Rhea, on Sep 17 2006, 01:00 AM, said:
I'm going to say this one more time and this is the last conversation on the subject I will have with you. Children are not chattel, or city boundaries - they are human beings.
That fact is irrelevant. What I'm trying to explain to you is that custody is black and white. You've either got it or you don't. When a couple is going through the process of divorce, the custody is in dispute; they both have an equal standing until it's decided in court. Jacko's childrens' custody has been decided in court
. It's not in dispute
. Someone wants to change that, but until that happens, Jacko has custody
and is free to do with his children what he pleases.
Often between divorced parents circumstances change and new custody agreements and forged and reforged in court. Nothing is written in stone except unless one of the the biological parens turns out to be abusive, and sometimes not even then.
Who said anything about stone? Who said that things couldn't change. We're talking about here. We're talking about now. And here and now, at this point in time, Jacko has custody. Until a court decides otherwise, that fact is not in dispute
A custody agreement is exactly that - an agreement forged at a specific moment in time and subject to challenge and revision as circumstances change. And it is very much in dispute, and has been for some time.
They're arguing about a future state
, that is what will be or should be. At this point in time
, Jacko has custody
and that is not in dispute.
Michael Jackson should never have been allowed to take those children out of the country while there was a pending custody case. Period.
Nonsense. He has custody and until he's told otherwise, he can do as he pleases. Has the court told him otherwise? No; they haven't. If he was in some violation, we would have heard about it. He would have an arrest warrent sworn out on him. He has custody. He's allowed
to do what he thinks is right. Period.
If he weren't a celebrity his kids would be back by now and his ass would be in jail for contempt.
In contempt of who or what?! There is no court order telling him that he or his children has to remain in this country. How many times has he been on trial now? The courts have told him repeatedly that his celebrity means nothing within the bounds of the court. They wouldn't even need testimony from others. They have proof
that he was out of the country! If it wasn't legal for him to do that, he would have been arrested.
You just don't walk away from a custody case. Period.
Should he put his entire life on hold because someone disagrees with something that he did or said? What kind of life is that?