Michael Jackson made adoption offer to Nadya Suleman
…and the tabloids imploded.
The Telegraph is reporting that upon hearing the news of the Suleman octuplets, Michael Jackson offered to adopt the eight children to “give Blanket siblings.” Suleman’s lawyer Victor Munoz says he declined the “creepy” offer on Suleman’s behalf. (Because she’s not creepy at all?)
The obsessed with children pop star apparently had three representatives reach out to the Octomom camp before personally calling to speak with the unemployed mother of fourteen children. Jackson was said to be “concerned” regarding reports that Suleman planned to give Malia, Jonah, Isaiah, Nariah, Jeremiah, McCai, Josiah and Noah up for adoption. Because that would be scandalous!
From the article:
According to Munoz, speaking to the Daily Mirror, Jackson told him “Blanket would love to have more siblings”.
“I could take care of all the babies, they could live with me and wouldn’t need for anything. They would have a bright future,” he is said to have told him.
“I want to take care of Nadya. She will be happy and won’t have to worry about caring for her children any more.”
Munoz said that “Michael clearly thought Nadya was unfit and decided he wanted to help [the] children,” but also indicated that the tone of the calls became less about concern and more like a sales pitch. Munoz said the last call indicated that Suleman would “be compensated” in an adoption scenario.
============
AND...if you think you have heard the last bizarre twist in this case...Debbie Rowe was described in a 2008 report as: "The adopted daughter of a millionaire couple from Malibu" !! It also says: "Rowe was a late developer both sexually and emotionally - she was 30 before she had her first serious relationship."==========
14 comments:
Too bad they did not hook up, as they would have made the perfect couple. Michael and Octomom, the marriage made in hell!
Two too big egos! Just glad he did not get her kids. No news is good news so they must be doing Ok since she is under lots of scrutiny.
Also find Jon and Kate's divorce so ironic in view of most of the negativity about Nadya was her single parent status. Reminds me of so many of us being convinced to let our children go for adoption so they could have a mother and father, when there is such a high divorce rate and single people often marry!
Victor Munez wasn't Nadya Suleman's lawer. He was her publicist.
And he declined on her behalf without consulting her.
' He admitted he never told Miss Suleman about Jackson’s offer and stopped working for her in March.
“I was going to tell her about the calls. It was all kind of a joke. She would have loved it as she gets star-struck,” he said. “But we had started arguing a lot by this time. It was like working with a child, she was completely draining.” '
Thanks! Kippa - please see my thanks to you and update on the FAQ post.
Nothing about Octomom or Jon and Kate reminds me of our situation as unwed mothers. These are all repulsive publicity hounds, married or not is hardly the issue. They all swim in the same sewer. No need to connect us or our issues to any of these freaks.
I do not see either Jon & Kate nor Nadya Suleman as "swimming in a sewer" by ANY means.
In both cases necessity to pay for such a large brood, and media offers, created them as perceived "media hounds." In both cases, they are people who wound up unexpectedly with more babies than they thought would happen as a result of IFV and are doing their best to care for them...avoiding letting them be taken for adoption, which in my book is commendable.
The public was very critical and down right mean and nasty to Nadya - and not J & K because she is single and they are not. The tremendous FEAR of a mother accepting - heaven forbid - welfare - when that is what is there for - is so very hated in this nation. It is so very stigmatizing to accept public assistance that people actually think it is reason enough to separate mothers and others -- to transfer kids from the poor tot he rich - via adoption, preferably to accepting being "on the dole"..and that DOES relate to us. It is wrong-minded, prejudicial public opinion that things are more important than familial connection.
I have heard from struggling mothers who are afraid to apply for public assistance because they will "helped" by being helped OUT of their children! very sad state of affairs and the antitheses of family preservation which calls for resources - including child care - to be readily available for mothers and families in crisis.
Nadya Suleman may be WEIRD, but she is taking care of her kids and power to her!
IMO Nadya Suleman failed in her obligation to her pre-existing kids when she insisted on getting implanted (without consulting the donor/father) with six embryos.
We don't know what she would have done if she'd heard about the MJ offer. Munez said she was "star-struck".
I think she might have been very happy to accept, especially as there was talk of compensation.
As I said, weird.However I am not sure I agree that she "failed in her obligation" to nay of her kids. She has made choices that most people would not make. She did NOT chose to have 8 more babies. The most IVF had given her prior was twins (same for J & K). She did not want her already fertilized embryo to be destroyed so she had it implanted. Smart idea? Stupid idea? Something none of us would do? But none of it makes her an unfit mother as the public demonized her to be.
