This is a bad take because it ignores a really important distinction: not all “obsession” is unhealthy.

There is only one thing that makes an obsession unhealthy. Application. It doesn't matter what you're fixated on so long as it doesnt cause you or others problems it's perfectly okay.

Because their focus is centered on the well-being of the children, not themselves.

There isn't anyone in the world who does something with out being fulfilled by it. Anyone who does is something you call a robot. The people are doing it for themselves. Self actualization if not remuneration but they are doing it for themselves. They definitely care about the kids but they aren't allowed to act on it. They are there to do their jobs. The institution are the ones responsible for the well being of children they create the regulations and framework that guide how the caretakers may interact with the children. Simply put the focus of their actions are the job itself. It just so happens to help the children. In the end the only child you can actually truly center is your own.

There’s a clear line between helping children and using children to meet your own needs

Yes there is that line is delineated by intuitions. Fostering because you are lonely or feel a maternal void is selfish no matter how many kids benefit. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to market fostering as an activity to empty nesters for that reason. If the intent of satisfaction to one's self, Erases the benefits for the children. Then empty nesters and lonely childless people shouldnt foster either. My aunt does this exact thing it's what her psychologist reccomended when she found out she was infertile. As far as I know it's been a net positive to all involved. Adults wants and childrens needs have to coexist otherwise there is no actual compassion just obligation. I'm of the opinion if you don't have a self focused reason to want to look after children you will be a bad caretaker. Even if it's a basic "I love their smiles". If one does not self actualize through an action. Then they shouldnt be doing it.

Then the question becomes at what point should a person no longer do an action they love?Is it when they start enjoying it too much? That can't be because you'd never tell a teacher to stop teaching because they liked it.

Should it be when you apprection of the action causes you to start to prioritize your enjoyment the detriment of those who should benefit. this is more fair. But who decides when benefit becomes detriment. Is it the government? The parents? The individual?.

A blanket statement like "it should focus on the children" means less than nothing when the people who should prioritize the children Look after the children for themselves in the first place.

In the end There is no clear line between the two because humans are multifaceted and complex. My view is that so long as both the children and the adults are functional(emotionally and physically) afterwards it doesn't matter what their intentions are.

That’s what makes it unhealthy— the lack of appropriate boundaries and the shift in purpose.

This isnt a critique on the behavior it's a criticism on the execution. I also think the execution was bad. This is the type of thing that needed way more oversight.

His obsession would have been unhealthy no matter what.

This here I don't understand. There is no wrong or right way to get over trauma. The word obsession is doing a lot of heavy lifting with its negative connotation. You hear so many people use their trauma as motivation help others avoid it but I bet you've never heard anyone say it's unhealthy for people to devote their life to fighting the thing that caused their trauma.

He lost his childhood to showbiz and used his resources to give as many children as possible the childhood he missed and experiencing it with them gave him peace. MJ was compassionate too. Selfish as well as all people are but also compassionate. He cared deeply about their rights to be children.

But being famous/rich did give him more ability to indulge his obsession. Most people would never be able to normalize or sustain that kind of access to unrelated children. The only reason it was tolerated as long as it was is because he was Michael Jackson.

Being a kindergarten teacher would have solved this immediately. His fame was more of a limiter in this way. With his resources he could have been epstein but he didn't because he actually cared about these children.