Debbie Rowe will seek custody; file restraining order against Joe Jackson

47814885

Debbie Rowe has definitely stated that Prince, 12, and Paris Jackson, 11, the two children she carried for Michael Jackson, are biologically hers. There had been several reports earlier this week that the children were not Debbie’s and she was essentially a surrogate (she was Jackson’s wife at the time, and most people thought she was their biological mother). However Debbie and her lawyer had been very wishy washy about seeking custody of the children until today, when she told an L.A. NBC affiliate that she is going to try to get guardianship and custody – and says that she is definitely their biological mother.

Debbie also says that while she is currently allowed visitation with them, it’s a “difficult process.” Almost as noteworthy as the custody issue is her statement that she will also be seeking a restraining order against Joe Jackson to keep him away from the children.

Debbie Rowe wants custody of the two children she had with Michael Jackson. “I want my children,” Rowe said during a 90-minute phone conversation Thursday morning with NBCLA’s Chuck Henry. Rowe said she was willing to submit to any testing, including DNA to prove that she is the children’s true biological mother. Rowe also said she would submit to psychological testing.

She also said she would seek a restraining order to keep Jackson’s father, Joe Jackson, away from the children.

The agreement does allow for visition [sic], but Rowe said it’s a very difficult process. “I am stepping up,” Rowe said. “I have to.” Rowe said she was still grieving. She said she decided she had to seek custody after Jackson’s death.

Jackson, who died at age 50, left behind three children: son Michael Joseph Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; daughter Paris Michael Katherine, 11; and son Prince Michael II, 7. Rowe was the mother of the two oldest children. The youngest was born to a surrogate mother, who has never been identified. Rowe said she was concerned about splitting up the children. She said she did not expect the court to grant custody of the third child, but added that she would be willing to accept custody.

…[Michael Jackson’s] will also specifically leaves Rowe out of any inheritance. “I have intentionally omitted to provide for my former wife, Deborah Jean Rowe Jackson,” the will states.

[From NBC Los Angeles via TMZ]

Boy nothing will help you get your butt in gear like the thought of Joe Jackson anywhere near your kids. And that whole creepy thing he said about how Michael’s kids “belong” with him – the way he said it, you could tell by “with,” he really meant “to.” To be fair, Debbie also didn’t make a public announcement on seeking custody until Michael’s will revealed that he’d excluded her from it. I did find that sort of surprising, as it seemed like they had an alright relationship and from most accounts he was appreciative of her giving birth to two of his three children. Obviously if she takes care of them Debbie would have access to money she otherwise would not. I’m not saying that is her motivation at all, but it’s a factor people are going to wonder about.

I do think her statement about being in grief and unable to make a decision is valid. We all grieve in our own ways and it’s a hard time to make huge, life-changing decisions. I couldn’t do that after less than a week. Nonetheless, I’m sure it’s been much harder for the kids – as will being split up, since it’s safe to assume that Blanket, 7, will probably stay with Michael’s mother Katherine.

The custody hearing is this Monday.

PEOPLE JACKSON ROWE

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

62 Responses to “Debbie Rowe will seek custody; file restraining order against Joe Jackson”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sauronsarmy says:

    This whole thing is such a mess. I do feel sorry for those kids because even though Michael was a weirdo they atleast had him to protect them. I’m sure all those people see those kids as meal tickets. I was hoping Janet would get them she seems “normal” enough.

    Has there been a news on the Beatles catalog yet?

  2. buhhh says:

    She’s awful. No contact with the kids for years and all they are to her are dollar signs.
    The will speaks for itself, she has no part in those kids’ lives.

  3. Ceenitall says:

    I am sure many will not agree with me, but I think the kids would do better with her then with either Katherine or Diania Ross. And just because his will says that he wants the kids to go to either of them does not make it automatic that they would win in a court. I could be divorced hrom my childs father and die and state in my will that I want my kid to go to my mother, but I think the courts would not hold that up.

  4. fizXgirl314 says:

    oh jeez… those poor kids… it’s gonna be a tug of war forever isn’t it?

  5. myself says:

    wherever they stay with Katherine,Debby,or whoever,it s wrong to separate the kids….they ve been raised as brothers and sisters,and we can assume that the 3 of them are a family within themselves….so whoever theses kids belongs to,one thing for sure theses 3 belongs together…

  6. CandyKay says:

    Debbie Rowe has a fairly simple lifestyle and has never appeared to be particularly money-hungry.

