This is a rather complex situation.
I was reading the comments associated with on-line article on this topic, when it occurred to me that I also had thoughts on this subject. So, totally unlike me, I proceeded to write in the comments field. However, NOT unlike me, I wrote a lengthy comment, which was truncated about 1/3 of the way through. After several attempts to create a concise version, I decided that, well, these are my thoughts, and I'll not allow them to becensored truncated!
What startled me was that I saw no remarks regarding MJ's children potentially being raised in a home with abusive elements. And, while the grandmother is very likely a loving, good person, she DID have many children to a man who is/was purportedly abusive, and yet the abuse was (seemingly) passively allowed to continue. Not to mention (although I am), MJ's purported strong feelings toward/against his father would seem to suggest he (MJ) would not want his children raised by their grandfather.
That said, it may still be that this is the best choice for the children. Who am I to say? I did read that the grandparents do not live together, but that the grandfather is a part of the children's lives; a "loving relationship" is, I believe, the phrase used. Perhaps Grandmother has since matured greatly and does and will her foot down and protect these kids with her very life. I don't prefer to judge either way; I merely wish to process and share some thoughts.
STOP!
That was before I was aware of the fact that MJ's parents are estranged. But NOW, it seems Joe's trying to establish his own right to raise them in conjunction with his wife (but separately...I guess?....possibly in a different state even?...). So, Joe is seemingly seeking a joint-custody situation.
Well, even if there was significant progress in repairing the father-son relationship (MJ and Joe), that does not equate to MJ's willingness or desire to risk having his children raised by their grandfather. They can have a relationship with Joe and not be under his control. He can (like most grandfathers) be an influence (hopefully, a positive one) in their lives without the pressure of parenting; he can still help them decide on career paths without effectively driving them into a depressive state in which they constantly seek approval, affection and love (appropriately or not).
(Oh...did I write that? Yes, I went there. Forgive my opinionated way in what is intended to be at least a somewhat objective discussion, but I do think MJ understood this as a very deep, personal level and thus wisely chose his mother--not his father--as the guardian.)
GO.
I think there are a few more things to be mindful of whenobsessing over examining the components of this tragedy.
Firstly, as for Debbie's not being considered the mother based on her being a surrogate alone (which, mind you, is very likely to create a serious bond), I have the following: Do we say to a person, "You're sterile and thus are not really a parent." or, "You chose to adopt and are therefore not a parent."? No, we do not. We recognize that, for whatever (private) reason the couple went a different route to have kids. Some adopt, but are nonetheless considered parents.
I realize in this case it's not yet clear (to the public) whether Debbie would like to take the children in. There are conflicting statements regarding whether (or not) she is part of their lives. Whatever.
We don't know all the facts or what's going on (and has gone on) behind the scenes, nor is it truly for the public to know. None of that is to say the public's not fascinated or curious, or that they won't learn or speculate or have opinions, but this is my reality check (they don't come that often, as this is my world). There are children involved here, so I feel "we" should consider the impact all the speculation/rumors can have on them before we go spouting off.
I believe perspective is important. Without it things are askew. Profound, I know. :-P
Now, as regards any inconsistency of comments pertaining to paternity/maternity, etc., there IS the possibility that Debbie had a promise or contract with Michael and is attempting to honor such. We don't know why there are inconsistencies, and, frankly, it's not our business, as this is their private matter. Most of us have at least some privacy boundaries; I imagine being in the public eye to be quite the challenge!
Let's remember that our news sources at present are suspect, at best. There is mass chaos and jockeying going on right now, and this is the information age, so it's best to be careful before judging anyone or taking anything as "gospel." Furthermore, if Debbie fights for custody, she is fighting a virtual empire and has to be very cautious and efficient in her approach.
Continuing on, it is entirely possible that Debbie is genuinely concerned about putting these children through more trauma, in terms of "fighting" in court, not having as much money and/or being able to provide the lifestyle to which they're accustomed, etc.
Another possibility to consider is that, as a parent (or as one who cares about them--however you see it), she may actually have valid concerns about splitting up the siblings. They've lost their dad, and it would be tragic if, in all this frenzy, they can't all 3 stay together, because of their DNA not being shared. Let's not forget (as it seems some have), Debbie did go back to court and request her maternal rights be reinstated.