SO FAR she is upholding her obligation to care for them all. We do not know what the future will bring...she could just as easily marry as J & K are now divorcing. Life is nothing if not constantly and unexpectedly changing. She could also die early as did Michael - though I don't think she's using drugs as he apparently did. But anything can happen, All we have is now and for now she is caring for her children. I don't see any reason to crucify her for odd choices as was done, anymore than the Duggers having 18 kids and counting and who also support them via media coverage of their lives - are they thus media hounds and as despicable as Nadya? or again, is marriage the dividing line between sanity and insanity in family size? Are the Duggers failing their obligation each time they add yet another child - risking the mother's life?
I would rather be on welfare than subject my children to being the subjects of a "reality" show. There are other, less damaging and invasive ways for people with many children to make some extra money. Commercial endorsements come to mind ("Our litter prefers Pampers")and these come with many free gifts without day to day intrusion on private lives.
These many kids were not "unexpected" in either case, they were the result of fertility treatments. People who "play" that game should think about how they intend to pay.
No family HAS to agree to be a reality show, but for those that do it is lucrative beyond the amount needed just to live and raise the kids. Plus they get to be FAMOUS for even more than 15 minutes. I think subjecting children to this is a form of child abuse.
Yesh, these people did not give up their kids for adoption, but maybe the kids would have been better off if they did. Married or not.
MaryAnne said: I would rather be on welfare than subject my children to being the subjects of a "reality" show.
And that's a choice you get to make for you and your kids. These other people made other choices and the fact is that those who made these choices while married: Duggers and J & K - are not chastised for doing so. Only Nadya was! Only she was called to give away her kids. Oddly discriminatiory, I'd say.
As f right now, neither welfare or Reality TV are considered unfit mothering,therefore I cannot agree that "mayeb their kids would be betetr off having been spsarted" not just form thei rmothers - but presumably form one another as well -- or at least form the pre-existing sibs in both cases. This is not a favorable option in the abense of real abuse or neglect.
There are so many things we could use to judge who is a "good enough" mother. Personally, I DEY=TEST mothers who put their very girl in beauty contests! I've seen some documentaries about that are absolute abuse IN MY BOOK! But it is not considered os legally...and if you recall from a previous blog post on kidnapping, it was YOu who was the stickler for sticking to the letter of the law.
What about people who smoke at home exposing their kids to second smoke? Abuse?
What about people who feed their kids sugary fatty fats foods and allow them to become obese? Abuse?
I want to CRY when I witness any of that. But as far as removing kids because if it that's a very dangerous slippery slope we do not need...
If reality shows with kids on them are child abuse, the solution is not allowing such shows with kids... not removing kids from their families!!! THAT is always a last resort.
I know lots of people and have read many comments on the web from those who also think Jon and Kate and especially the Duggars are disgusting and irresponsible parents. They are not universally adored just because they are married. They are viewed as exhibitionists for being on those shows. The Duggars are viewed as insane religious fantatics, and Jon and Kate as airheads. I have seen lots and lots of criticism of the characters on both shows. They have been chastised plenty.
Beyond being unmarried, there are numerous issues in Octomom's story that made her even more bizarre and questionable. The reason she does not have a show is because she comes across as borderline mentally ill, and that would not sell in the long run. She is too bizarre even for reality TV and she was too blatant in putting herself out there.
All of these people have put themselves in the public spotlight, and hence have been criticized by some, defended by others. Yes, these are all "choices" these people made, but choices have consequences and one of the consequences of being a celebrity is that people will have critical opinions of what you do and say so.
It is not a simple issue of picking on a poor unwed mother and glorifying married parents. And I still say it has nothing to do with us or adoption.
Yes, I too have heard criticism of them...but absolutely not anything near the level of what Nadya was subjected to. She was vilified and had death threats! The only thing they didn't do is burn her at the stake.
"she could just as easily marry as J & K are now divorcing."
Just as easily? With 14 kidz? I doubt it.
Regardless. Since I don't accept that embryos are persons, I do think she failed her existing family (including her poor benighted parents) by even risking the chance that they might all take.
The ghastly Duggars at least didn't go the in vitro route, which gives them a little more validity in my eyes - even though I think Michelle or whatever-her-name-is Duggar is a zonked-out zombie and her husband a patriarchal Evangelical extremist.
I have to agree with Maryanne that Nadya S. has some kind of mental illness, and I do think subjecting children to the public spotlight to such an extent is dehumanizing of them.
When children are used as props for a sideshow it's too much.
As if they were deliberately created for that purpose.
Post a Comment