    In her custody, the children would be more likely to be raised as individuals, instead of “Jacksons” with a capital J. They’ve spent their lives so oddly, traveling around the world with no one to count on but each other, going from luxury hotel to palace to luxury hotel, appearing in public wearing masks. What kind of job skills are these kids going to have when they’re adults? Not because they’ll need to work – they’ll have plenty of money – but because they’ll need some productive way to spend their lives if they’re going to be happy.

    Debbie Rowe could give them a taste of a normal, stable existence. She’s also approximately the right age to be raising teenage children, unlike Katherine and Diana.

  7. Nicole says:

    All she wants is MONEY, Didn’t she give up all parental rights to the children? If so she shouldn’t be able to get custody of them…no judge could see a mother who gives up rights as fit.

  8. This woman sold her children to one of the weirdest dudes of all time & now she wants them back because they’ll come with checks attached. She abandonded them. She doesn’t deserve them. I also doubt she’s the bio-mom.

  9. yadira says:

    I will take these kids and give them a loving home without asking for a dime.

    I feel so bad for them. They must feel so alone and unprotected. I hope no matter what, the 3 of them stay together. They are each others moral support

  10. Rosanna says:

    I hope all the kids stay together. I don’t think it’s reasonable for a judge to give 2 out of 3 kids to KJ, because the kids’ mom is still alive. Plus, I also don’t think it’s fair to separate Blanket from the other two. I think the judge should give them to their mom *if* she is fit for parenting. I personally think it’s great that she filed the restraining order. I’m surprised that KJ didn’t do it, because I’m sure MJ wouldn’t want JJ anywhere around his kids.

  11. Elle says:

    It seems to me that Rowe is, as she says “Stepping up because I have to.” Perhaps she would have honored Jackson’s will if she felt like it would have been in the best interest of the children, but her conscience will not allow her to submit those kids to the same upbringing Michael had.

  12. Raven says:

    I’m glad she’s applying for custody. I wouldn’t want Joe Jackson anywhere near my kids. She has said that Michael talked with her about his abuse history and that likely includes information about his father.

  13. Flo says:

    I want to see her raise the 3 kids with nanny Grace on board. The Jacksons are not good parents, Joe beat the crap out of the kids and Katherine allowed it.

  14. CandyKay says:

    I think it’s also important to remember that Michael Jackson, for all his many good qualities, could be terribly manipulative with people. It was one of the reasons he was such a successful businessman.

    Debbie agreed to become pregnant to please him, but who knows how he used his money, power, and position to seal her off from the children after their divorce. I don’t think it’s fair to assume she didn’t see the children because she didn’t want to.

  15. princess pee says:

    I do feel like no matter how odious a person Joe Jackson is, he wouldn’t be able to hurt these kids the way he did Michael. We’re all watching now.
    Something about Debbie kind of icks me out, though. I guess it’s the whole “well, i don’t want ’em but I don’t want anyone else to have them” vibe she’s sending out. It’s true that she hasn’t been fame and money seeking for all these years, but she also hasn’t been contact-with-the-kids seeking… if anything, I bet she feels pressure to step up because of the endless cycle of articles about her (being their biological/genetic mother or not, wanting to raise them or not, etc). Enough bad press will get most people to do what they think others want.

  16. Zoe says:

    This story has to be bogus. Joseph Jackson doesn’t even live with Katherine, she lives in Encino and he lives in Vegas, so keeping him away isn’t a problem. That said, they should be with the family that raised them, not the woman who took cash and ran. According to Debbie in one of the only two interviews she ever gave to the media, ‘my children don’t call me mom because I don’t want them to.” That’ll come back and haunt her for sure. Poor kids. popspiracy.blogspot.com has full Debbie transcripts.

  17. Jeane says:

    Is it known what the children want? Maybe that should be taken into account as well.

  18. wow says:

    Debbie wants $$$$$$$. Otherwise she wouldn’t have taken a pay off from MJ in the first place. The courts will definitely consider that, plus he made a will. That’s what wills are for; to prevent the vultures from coming swooping in.

    NOW Debbie wants custody. Ha! Good luck with that.

  19. Codzilla says:

    Nicole: I agree in full.

    So we’re supposed to believe that a woman who willingly gave up all parental rights to her children in exchange for a large sum of money is suddenly acting out of genuine love and concern? Please. She’s just another leech.

