http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_en_mu/us_michael_jackson

Does she have any right to do this? I don't think so, but I was wondering whether I am missing something here. Please comment.

My understanding is that she gave up most rights however the Judge later ruled that she had not completely given up her parental rights. So it would seem that she is not estopped.

In anycase whilst I am a Jacko Fan (had tickets to see him in London) I am saddended by the mess that he has left his children in because of this issue.

I just hope that the court truly does apply the Best Interests of the Child standard and does not split the children up given the Circus nightmare they must currently be living.

Finally (and personally) I think that any woman willing to enter into an arrangement (even when disguised as a valid marriage) who sells her womb for hire is not maybe the best guardian for any child. I doubt whether Debbie really has their interests at heart or rather whether her Lawyers have made her aware that she would basically have some leverage over what is left of Jackos Estate through her so called "children" whom she effectively sold. The latter point in case being particuarly relevant given that Jacko left his unpublished catalogue rights and back catalogue of publishing rights in Trust to his children.

Also remember that now that Jacko is dead and she has not been provided for in the will, her Alimony payments have ended and so she is going to need some pretty hefty checks to keep that Ranch of hers going.....

By the way guys this subject is going to be hot for testing next July 2010 and Feb 2011. They did Britney last year so it seems that it will be Jacko next year...

WHO GIVES A FUCK?!?

apparently not you - oooh....

Also does MJ actually have any money left for the scavengers to pick over?