None of us can truly accurately judge another's heart motive. That goes for both Debbie and the grandmother. To BALANCE that, however, is using discernment: While we have no reason to have full reservations regarding either of these women, we DO have reason to be wary of the grandfather as a parent to the children; not just ANY children, but MJ's, specifically, considering the fact that MJ went on record with comments regarding Joe's parenting style and his (MJ's) disagreement with said. (Of course, others did as well...)
Finally, on a more personal level (i.e., something I have a little experience with), I have something to say to those that think age 7-12 years is old enough to decide a future/fate: I disagree. Strongly.
I was an introspective 12-year old when I was faced with a much simpler choice: choosing to let my stepfather adopt me.....or not. Sounds simple, right? Something a mature 12-year-old can handle. Well,.....
I'll preface this by stating that all (four) parents involved were doing their best to not pressure me. Rather, they were encouraging me to take an active role in deciding myfuture fate.
I, meanwhile, was so concerned about making everyone happy, that I became very stressed out. On one hand, it meant giving up my father's family name, and on the other, well, it was my stepdad I would have to live with daily, so I certainly didn't want to disappoint him. My dad told me he was still my daddy no matter what and that whatever I decided was totally okay with him. I just remember being torn and, in fact, it is to this day a painful memory.
But, aside from all that, here's the real kicker: I have a chronically ill mother who has had several brushes with death (the docs were amazed when she lived beyond 32 years). That "simple" choice would have, of course, meant I would have stayed with my stepfather had my mother died. And I KNEW that. And that was part of my struggle. How could I look at this guy who was trying to help and love us and say, "I don't want to be with you if Mom dies. I want to be with Dad and my brother (who had, not-so-incidentally, been split from me as part of the divorce)!"
Realize, I was all-too aware that I was to be living with this man. I didn't want there to be any hurt feelings or tension between us. That's not only smart survival skills, but it just makes for a more peaceful life, and, to that point, he had been very good to us. And, well, Mom is co-dependent and taught me well...
Anyway, had Mom died and I not been allowed to go back to Dad, I would have been truly devastated. So, what I'm saying is that, although I understood the terms cognitively, that was WAY too much to put on the shoulders of a 12-year-old--no matter HOW introspective, intelligent or mature s/he is.
There is more to family than just genetics, and there is WAY more to this situation than any of us know. Let's not condemn, judge or assume the information we're fed is fully accurate, but, instead, employ our brains and withhold judgment on any of the parties.
I was reading the comments associated with on-line article on this topic, when it occurred to me that I also had thoughts on this subject. So, totally unlike me, I proceeded to write in the comments field. However, NOT unlike me, I wrote a lengthy comment, which was truncated about 1/3 of the way through. After several attempts to create a concise version, I decided that, well, these are my thoughts, and I'll not allow them to be
What startled me was that I saw no remarks regarding MJ's children potentially being raised in a home with abusive elements. And, while the grandmother is very likely a loving, good person, she DID have many children to a man who is/was purportedly abusive, and yet the abuse was (seemingly) passively allowed to continue. Not to mention (although I am), MJ's purported strong feelings toward/against his father would seem to suggest he (MJ) would not want his children raised by their grandfather.
That said, it may still be that this is the best choice for the children. Who am I to say? I did read that the grandparents do not live together, but that the grandfather is a part of the children's lives; a "loving relationship" is, I believe, the phrase used. Perhaps Grandmother has since matured greatly and does and will her foot down and protect these kids with her very life. I don't prefer to judge either way; I merely wish to process and share some thoughts.
STOP!
That was before I was aware of the fact that MJ's parents are estranged. But NOW, it seems Joe's trying to establish his own right to raise them in conjunction with his wife (but separately...I guess?....possibly in a different state even?...). So, Joe is seemingly seeking a joint-custody situation.
Well, even if there was significant progress in repairing the father-son relationship (MJ and Joe), that does not equate to MJ's willingness or desire to risk having his children raised by their grandfather. They can have a relationship with Joe and not be under his control. He can (like most grandfathers) be an influence (hopefully, a positive one) in their lives without the pressure of parenting; he can still help them decide on career paths without effectively driving them into a depressive state in which they constantly seek approval, affection and love (appropriately or not).
(Oh...did I write that? Yes, I went there. Forgive my opinionated way in what is intended to be at least a somewhat objective discussion, but I do think MJ understood this as a very deep, personal level and thus wisely chose his mother--not his father--as the guardian.)
GO.
