' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Paris Jackson reunites with her mother--why not everybody else?

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Paris Jackson reunites with her mother--why not everybody else?

Lorraine and daughter, a week after her 16th birthday in NYC
Michael Jackson's daughter has reunited with her mother--the second child of the late pop singer spent her 15th birthday earlier this month with her mother, Debbie Rowe. According to one pop website, "a source close to the family said: “The two just hung out. They’ve gotten really tight.”

Another site puts it this way: 
"Technically, Debbie is her mom, although I wonder how maternal she could possibly be. Still, I don’t know that story. I have no idea what went down between Debbie and Michael so I always try not to judge her too harshly. [Thank you for that, I thought.] If she
wants to come back in that kid’s life and give some unequivocal support and provide a foundation to lean on then good for her. Paris is going to need it. Katherine Jackson [Micheal's mother who has custody of the two children] won’t live forever."
Say what you will about the whole Michael Jackson situation of having children--he picked someone, she was inseminated (as far as the world presumes, including me, via in vetro fertilization (IVF)), they married, she collected lots of dough for the job, she signed over all rights to the children--but at least these children know who their mother is.  THAT WAS THE INITIAL POST UP TO HERE.

But maybe they are. Since I wrote the post last week, people have brought it to my attention that Jackson is likely not to be the biological father--that donor sperm was used--and if that is the case, they are still wondering who the other side of their DNA comes from. 

Yet they not putting up placards on You Tube and Facebook, looking for their mothers, as so many are today. They are not combing through old records, wondering if a common name such as Phillips or Brown is a made up name, but that is what they have. They are not sending away for a DNA test to see if that will help them figure out the mystery of their parentage.

The proliferation of people looking for their first parents through placards with their birth information is just one example of how wrong and stupid and unjust the whole system of closed records is today. Yet in this country we are making headway in opening the records with the shameful pace of a snail. Legislators can't get past "protecting" those mothers who want anonymity.

But they are out there, and they wield so much power. They are why the state of Washington, despite the best efforts of Bastard Nation and many others, including FMF, will not get a "clean" bill without a veto clause allowing biological parents to prevent the adoptee's full birth record being released to him. The bill passed this week, and is waiting for the governor's signature, which is expected. As Lori Jeske, the fearless and outspoken stalwart of BN in Washington, put it on Facebook:  
"....all I can think of is having literally thousands of citizens contacting and storming the Governor's Office and State Legislators in the next days demanding he not sign the bill and send a big middle finger back to legislators for wasting taxpayer time and money and his time on a discriminating bill..." 
Things are much better in Ohio, even though the bill that appears to be set for passage gives nearly all adoptees in the state the right to their original birth certificates does contain a loophole that a few birth parents will slide through. While individuals adopted prior to 1964 have always had access to their records, they were closed September 18, 1996. Surrendering mothers in Ohio after that date could sign a "do not disclose" form when they placed their children for adoption after that, and unless they later rescinded the veto, it will stay in place.

No one knows how many women did this, as no one appears to have kept track. By 1996 open adoptions were becoming prevalent and the atmosphere for reunion was already in the air, thus the number of those denied access to an unredacted OBCs is likely to be small, according to Betsie Norris, the adoptee sparkplug behind Adoption Network Cleveland, the organization that has led this fight for 24 years. Norris says the group hopes to be able to come back and close the loophole.

Yet the number of people this new legislation will affect is around 400,000, not an insignificant number, and most will be able to see their original birth certificates upon request. All adoptions going forward if the current legislation becomes law will not be subject to a disclosure veto. Contrast that with New York, where a closed adoption is still possible. 

Since Ohio did offer relinquishing mothers a legal choice once, we can understand the legal reasoning behind this provision, despite our aversion to it. The new law will still let those mothers and fathers who want it precedence over the rights of their children. We believe that all individuals have a right to know their true heritage and identity. We believe the information of identity is a birth right that belongs to both individuals, mother and child. 

