No Deal Yet For Jackson's Kids
Bad news for Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine, as no decision has yet to be made over the custody of Michael's kids.
Reports had previously surfaced that Debbie Rowe, the pop star's former wife that acted as a surrogate for his two oldest children, had accepted millions of dollars to step away from the kids as their legal guardian.
However, Rowe's attorney, Eric George, is claiming that's just not true.
Really? So when she and Michael divorced, why didn't she keep the kids?
But shouldn't Michael's wishes be granted, and if he left it in his will that the kids be taken care of by his mother, why would the court give the kids to an absent mother surrogate?
We wonder how much $$$ Rowe would get if she were to take the kids into custody and start caring for them.
Just sayin'.
[Image via WENN.]
Writer Claims ABC Hijacked Lost!!!!
It makes me mad that this is all about the money. Those poor kids!!! They need a chance at normalcy. Why can't the will be followed? Katherine has their best interest at heart, clearly.
PEREZ,
SHUT UP UNTIL YOU KNOW FOR SURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TEAM DEBBIE!!!!!
The agreement that Rowe had with MJ was that he would take care of them, not his freak family members (not that MJ wasn't a freak). He is dead, deal is over. She is the mother. Done.
THESE ADS ARE TOO MUCH!
HARD TO READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have you ever been involved with a divorce that included children? They can not live with both parents at the same time.
Plus, you can not will human beings.
leave these kids alone dang ! let debbie take the freaking money and run that's all she's ever done . sheesh leave them alonee !
GOLDDIGGER !!!!!
okay,,I'm getting a visual,,the tazmanian devil in a wedding dress. She doesn't want to "care" for the kids,,she wants to eat them. But not before she wolfs down Micheals fortune by keeping the "kids" in a life style "they've" grown accustomed to. Fasten your seat belts kids,,,this is gonna get ugly,,
I think the kids should stay with their grandmother. Rowe was simply a surrogate and has no bond to these children. I think they should stay with Micheal's family. Debbie is a money hungry loser… If she cared even the slightest she would have been part of their lives in some significant way in the past… What 13 years? Please… Leave the kids with Katherine~
Shock, P copies and pastes and the original story isn't even true… and Castro is dead, MJ is faking and it was funny when Jesse Metcalfe got beat up….
There you go again Perez, making a lot of noise and not knowing what you are talking about. She was married to the man when they had the kids. He got them in the divorce. He is now dead. She is next in line to take them, regardless of what his wishes are because she was not a surrogate, as you state, but their biological mother. Absent a explicit transfer of parental rights, which by all accounts never happened, she has a legitimate claim on her kids.
"However, Rowe's attorney, Eric George, is claiming that's just not true."
well then it isnt true, no matter what you think perez.
jesus christ.
…is that Lisa Marie in the background?
Ohhhh puhleeeze! She herself said she didn't want them and that they were Michael's kids. She said, she didn't want them calling her mommy and she didn't want anything to do with that. She said she had them FOR Michael. She just wants the money so she can get more work done on herself. It IS all about the money for her. She doesn't want those kids! Leave them with grandma. They don't even know this Debbie chick!
If they are not his biological kids and he didn't adopt them, Michael's wishes shouldn't mean shit.
BTW, Britney looks like the Photoshopped her until she was super-fug.
you cannot bequeath kids like they're property.
it is unfortuanate in this case.
Has anyone thought that perhaps the courts and child protection doesn't want the siblings to be separated from each other? Further, they are well aware of Joe's alleged abuse and Katharine's passivity (besides that she is so friggin old). I hope someone is sincerely looking out for what benefits the children's well being before all this other crap, they were brought to life in a fucked up situation that seems to carry on.
I bet Perez feels proud of himself constantly reporting stories from fake tabloids and then having to report seconds later that they were fake and he has been wasting our time. And to the sheeple who believe anything National Enquirer says - baaaa.
Poor Blanket. No momma, lost his daddy, now may lose his brother and sister. Very sad.
WHY DO YOU REPORT ONE THING AS THE TRUTH AND THEN CHANGE IT 1 HOUR LATER.I REALLY THINK YOU MAKE UP THESE STORIES WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO REPORT……DICKWAD…………………..!GET A REAL JOB.
Poor kids!
Rowe should just take some money and back off so the kids won't be traumatized any more than they already are.
what do you mean "why didn't she keep the kids" when she and Michael divorced? huh? And just eliminate dad from the picture? Isn't that patently sexist? Michael got custody. It happens. One parents gets custody. Doesn't have to be the one with a uterus.
The interesting point here, of course, is that he never adopted them, simply "took" them. But he was married to the woman who delivered them (in the case of his two oldest) so….he didn't have to adopt. Did he adopt Blanket?
Why does this have to be about money? Seriously, MJ wasn't even cold and his family was ignoring his wishes by whoring out family videos and pictures. His mother is 79 years old and an enabler to the abuse MJ suffered. Why should those kids be put in that position? Any of that family that's trying so hard to ride this tragedy to a pay day. Unfortunately, the best thing would be for them to go to some anonymous person, but that's not going to happen. Rowe would be then next best thing.
They should be with their REAL daddy and none of these other jerks. 1-800-sperm bank …..
Debbie Rowe is a piece of shit.
She clearly didn't want anything to do with them in the first place but now there's $$$$$$$$$$$ (and lots of it) involved.
She should be ashamed to even go against MJ's wishes in his will. She didn't raise them or have any part in raising them so she should
HAVE NO RIGHTS
to HIS children.