I think there are a few more things to be mindful of when
Firstly, as for Debbie's not being considered the mother based on her being a surrogate alone (which, mind you, is very likely to create a serious bond), I have the following: Do we say to a person, "You're sterile and thus are not really a parent." or, "You chose to adopt and are therefore not a parent."? No, we do not. We recognize that, for whatever (private) reason the couple went a different route to have kids. Some adopt, but are nonetheless considered parents.
I realize in this case it's not yet clear (to the public) whether Debbie would like to take the children in. There are conflicting statements regarding whether (or not) she is part of their lives. Whatever.
We don't know all the facts or what's going on (and has gone on) behind the scenes, nor is it truly for the public to know. None of that is to say the public's not fascinated or curious, or that they won't learn or speculate or have opinions, but this is my reality check (they don't come that often, as this is my world). There are children involved here, so I feel "we" should consider the impact all the speculation/rumors can have on them before we go spouting off.
I believe perspective is important. Without it things are askew. Profound, I know. :-P
Now, as regards any inconsistency of comments pertaining to paternity/maternity, etc., there IS the possibility that Debbie had a promise or contract with Michael and is attempting to honor such. We don't know why there are inconsistencies, and, frankly, it's not our business, as this is their private matter. Most of us have at least some privacy boundaries; I imagine being in the public eye to be quite the challenge!
Let's remember that our news sources at present are suspect, at best. There is mass chaos and jockeying going on right now, and this is the information age, so it's best to be careful before judging anyone or taking anything as "gospel." Furthermore, if Debbie fights for custody, she is fighting a virtual empire and has to be very cautious and efficient in her approach.
Continuing on, it is entirely possible that Debbie is genuinely concerned about putting these children through more trauma, in terms of "fighting" in court, not having as much money and/or being able to provide the lifestyle to which they're accustomed, etc.
Another possibility to consider is that, as a parent (or as one who cares about them--however you see it), she may actually have valid concerns about splitting up the siblings. They've lost their dad, and it would be tragic if, in all this frenzy, they can't all 3 stay together, because of their DNA not being shared. Let's not forget (as it seems some have), Debbie did go back to court and request her maternal rights be reinstated.
None of us can truly accurately judge another's heart motive. That goes for both Debbie and the grandmother. To BALANCE that, however, is using discernment: While we have no reason to have full reservations regarding either of these women, we DO have reason to be wary of the grandfather as a parent to the children; not just ANY children, but MJ's, specifically, considering the fact that MJ went on record with comments regarding Joe's parenting style and his (MJ's) disagreement with said. (Of course, others did as well...)
Finally, on a more personal level (i.e., something I have a little experience with), I have something to say to those that think age 7-12 years is old enough to decide a future/fate: I disagree. Strongly.
I was an introspective 12-year old when I was faced with a much simpler choice: choosing to let my stepfather adopt me.....or not. Sounds simple, right? Something a mature 12-year-old can handle. Well,.....
I'll preface this by stating that all (four) parents involved were doing their best to not pressure me. Rather, they were encouraging me to take an active role in deciding my
I, meanwhile, was so concerned about making everyone happy, that I became very stressed out. On one hand, it meant giving up my father's family name, and on the other, well, it was my stepdad I would have to live with daily, so I certainly didn't want to disappoint him. My dad told me he was still my daddy no matter what and that whatever I decided was totally okay with him. I just remember being torn and, in fact, it is to this day a painful memory.
But, aside from all that, here's the real kicker: I have a chronically ill mother who has had several brushes with death (the docs were amazed when she lived beyond 32 years). That "simple" choice would have, of course, meant I would have stayed with my stepfather had my mother died. And I KNEW that. And that was part of my struggle. How could I look at this guy who was trying to help and love us and say, "I don't want to be with you if Mom dies. I want to be with Dad and my brother (who had, not-so-incidentally, been split from me as part of the divorce)!"
Realize, I was all-too aware that I was to be living with this man. I didn't want there to be any hurt feelings or tension between us. That's not only smart survival skills, but it just makes for a more peaceful life, and, to that point, he had been very good to us. And, well, Mom is co-dependent and taught me well...
Anyway, had Mom died and I not been allowed to go back to Dad, I would have been truly devastated. So, what I'm saying is that, although I understood the terms cognitively, that was WAY too much to put on the shoulders of a 12-year-old--no matter HOW introspective, intelligent or mature s/he is.
There is more to family than just genetics, and there is WAY more to this situation than any of us know. Let's not condemn, judge or assume the information we're fed is fully accurate, but, instead, employ our brains and withhold judgment on any of the parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment