What's to think about?

"Lawyer: Rowe deciding whether to seek custody"
July 2, 2009, 3:27 PM EST

Michael Jackson was a great entertainer, I suppose (I can't say for sure since I never saw any of his work) but he was weird. A grown man living in a place he called "Neverland" hanging out with pre-teen kids, particularly boys, sharing his bed with them, and getting himself sued and arrested over the practice. And if that wasn't bad enough, he proved himself to be an equally weird father what with dangling his baby over the railings while standing on a balcony.

So given his less than normal behaviour with children, including his own, what mother in her right mind would have her child raised by such a man and what court would have given him custody? And now the mother of two od his children has to "think" about trying to gain custody of her children now that Jackson has died. If she has to think about it then she should be denied from the get-go. The time to have thought about whether or not to raise your children was before you had them , lady. Afterwards, it should be a lifetime commitment.

I don't have much power or influence in this world but I do have my principles and if the way a person lives their life violates my strongest principles then I will not support that person. An actor was caught on tape having sex with a minor. Even though he is a great actor and has done several films I would have liked to have seen, I will not view them. Call me passive-agressive but it is just my way of dealing with people who engage in criminal or disgusting behaviour.

Perhaps the only principals Miss Rowe is exercising in trying to decide whether to seek custody of her children are monetary ones. If it will cost her more to gain custody of her children and raise them than she will gain from having them she will no seek custody but if she stands to make a handsome profit, she'll go forward with the custody suit. It's apparent she isn't motivated by a mother's love.