  20. lena says:

    well the older two children are in a position to tell the court who they want to stay with, i know that doesn’t mean they will get what they want, but the court is going to take that into consideration. The court would also have to prove that joe jackson poses a real threat to the kids…times have changed and he wouldn’t be able to go around treating his grandkids the way he did his kids. Honestly I think taking the children away from the family that they known all of their lives will be traumatizing for them, In a perfect world Katherine would get custody and Joe would be ordered to stay away and Debbie can have visitation with them, i don’t think separating them from their little brother is a good move for them…they would miss him terribly and vice versa

  21. BlueSkies says:

    Me No Believe

  22. Marie says:

    Suuure she wants cu$$$tody!! Anyway. if takes that to put joe the hell away from those kids maybe is better. But still think janet should take care of the kids.

  23. kleinia says:

    WOW.I am really confused here. Where has Rowe been for 12 years. The kids are 12 and 11 and now she wants them!!!! Regardless of whatever deal she made , I dont kow how any parent can have a child out in the world knowingly and not care or worry about them for that long. I belive the children should stay with the grandmother and not be separated. The only thing I would be concerned with is Joe Jackson. I believe all of Michaels problems were results of the horrible childhood he lived with this man. He should have at least some respect for his dead son and not even show his face anywhere where Michael is concerned. Bless the kids, I hope verything goes well for them and as for Rowe , you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to get the kids now. If a Judge would be crazy enough to grant u custody I am sure many,many fans would have something to say about that. R.I.P. Michael

  24. Maybe says:

    Maybe, just maybe she actually loved MJ and wanted him to be happy and as all women who are unstable enough to think giving the guy they love anything they want in attempts to get the guy to love her, she gave up her rights to the kids? Maybe she got a substantial chunk of money to give up rights? Maybe she knows enough about the Jacksons that her conscience made her step up to the plate rather than see those kids go through potential Jackson hell? She didn’t seem all that interested in money from the get go since MJ’s death, MAYBE she genuinely wants to save these kids from Joe Jackson?

  25. someone says:

    I just read on another site, that Debbie was willing to take the youngest child “blanket” also. And altho I don’t know what she and MJs agreement was, I think the kids would be so much better off with her than with the Jacksons..especially Joe, who will pimp the out to the highest bidder, and destroy them mentally and physically, the same way he did his own children.

  26. javelin says:

    I think Debbie’s main concern is keeping the kids away from Joe Jackson, and even in Katherine’s care it’s obvious Joe would still have access to them. She agreed to let Michael raise her children, not Joe, and I don’t blame her for feeling a need to step up. However, it seems in the children’s best interest to stay together… so maybe Debbie Rowe or Diana Ross could raise them, and give Katherine and the Jackson siblings visitation? I don’t know, it’s a horribly complicated dilemma, all I can say is: Keep Joe Jackson away from the kids and away from the money. He’s done enough damage in this lifetime.

  27. Feebee says:

    Keep Joe away from the kids… the most sane idea to come out this situation so far.

    I’m not convinced $$ is her motive. But who knows if she’s really emotionally connected enough to handle having 2 or even 3 kids all of a sudden.

    It’s a long way from being over. The lawyers will be loving this.

  28. nnn says:

    Actually Debbie Rowe is the one who raised those children for the first three years, from 1996 to 1999. Then Michael divorced her and paid her for her to move out and let the children raise by him exclusively. She accepted it at the condtition to keep a visiting right and she was caught on pictures several times visiting them during the year 2000.

    In 2001, two years after divorcing and while the visiting rights were more restrained or maybe because she didn’t like the way they were raised by Michael she went to the Court to reverse her parental rights and was told at this occasion that her rights were never ripped off, that the settlement she made between her and jackson were not legal according the law and invalid as it was never submit for approval in a Court. She was told that she was still the legal mother with the rights attached to that including to have joint custody. She didn’t have enough support to go through the whole process against the jacksons. It got under the radar but there are public record of that claim to the Court.

    Michael convinced her that she could keep contact with the kids and she backed off untill 2003 when the allegation of molestation put him in the spotlight with the possibility of going to jail. She went back to the court fearing that if it was the case Joe and Catherine would raise them and asked for joint custody again. This time it was more public but people were more focus on Michael’s fate than the claim of a semi known person for her children. Again her lack of legal, public and financial support couldn’t sustain the whole process. Again there are records and evidence of that.

    After Michael went off free he went abroad and she couldn’t visit them but kep limitted phone contact. She has never stopped keeping contact with them. It was part of the settlement between her and Jackqon which also set that she had the right to visit them one day every 45 days.