Just because you gave birth to them, Debbie… doesn't make you a MOTHER.
3 choices kids….
a child abuse enabler
a kitchenwitch horse whisperer
orphange
take your pick.
Regardless of the circumstances, a "fit" parent always gets first consideration, even if a will expresses other wishes. She still has parental rights, so if she really wanted those kids, she's almost surely win in a court battle.
If all she wants is the money, they should freaking give it to her and get her out of their hair.
I don't think any of those people are fit to raise children. Look how great Katherine and Joe did with theirs! Children given away, pedophilia, and then there's LaToya!
A friend of Michael Jackson’s babymama Debbie Rowe has come forward with revealing e-mails that make it clear that Rowe has no interest in actually getting custody of the two children she had with the King of Pop. In an interview to air tonight on Extra Debbie Rowe’s friend and confidant, Rebecca White, reveals details from e-mails from Rowe sent days after Michael’s tragic death.
From the start, Rowe made it clear that she did not want custody of the kids. In an email dated July 2, 2009, she writes:
“I’m not going after custody. These kids are not mine. They were never mine. They were always Michael’s. I was Michael’s best friend.”
But then, three days later on July 5, Rowe writes to White:
“My lawyer is telling me I have to take some responsibility about the welfare of the children. Do I want the kids? Hell no. Does it look good for me to ask for them? Absolutely. I don’t want to look like the woman who gave away her kids and just forgot about them. Would Michael want Joe to have them? I think it would be the last thing that he would ever have wanted.”
I feel so sorry for the kids. Stay away from nasty old Joe!
You cant will human beings? If said human beings are your children (biologically or not, they were legally Michael's children) you should have a clause in your will indicating your selected caregivers for your kids.
Michael's parents are separated, so I dont get the issue here. Debbie Rowe shouldnt get them, just because she carried them is not enough to warrant her the rights to the children. She took a paycheck and signed away her rights. Even if it was never legally finalized, would your conscience feel good about giving a woman the same children that she was willing to take money for? No.
This is really a no brainer. If she is indeed the biological mother then Debbie Rowe should get her two kids. Allowing the ancient Jacksons custody would be sheer stupidity. Just look how messed up their own kids are. Plus lets face it, Katherine is just to damned old to personally handle young kids. Maybe with Rowe, once all this insanity dies down, those kids can have a shot at a normal life.
She can be the biological mother, but a mother won't drop the custody of their children for money. She was never there for them, why now? She didn't want the custody, or anything while MJ was alive, why now? Poor kids, I hope they don't end up with this greedy bitch.
Re: contrarianchick – You can be right, but if she really wanted any kind of bond with the kids, she could've tried it at least, I mean, in the past. A judge never deny a thing like that, even if your ex is stinky rich. As soon MJ died,her first thought was that, she didn't want to do anything with the kids, but now, she is fighting the custody, why? You and me know why.
Perez sez: 'We wonder how much $$$ Rowe would get if she were to take the kids into custody and start caring for them.'
The same money that the Jacksons would get if they were to get custody.
Debbie Rowe has some rights, and the kids have even more rights to know their mom, even if only occasionally if that's how it goes.
Not only is it ”why did she not keep the kids”, it's how is it that she has been able to live a lavish life without working and raising expensive horses?
Because children aren't property, Perez, and can't be bound to the terms of a will. (And wills, like prenups, are never 100% ironclad, anyway). The US Supreme Court has a long-held precedent that biological parents, unless their parental rights have been affirmatively terminated by a court, have a FUNDAMENTAL right protected by the 14 Amendment to parent their children. They must be found unfit for this to be trumped. I'm not saying Debbie Rowe couldn't be found unfit, but we don't know that she will, either, and it's ridiculous to speculate about a case when we really know none of the material facts that are likely to be dispotive. The "best interests of the child" standard is applicable when there is a custody dispute between two natural parents or stepparents (such as in the case of a divorce). In the case of a natural parent (i.e. Ms. Rowe) vs. a nonparent (i.e. Katharine Jackson), the parental preference doctrine applies, and only in the event of a determinatition that the parent is "unfit" (an extremely high standard under the law, as opposed to the general public's opinion), the law presupposes that a natural parent, not found unfit, will have the children's best interests in mind. That's the law. If you don't like it, tough.
"Surrogate." I do not think that word means, what you think it means.
poor kids….
She'll get the same amout that their grandmother is going to get for looking after them… But lets face it she doesn't need the money but grandma Katherine surely does..
Re: stephiep – And just because Michael Jackson bought those children it doesn't make him a father…
I find it strange that people on here think Debbie Rowe a monster for having children and then taking money..But they don't think it totally weird that a black man would buy his children instead of doing the dirty and having his own.. And this same black man chose white sperm donors and a white mother..But apparently its Debbie Rowe that's the monster!!
She deserves all the money in the world if she can take the kids away from the Jackson family freak show
Re: Kittsa – I totally agree with you Kittsa
Debbie Rowe and MJ was married and have children. What's so unatural with here getting custody of her own children. If she had custody of children, and she had died instead of MJ the kids would go to MJ. That's the natural order of things
what kind of person calls his child Blanket. He is not an infant
MJ's dad physically abused his children. Why on earth would Debbie Rowe want her children to grow up with an abuser?????????????
Re: Ashley1983 – MJ's mom is almost 80 years old. Giving her permanent custody is pure stupidity. What happens when she gets to sick or die? Pawn the kids over to another Jackson family member, or Diana Ross. Diana Ross is too old too. The kids are better off with Debbie Rowe