I have kids of my own and I really don’t like my mother in law, but I decided that I would try to not influence how my children feel about their grandmother. She has showed poor judgment and has acted improperly toward my youngest son so we have kept more of a distance from her and she is being more careful about what she does. I do believe that my children should decide how they feel about her by themselves for themselves. That said I have wanted to sever all ties with her on more than one occasion because of things that she views as “innocent” that I consider highly inappropriate and down right wrong. I try to not interfere but I do keep in mind the safety of my children, but I have to say that if I got a divorcee I would like my children to spend as much time with their father as they want but I would have in mind the condition that they not be left alone with her. This may sound very unjust to some people and I may be even labeled as harsh but they are my children and their safety and well-being is up to me. I can also choose not to have any custody of them at all I can CHOOSE to leave the sole custody of my children to their father and it would make my life easier and I don’t need to worry about children or schools, it would be just me. There is a cold heartedness about that and I can’t do it, my kids are my life but I will not judge a wife or mother that CHOOSES that path, she will live with her choices and the consequences of her choices, it is her life her choice and none of my business, this wife may also chose to have compensation if the marriage terminates, in the form of a prenuptial agreement people decide things in the instance that this occurs, The spouse gets a certain amount of money from her husband this is also a normal thing in a relationship so although their way of doing things is very different from mine the terms from this contract seems to me to resemble a lot like other normal people with money enter into prenuptial agreements when getting married to avoid custody battles and fights when the marriage doesn’t last and there is a disclosed amount the spouse will get. This sounds normal and standard to me maybe not the way I would do things but that is why I am a different person with a different mind.

There was no love in between them. Debbie offered to carry babies as a surrogated mother and accepted the payment in return, I can't see anything immoral as Michael longing for children just like some infertile people going through IVF program to create babies.

If Debbie put her kid as more important than money, she should fight at all prices to keep her children, so why blaming someone who already pass away? There was no coercion here on Michael side!Debbie may want to be famous through his fame. So there is mutual benefit on both side in this case.

Well, already I can tell that there is a bias undertone in your writings, spitting out curt sidenotes of disapproval hovered in parentheses. Although I am an avid fan of MJ, for his interesting life and untimely death along with his precipitous humanitarianism and worldly music, I try to look through the eyes of the philistine media-ites once in a while, to attempt to understand how other's might view his big-news headlines from the past.

I can understand where you are coming from, not being able to understand how anyone with in their right mind could capitolize immorally on a child's life for the sake of a man's "childlike whims". Yet, to characterize MJ with such a conventional attitude, attempting to persuade readers as if you have looked on every sociological and psychological perspective, as to where your reputable education would veer them to uphold your opinion as likely fact, well to me that is just not intelligent at all.

Ever since his death, more news stories have been unsurprisingly in favor of Michael Jackson. An interview with Debbie Rowe all of a sudden popped out with her explaining she was the one who wanted the kid's faces to be masked, with more common-like stories sympathisizing on the fact that 'hey, maybe the media WAS a little hard on him' and how extraneous the arguments were to the issue at hand.

I cannot say what is right or wrong since I do not know myself. All I can say to you, sir, is that I find it ignorant of you to uphold an opinion on such feeble premises when you have a title of "Ph.D." standing eloquently next to your name.

Hello,

I find your article missing, or perhaps, ignoring a few points (at the least). And that is, while trying to "buy off" one's child doesn't seem ethical, agreeing to "sell" one's child is just as (and in my opinion, even more), outrageous.

The other aspect is that Debbie Rowe may have just been a "surrogate" mother, which is a rather "common practice." And, in that case, MJJ's deal doesn't sound so out of this world.

And, thirdly, I need clarification on as to how the child molestation charges against him should be taken -negatively- into consideration when he was acquitted of all.

As far as I know, the United States is a country in which citizens are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. So, it shows a lack of ignorance or disregard of one's rights to make such comments. And, to keep on holding against someone allegations even AFTER he has been acquitted of them... Well, I find it difficult to comprehend this type of mentality and "psychology."

Obviously, a piece of writing that bashes a man who is unable to speak for himself any longer. Very low and sad. Let the man rest in peace.

There is nothing creepy about the arrangement that MJ and Debbie had she was a surrogate. People have been paid to have kids for others for a long time now. Debbie agreed to the arrangement so I don't know what the problem is in that situation when all parties agree. She had the option to say no. This is not something that has not been done before so I don't see it as being a bad thing. I think the kids will understand the situation as they get older and they seem to have been shown alot of love more than some kids that have both their parents.

I hate labels anyway. You beliddle your title to label status with this sorry excuse for an article. How can you write opinions ward of facts ? This is supposedly a respectable magazine. I dare say I'd have very little reason to refer to it ever again. Has Psychology Today no integrity ?
This article is based judgment & opinion of someone that you obviously know very little about.
I hope you've caught up on factual bio info. on MJ since daring to write this excuse for an article.