    The settlement she signed with Michael if going public will paint her more as the poor victim manipulated by a rich man to keep the children away from their mother and so that he could raise thepm on his own terms.

    She never went public but the record are there to attest that she has consistently look for joint custody since 2001 and exclusive custody every time she feared that Michael would not be able to perform his rights like in 2003 where he could have been put to jail.

    I think the next weeks will reveal many secrets and will give some answers to unknown variable, notably the big question as is Michael Jackson legal bond to those kids was ever established cause there are rumors that he didn’t secure it basing his legal rights on paternity through DNA. If he is not the bio father like he publicly claimed he was and if he didn’t secure his legal father rights, then the law will be more favourable to the legal parent left : Debbie Rowe especially if it is publicly confirmed that she has been in contact with them and has been asking for exercising her rights as a mother since 2001. In that case Catherine doesn’t stand a chance.

  29. gg says:

    nnn, you’re right again.

    I think Debbie has wanted the kids all along and was shut out from MJ and possibly threatened. I do not think she is doing it for the money. The other issue of safety is far more important for money to even be a consideration.

    Also, the best thing those kids could have is a home on a ranch with horses and freedom, and no masks and friends, and school … I think they would blossom with Debbie.

    I could be wrong, but I just haven’t seen anything that would exclude Debbie from being a fit mother, and that she’d have been there all along were it not for MJ making contact with their mother so difficult.

  30. lucy says:

    she was not near those kids, because Michael Jackson threatned her repeatdly, I hope she get them, they are not safe near Joe Jackson

  31. McKenna says:

    Katherine is 79. In order for her to raise all 3 children to adulthood, she’d have to live at least until age 90. How many 80-something year olds are in a position to raise children? The chances are that she will die while these kids are still minors and they will have to be shuffled around again…to a third home. Plus, even though I think Debbie is motivated by money (she took millions to stay away from the kids after the divorce), I do think keeping them away from psycho Joe is a good idea.

  32. Zoe says:

    popspiracy.blogspot.com for Debbie’s interview in which she says being a mother is something you have to earn and not a biological right, and her saying that her kids don’t call her mom because ‘I don’t want them to’.

  33. j. ferber says:

    Complicated. I believe Debbie is motivated by money, but I also believe Jackson did not want her in her kids’ lives. I remember reading that she said Michael made it incredibly difficult to see them. She had to notify him months in advance of her visit and she had to wear some type of hazmat suit when in contact with them (considering it’s MJ, I believe this).

  34. jennifer says:

    Zoe is it at all possible for you to post WITHOUT promoting your blog??? 😛

    nnn & gg – I totally agree. I think people forget just how powerful someone with money can be, especially someone with as much money as MJ. Money = power, and MJ had WAAAAAAAAY more than Debbie. I honestly think that’s one reason why Katie Holmes stays with Tommy Boy – with the amount of money he has he can do all sorts of things to ensure he gets custody, not Katie. I imagine Debbie knew she couldn’t win a custody fight. And I also think she is terrified of Joe getting those kids, as anyone would/should be. This is gonna be nasty 🙁

  35. Cheyenne says:

    Interesting that MJ named Diana Ross as Katherine’s backup and totally bypassed his siblings.

    His will not only makes no mention of Joe Jackson, it makes no mention of MJ’s brothers and sisters as well. It looks like he may have hated some or most of them as much as he hated Joe. Most of the brothers are living in penury while Michael bought up the rights to all their music and then refused to release it, so that the brothers couldn’t earn anything from it.

  36. Yae says:

    feebee,
    Interesting point. Sadly enough, I wonder if anything will be LEFT for the children after the lawyers get through dragging this out.
    I have no problem with Debbie. She’s stepping in only now because she sees the children are in danger (Joe). Her request of the restraining order on Joe really showed to me that she feels she has no other choice.
    Debbie isnt just going to “get mj’s money”. There are going to be serious restrictions on most of that money til the kids are 18-21 yrs old and can claim it themselves.

  37. Anastasia says:

    I dunno, maybe they can have a shot at a halfway normal life with her.

  38. Peace be Still says:

    Not buying it. At the time MJ was being vilified in the press all she had to do was hold a press conference and she would have had the services of Gloria Alfred or someone who hated MJ working feverishly on her behalf- with him footing the bill.
    She was picked because she was odd and he was odd. She quietly accepted the terms and moved along. How many of you would have left your kids with anyone if you truly believed they may have been in harms way.

