt to reach closed minds that don’t even know how to use a reference library." -emsparks (Fenton E. Magill, dec. 1/25/07 - Love you Dad)

#33 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 07:49 AM

Natolii---

Has your bf ever talked to anyone in a Father's Rights group?

I know there is a statewide group here in Texas and also in Arizona.  can't remember what they are listed under tho as it has been some time since I found them here and told my brother....who was having his own issues with custody and just plain dealing with the mother, at that time.  

Not sure how much or exactly what they do but such groups do exist.  But they can possibly put him touch with lawyers who are more sympathetic.  

I'll look for that info later after I run today's errands and PM you, if that is okay.

Due to friends and family I've seen both sides of custody issues---both the moms and dads' sides

BTW I hate people using their children as weapons against the person they used to love but now hate almost irrationally...and that sounds like what your bf's ex is doing.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#34 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 10:12 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 04:07 AM, said:

Looks like you answered your own question.   :)

Yes. As I said, there's no dispute. She wants custody, but he has custody. Who has custody is not in dispute.

Quote

Sounds to me like she was some starstruck moron who grew up and grew a brain and now realizes what a tragic mistake she made.  Mistakes can be fixed, and she has the right to try to change this.

So why should Jackson have to pay for her mistake?

#35 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 10:37 AM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 08:12 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 04:07 AM, said:

Looks like you answered your own question.   :)

Yes. As I said, there's no dispute. She wants custody, but he has custody. Who has custody is not in dispute.
What you said was, "Can you explain to me how something that has been decided in court can be in "dispute"? She's arguing ...."  You asked how this could be in dispute, then went on to supply the answer: an argument is involved.  You did this all your very own self.   :)

Quote

Quote

Sounds to me like she was some starstruck moron who grew up and grew a brain and now realizes what a tragic mistake she made.  Mistakes can be fixed, and she has the right to try to change this.

So why should Jackson have to pay for her mistake?
With a father like that, it's the kids who are paying.   :(
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#36 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 10:48 AM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 08:12 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 04:07 AM, said:

Looks like you answered your own question.   :)

Yes. As I said, there's no dispute. She wants custody, but he has custody. Who has custody is not in dispute.

Quote

Sounds to me like she was some starstruck moron who grew up and grew a brain and now realizes what a tragic mistake she made.  Mistakes can be fixed, and she has the right to try to change this.

So why should Jackson have to pay for her mistake?


Um....I believe you answered your question your very own self, as Nonny pointed out. :p :p :p Custody is disputed.

Edited by Rhea, 16 September 2006 - 10:49 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#37 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 11:58 AM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 09:12 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 04:07 AM, said:

Looks like you answered your own question.   :)

Yes. As I said, there's no dispute. She wants custody, but he has custody. Who has custody is not in dispute.

But who will have custody...or have to share it at the very least is in dispute.  

She started the legal proceedings to gain some custody rights or full custody and he left the country rather than deal with it.  Which meant that he likely is fearing that he will lose them to her.  

Quote

Quote

Sounds to me like she was some starstruck moron who grew up and grew a brain and now realizes what a tragic mistake she made.  Mistakes can be fixed, and she has the right to try to change this.

So why should Jackson have to pay for her mistake?
Wait, are you talking about financially paying for or emotionally paying for?


Just because she now feels that she made a mistake in the past does not now mean that it can not be fixed.  

I'm not sure how her parental rights were reliquished....if it involved a court proceeding or if it was just a personal agreement.

But every child has a right to know both parents.  It's maybe only my opinion but I think they deserve the chance to know their mother....in the future she will have to answer to them for the wrong choices she made along the way but so will he.  

These children will someday ask where their mother is...and whatever answer he gives them can destroy them..  And if he tells them she never wanted to know them and they find out that he refused to  let her be a part of their life or denied her the chance when she did  ask for it...then he will have to deal with that.

It's a matter of public record with this custody issue being in the courts and he will not be able to lie about that

Somehow I think that no matter who wins here those children lose. :(

This is just one big mess. :blink:

Edited by trikay, 16 September 2006 - 12:01 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#38 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 01:03 PM

^I agree completely. Plus, the poor things have The Weird One for a father. How can they not lose? The poor man would be certifiable were he not a celebrity.

Edited by Rhea, 16 September 2006 - 01:03 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#39 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 05:19 PM

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 03:37 PM, said:

What you said was, "Can you explain to me how something that has been decided in court can be in "dispute"? She's arguing ...."  You asked how this could be in dispute, then went on to supply the answer: an argument is involved.  You did this all your very own self.   :)

The argument she is making is who should have custody. As I have said several times, the person who has custody is [/b]not[/b] in dispute.

Quote

With a father like that, it's the kids who are paying.   :(

It sounds to me like your argument is still biased based on who the person is who is involved, rather than the simple reality of a woman who signed away her rights.

#40 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 05:23 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

Um....I believe you answered your question your very own self, as Nonny pointed out. :p :p :p Custody is disputed.

Rhea, let's say I went to court challenging Jacko for custody. Would you say that the custody is in dispute? Of course not. His ex-wife gave up rights years ago; she's in the same position I am. She may want custody and she may try to get custody, but he has custody. The custody as it stands today is not in dispute.

When you go from one city to another, you see a city marker. Most were put up years ago. These boundaries are not in dispute. If someone realizes that it would be easier or better to move a marker, he may ask others to make a change; he may suggest ways to make the change; he may start a petition. But the boundary is not in dispute - it is what it is until it is changed.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Michael Jackson, Debbie Rowe, Custody Case, Jackson Children, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users