[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by manni28

Sbaglio:

When he and Rowe divorced he gained full custody of the children-she TPR'd. However when he was accused for the second time of child molestation, she was going to "talk" unless he gave her visitation rights, which he did.

However knowing Micheal, I'm sure he wrote in his will that his wishes are for the children to be raised by his mother. Rowe has no rights to the children

Not true.


During the custody fight that Rowe had with Jackson, she attempted to give up her parental rights. Judge Stephen Lachs, who presided over the hearing, initially ruled her rights were terminated but then Lachs reversed his decision because it violated California law. The Department of Children and Family Services must conduct a parental fitness investigation before parental rights are terminated and that didn't happen with Rowe.

So Rowe is still a legal parent to two of the kids. She did agree not to sue for visitation and accepted a undisclosed sum of money for not pursuing that matter in court (estimated to be 8 million). She also stated that she used an anonymous sperm donor to conceive Michael & Paris and the kids are not biologically related to Jackson. However, he was their legal father.

Debbie Rowe seemed to only want money-not the kids. She was willing to give up a legal battle for visitation in exchange for more money. It's a shame. They don't even know her. And they are old enough now to make their wishes known in court.

[loveajax]

green, I just read that. wow. i honestly don't know who the "best" person is to raise the kids, but I hope they don't get split up -- that would be so sad.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by loveajax

green, I just read that. wow. i honestly don't know who the "best" person is to raise the kids, but I hope they don't get split up -- that would be so sad.

I don't think they should be split up, either. I think they should stay with his parents. It's what they know.

[jules17]

Originally Posted by Amandak249

I don't know where he go them...but I don't think they're his..

Sorry to get off topic, but this wording troubles me. This is an adoption forum, and our children are ours, whether we are biologically related or not.

Michael was my first concert in 5th grade. I know he was beyond troubled, but it's still sad.

[KarenInCa]

Originally Posted by Kat-L

Debbie Rowe seemed to only want money-not the kids. She was willing to give up a legal battle for visitation in exchange for more money. It's a shame. They don't even know her. And they are old enough now to make their wishes known in court.

The "marriage" was for publicity. According to Rowe, they never consumated the marriage, and she was only there to be a serrogate for him, and make it look to the media as if he was in a normal family situation. Although, I'm not sure that image ever really caught on.
In an interview, she stated she never saw them has her children because she was chosen as his serrogate. I too heard that after he was accused again of molestation, she wanted visitation but I don't know if that ever happened.

[aclee]

Well I heard on the news today that he left his right to the Beatles collection to Paul McCartney...so here's hoping that if he managed to find the time to include that in his will, he had plans for his children as well...

[manni28]

Not true.


During the custody fight that Rowe had with Jackson, she attempted to give up her parental rights. Judge Stephen Lachs, who presided over the hearing, initially ruled her rights were terminated but then Lachs reversed his decision because it violated California law. The Department of Children and Family Services must conduct a parental fitness investigation before parental rights are terminated and that didn't happen with Rowe.

So Rowe is still a legal parent to two of the kids. She did agree not to sue for visitation and accepted a undisclosed sum of money for not pursuing that matter in court (estimated to be 8 million). She also stated that she used an anonymous sperm donor to conceive Michael & Paris and the kids are not biologically related to Jackson. However, he was their legal father.

Debbie Rowe seemed to only want money-not the kids. She was willing to give up a legal battle for visitation in exchange for more money. It's a shame. They don't even know her. And they are old enough now to make their wishes known in court. __________________

Kat-L:

See I heard differently, and the fact remains she served as a surrogate, so she probably did TPR her rights to the children. I don't think she will have anything to stand on in court if she wants custody

[yehudit]

So so so sad all around.

MJ was my first mjor obession with a pop star. I had the glove, I had the jacket, I had the socks.

Thriller rocked my world.

I have mourned him for years when I saw how mean people were about MJ. I find it sad and hypochritical how much people are praising him in death when we all were so mean to him in life.

RIP Michael

[sbaglio]

Originally Posted by yehudit

I had the glove, I had the jacket, I had the socks.

Thriller rocked my world.

I missed out on the socks. But I did have the jerri curl.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by sbaglio

I missed out on the socks. But I did have the jerri curl.

Photos please!!!

[sbaglio]

Oh no, Saya - those photos may be greasy, but they'll be locked up for eternity!

Here's a story from a very reputable periodical:

Mother of Michael Jackon's children Debbie Rowe confesses he was not their father | News | News Of The World

[millie58]

MJ was a phenomenal entertainer with a tortured soul. I would think if Debbie Rowe hadn't seen them, the kids going to her wouldn't help them. the only person who could care for them (IMHO) is Janet. Katherine is too old and Joe is too controlling. I hope they're kept together.

[Amandak249]

Sorry to get off topic, but this wording troubles me. This is an adoption forum, and our children are ours, whether we are biologically related or not.

Jules-

Evidently I made the incorrect assumption that everyone would know what I meant. Please let's not debate semantics. Those children, in my opinion, do not look like his biological children. That is merely the point I wanted to make. Sorry you took it differently. I'm an adoptee and I'm certainly not about to negate the fact that I am my parent's child.

I have nothing against him adopting children, or using a surrogate, etc. The fact that he insists that they are biologically related to him, when it is fairly clear that those kids seem to be anything but African- American is the what's troubling. I realize that AA's come in different shades, from the darkest and richest ebony, to beautiful browns. But those kids don't even have facial or structural characteristics associated with African Americans. In regards to his youngest child, "Blanket", he stated on the 2003 interview/expose' that the mother of that very very very light skinned child was also African American.

I think he's a little bit delusional- whether or not it is benign or not I cannot say.

[YaYaPow]

I agree it is very sad to hear about Michael, he was such a great talent and will be missed. As far as the accusations, who knows. I just know many people the world over got to enjoy all he gave us thru his music. Man in the Mirror is my favorite, but he had so many that I loved. RIP Michael

[joskids]

Watching what I have about Michael Jackson these last few days -- it occurs to me that he didn't know who he was. On stage, he exploded and became such a phenomena. I know that his father controlled his childhood, but as an adult, he seemed only to be himself when performing. I find that incredibly sad. I can't imagine what it would be like to search for yourself your entire life and die before you ever come to grips with reality. He was possibly the most talented performer ever . . . but he will live on forever with our memories of him. I'm so blown away by any snips of him before all the facial "contouring" and change in skin tone. He was such an exceptionally beautiful child and young man!!!