James Barnes, 54, of Michigan felt he never belonged in his family. Recently he fixated on a photo of a 5-year old New York boy who was kidnapped and became convinced that it was him.
The FBI stepped in and conducted DNA testing to confirm or deny the possibility of a crime having been committed. Turns out - no foul play just an overactive imagination.
---------------
Today, there are as many as 1000 children being raised in the US after having come to the US through adoption, who may in fact have been kidnapped from their Guatemalan mothers and trafficked through baby brokers to orphanages with falsified papers.
Why has the US government failed to conduct an investigation including DNA testing to determine if crimes have been committed in any of these adoption? Is adoption that sacrosanct?
The mothers whose children were taken - some at gunpoint - are DEVASTATED as is any victim of a kidnapping and deserve answers...and deserve them in as timely as possible ...not after the kids have "bonded" to much to be separated from "the only family" they've known! We've heard tat game played ll too often in contested adotpions, though the children who have been retutned are doing just fine.
How would an adoptive parent deal with their child asking them ata some point why they kept them knowing the truth of their ill-begotton adoptions? How will they answer why they didn't INSIST on a DNA test?
In kidnappings does time matter? Even in parental kidnappings kids are returned....or at the very least visitation granted!
Why has the US government failed to conduct an investigation including DNA testing to determine if crimes have been committed in any of these adoption? Is adoption that sacrosanct?
The mothers whose children were taken - some at gunpoint - are DEVASTATED as is any victim of a kidnapping and deserve answers...and deserve them in as timely as possible ...not after the kids have "bonded" to much to be separated from "the only family" they've known! We've heard tat game played ll too often in contested adotpions, though the children who have been retutned are doing just fine.How would an adoptive parent deal with their child asking them ata some point why they kept them knowing the truth of their ill-begotton adoptions? How will they answer why they didn't INSIST on a DNA test?
In kidnappings does time matter? Even in parental kidnappings kids are returned....or at the very least visitation granted!
-----------------
Here at home, the Jackson custody case is the Anna Nicole Smith / Dannielynn case times three squared. The classic old joke that we always know who the mother is, doesn't even apply for any of the three kids who were created to be intentionally motherless.
Ironically, however, it appears that Michael was not the father of any of them in any way, shape, or form...except custodial.
It has now been alleged that the biological father of the two Jackson/Rowe kids is Arnold Klein the dermatologist Rowe worked for.
This would open a huge can of custody worms - or a huge barrel of money. IF in fact DNA confirm that Klein's sperm was used, that makes him the baby Daddy...AND it seems that only Rowe signed away her rights in a surrogacy agreement. That seems like it might put Klein in the catbird seat that gave Larry Burkhard the kid and the bucks....and few moments of fame.
Rowe's rights are far more precarious since she did allegedly sign away her rights....and. also because it may not have been ova!
If it is also true that Jackson never applied to adopt the children - believing they were in fact conceived from his sperm - then neither he nor Rowe are biological or legal parents of the two kids. Whose kids are they then??
The good news for Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother, who has been awarded temporary custody of his children, may not have to face a custody battle against his ex-wife Debbie Rowe, because the kids are reportedly not hers. The bad news for Katherine: the kids are reportedly not his, either.
The youngest creation raised by the King of Pop - now 7 year old Prince Michael Jackson II - - even more of a Thriller mystery! That poor over-the-balcony, blanket draped baby is the most peculiar anomaly of all. All anonymous: anonymous egg donor, anonymous sperm ad anonymous womb. All bought and paid for! How is this stuff legal? Does it not open the door for any pedophile or other perverts to create such anonymous kids for sex slaves - or (shudder) even snuff films - or whatever?
Seems even DNA would only be able to reveal who is NOT related to this poor anon-being. There is virtually no chance of finding the sperm or egg donor and as for the renta-womb, even if someone believes it may have been them - they have no biological or legal connection and would just reveal themselves as a woman willing to prostitute herself and sell a child she carried....allegedly without knowing to whom or for what purpose. Not a heartwarming candidate for mother of the year. Or was she young and naive enough to believe she was helping someone, anonymously?
What does this child's birth certificate say??
The WILL: Katherine and Joe and the rest of the Jackson clan suggesting that Michael had no will has been called insincere best as why wouldn't someone with an entourage of attorneys not? Joe J. actually used the spotlight of his son's death - before he was even buried - to plug his new record label! How many ways can you spell exploitation and TACKY!
Is child custody preference covered in the will? What precident would that take? Is the nanny given custody? If it's anyone other than Katherine, they WILL contest, though how fit is she at 79. And Joe? P-LEASE!
The currently most recent will found was written prior to the birth of the third creation. Is he included as in "all of my child?" Is that anonymous being "his" child in any legal way? baby buying is still illegal is it not?
Yes...this will eclipse the Dannielynn baby drama - far more players!
Ironically, however, it appears that Michael was not the father of any of them in any way, shape, or form...except custodial.
It has now been alleged that the biological father of the two Jackson/Rowe kids is Arnold Klein the dermatologist Rowe worked for.
This would open a huge can of custody worms - or a huge barrel of money. IF in fact DNA confirm that Klein's sperm was used, that makes him the baby Daddy...AND it seems that only Rowe signed away her rights in a surrogacy agreement. That seems like it might put Klein in the catbird seat that gave Larry Burkhard the kid and the bucks....and few moments of fame.
Rowe's rights are far more precarious since she did allegedly sign away her rights....and. also because it may not have been ova!
If it is also true that Jackson never applied to adopt the children - believing they were in fact conceived from his sperm - then neither he nor Rowe are biological or legal parents of the two kids. Whose kids are they then??
The good news for Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother, who has been awarded temporary custody of his children, may not have to face a custody battle against his ex-wife Debbie Rowe, because the kids are reportedly not hers. The bad news for Katherine: the kids are reportedly not his, either.
The youngest creation raised by the King of Pop - now 7 year old Prince Michael Jackson II - - even more of a Thriller mystery! That poor over-the-balcony, blanket draped baby is the most peculiar anomaly of all. All anonymous: anonymous egg donor, anonymous sperm ad anonymous womb. All bought and paid for! How is this stuff legal? Does it not open the door for any pedophile or other perverts to create such anonymous kids for sex slaves - or (shudder) even snuff films - or whatever?
Seems even DNA would only be able to reveal who is NOT related to this poor anon-being. There is virtually no chance of finding the sperm or egg donor and as for the renta-womb, even if someone believes it may have been them - they have no biological or legal connection and would just reveal themselves as a woman willing to prostitute herself and sell a child she carried....allegedly without knowing to whom or for what purpose. Not a heartwarming candidate for mother of the year. Or was she young and naive enough to believe she was helping someone, anonymously?
What does this child's birth certificate say??
The WILL: Katherine and Joe and the rest of the Jackson clan suggesting that Michael had no will has been called insincere best as why wouldn't someone with an entourage of attorneys not? Joe J. actually used the spotlight of his son's death - before he was even buried - to plug his new record label! How many ways can you spell exploitation and TACKY!
Is child custody preference covered in the will? What precident would that take? Is the nanny given custody? If it's anyone other than Katherine, they WILL contest, though how fit is she at 79. And Joe? P-LEASE!
The currently most recent will found was written prior to the birth of the third creation. Is he included as in "all of my child?" Is that anonymous being "his" child in any legal way? baby buying is still illegal is it not?
Yes...this will eclipse the Dannielynn baby drama - far more players!
DNA: Determine None Anonymity
Oh...and none of these kids have any medical history, except maybe Klein's.
Oh...and none of these kids have any medical history, except maybe Klein's.
No comments:
Post a Comment