Is anyone else bothered by the media's search for Michael Jacksons' kids "real" parents? Michael Jackson is their real father. I know, he took an unconventional route to fatherhood but does that make him somehow a fake father?
I understand the social curiosity. I get it. But why is it important? Why do we care? Why do we feel it necessary to diminish his relationship to these children? That's what I don't get. You're idol curiosity, your flippant judgment hurts. It hurts these kids and it hurts anyone who has used 3rd-party reproduction. It's one thing to be curious but in all the coverage there is some kernel of judgment and distancing of MJ as the "real" parent. As if now the children can be reunited with their "real" parents.
The situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that he did marry Debbie Rowe and her parental rights have never been completely legally terminated but as far as has been reported she's had no contact with the children. She did sign away her rights (even if that was later overturned by a court) and she has said that this was a "gift" to Michael and that she did not have any intention of parenting. Why should her genetic connection mean more than the familial connection the children have with MJ's extended family? It really bristles that what is the equivalent of a known donor is considered to be a likely/deserving recipient of custody.
This just reminds me how judgmental people are of family's that are not built via natural fertility.
I hope the emotional and heartbreaking statement by Paris Katherine shows people that family does not always mean genetics. She, very simply, loves and misses her Daddy. The only one she has ever had.
And it also really bother me that the media labels Debbie Rowe a bad/absent mother. She was an egg donor and surrogate. She was not intended to be the mother. To fault her for not mothering is unfair.