Paris Jackson and Debbie Rowe
Paris Jackson and her mother, Debbie Rowe
BACK TO POP NEWS: Debbie wed the King of Pop in November 1996, three months before the birth of their son Prince, now 16, and Paris was born just over a year later. The pair divorced in 1999--when Paris was one--and Debbie signed custody over to the singer as part of her £6.5 million deal. But Debbie has been back in touch with her teenage daughter on a few occasions since Michael’s death from an overdose in 2009. Incidentally, Debbie Rowe is an adult adoptee. As Jane wrote recently...adoption begets giving up the rights to your children. Not quite the same situation here, but a kissing cousin.--lorraine

 Paris Jackson And Debbie Rowe Reunite: Loves Birth Mother More Than Greedy Jackson Family
 Jacko's Girl Reunited with birth mother
Adoptive parents encourage daughters to give up their babies

from FMF
The Continuing Saga of Debbie Rowe....
Breaking News on the Jackson kids is not for First Mother Forum


  1. I'm so tired of them using us as an excuse to keep some records closed. They didn't care about our wishes in any other way. Many, if not most, of us would have kept our children if we had felt in any way meaningfully supported to do so. They didn't care about that either. The only reason they are citing "birthmother confidentiality" is so they can make us into scapegoats to cover up their own shameful "adoption" of a practice first developed by baby-snatchers who wanted to cover their tracks. Yes, that IS something to be ashamed of, but adding to the criminal behavior with further unethical behavior is not going to solve anything.

    As for those handful of mothers who really do not want to be found, there's a little thing called a restraining order (temporary protection order, or whatever it's called in your state) or, shockingly enough, just asking the adoptee to leave you alone. And that's if they find you. In lots of states, birth certificates don't include the parents' home address(es), and even where they do, people move all the time. Sheesh.

    Sorry, I'm just venting. :/

  2. I really have serious doubts that the Jackson children are fully aware of their heritage-I do not buy for a minute that MJ is the biological father to the Jackson kids. My guess is that he did not want black children, I hope that is not the case but those kids do not appear to be of mixed race in the least. MJ lied so often to the public and to even himself it seemed;so why not lie about that too? I am glad Paris has reunited with her mother at the very least..

  3. Dana, vent away. That's what we are here for, and this blog was venting too. I am disgusted with the legislators hiding in my skirts when I argued so much with my social worker about this PROBLEM with the relinquishment she said: if you insist on that, WE CAN'T HELP YOU. Well, she could have.

  4. I recommend that rather than to ask the governor to veto the bill in its entirety that proponents instead ask him to line-item veto from page 2, line 26 after after the word "certificate" through line 28. Continuing the veto in section 3 (4) (a) (b) (c), (5) (a)(b), on page 3, line 25 subsection (7) strike the words "an affidavit of non disclosure". In subsection (8) on page 3 starting on line 32 strike everything after the words "adoptees birth parents"; veto subsection (8) (b).

    I would be respectful in laying out the reasoning why these types of vetoes are damaging and how they disenfranchise a small number of the population. As a group, activists should ask for a meeting with Ted Stedevant, the Executive Director of Legislative Affairs and Public Policy as soon as possible. I would start calling first thing Monday morning. The Office of the Governor's main phone number is 360.902.4111.

    I will send Ted's direct contact numbers to Penni at WA CARE.

    A full veto has strong repercussions if the reason stated for the veto is incorrect. With this particular Governor one will never know what's coming out of his mouth. We call them "Insleeisms". A full veto can result in legislators being unwilling to take up an issue again for years if not decades. He has the power to use a partial veto. Don't be afraid to ask for it. The Senate President hasn't signed the bill yet so the is a small window of time.

    You can track the schedule for bill action by the Governor here: http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/billaction/2013/default.aspx

    If the Governor does not schedule this bill for action, it will go into effect automatically.

  5. Actually, from what I have read - only Prince II, aka Blanket, is biological related to Michael.

    You say above:

    They know who they are, they know their whole life story.

    But they don't know 'who' their "biological father" is, (that is Paris and Prince I), unless of course Debbie has told them. And as far as I have read Blanket doesn't know 'who' HIS 'biological mother' is...

    Just my humble opinion!

  6. Lee, you are probably right. I will make some changes in the blog.



COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish.

We cannot edit or change the comment in any way. Entire comment published is in full as written. If you wish to change a comment afterward, you must rewrite the entire comment.

We DO NOT post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.