    Joe was indeed something else. He’s an 80 soon to be 81 year old man without the strength and stamina or the privacy to harm those children in the ways he may have done 50 years ago. His time is up and the world is watching those kids.

    It’s a very sad situation but those kids seemed to have spent more time with the nanny and MJ than anyone else. But hell if she is doing interviews already, is she fit to come back on board?

    Diana Ross? No way.

  39. Tazina says:

    Debbie tried to get custody of the kids twice before, during the molestation charges and again when she thought Michael was making bad decisions about his life. Phone calls were not returned also when she would call. Katherine is too old at 79 to receive custody. She could be gone by the time the children are 17 and 18 when they will still need a parent and who would want them then……I heard tonight though that Debbie Rowe has still not decided so who knows what will happen.

  40. SolitaryAngel says:

    @nnn: Excellent post; I have a couple things to add to this whole thing that no one has mentioned yet:

    1. Debbie DID take millions; but I think her rationale was “take the money now, bide my time and I may still get the children” and she’d have the means to care for them. She may very well have intended to use the money to fund her legal fees. That’s what I would do if faced with the power of that kind of $$$; obviously MJ was skilled in using it as a weapon.

    2. There is no doubt in my mind that the children aren’t hers biologically; DNA never lies—and Debbie is smart enough to know that.

    She has made some rather appalling statements regarding the children; as a mother I cannot understand how or why she could ever have said such things out loud—much less think them but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt here. Some of you have presented some pretty compelling evidence that she has been trying all this time to get them.

    I just hope they get to live a “maskless” life with someone who will see them as humans with feelings, and not just dollar signs.

  41. MSat says:

    Perhaps Joe Jackson is too old and weak to physically abuse these children, but given his behavior over the past few days, he would most certainly exploit them for money and fame in any way possible. And how would Katherine Jackson be able to stop that, whether they live together or not? He seems to have no problem speaking for the whole family now, including Katherine.

    He’s creepy, he’s dangerous, and those kids would be doomed.

  42. sml says:

    nnn:

    you do seem to have a real good grasp of how things are moving along with MJ and Debbie Rowe. I think things might be fairly favorable for her to finally get her wish — to get custody of her own kids.

    very interesting.

  43. mel says:

    You guys come on why would Joe want to harm these kids? He tortured Michael and his siblings because he knew how much money he could make off of their talent. These kids dont have one ounce of Jackson blood in their bodies so I dont think they would be the upcoming Jackson clan to make a hit.

    Debbie Rowe, IDK….she’s no better and I just think the people around her want her to file for custody. This will be interesting…. bottom line is the kids need a stable and loving environment and I’m not sure she could provide that.

  44. Shay says:

    You think Debbie would be a better fit for the kids instead of Joe?

    So a woman who sold her kids off once and then when the money ran low used the threat of getting them back only to get more money is better than Joe?

    Don’t get me wrong Joe is an evil bastard but I wouldn’t give these children to a woman who didn’t want them and when given the opportunity to regain a relationship chose money over the kids. I don’t think Joe is the best fit either but I think it’s insane to think that a woman who sold her children has a right to get them back. That’s crazy to me.

    The kids should stay together and Katherine is who MJ requested they be with.

  45. Sue Marshall says:

    Glad to see she is finally seeking custody of her children. Hope they will be brought up naturally and have a good christian life. Would hate to see them in the clutches of the Jackson Family or Dianna Ross.

  46. sabina says:

    just what did Joe do so horrible to Michael? He beat him up? I don’t think that’s the whole story, many kids were beat up and abused.

    Has he castrated him to keep his high pitched voice? I wouldn’t put it past him but sure hope it’s just my vivid imagionation as that would have been too horrible… But it would certainly explain many things.

  47. Dirty Martini says:

    This whole thing is so freaking bizaarre as to be beyond comprehension of normal people.

    And I cannot believe I am saying this, but geez……….I think maybe she should get them, especially if it is true that she will also take Blanket to keep the 3 children together which in my mind MUST happen.

    Katherine is too old to raise children of this age; they are likely to experience yet another loss of primary caregiver before they reach adulthood. THat would be devastating to them.

    Besides which, Katherine could not and did not protect her own children when she was younger, more vital, and more capable of doing so. She cannot possibly do so now.

    Since Ms. Rowe has said she is the bilogical mother of the 2 oldest and is willing to take the DNA test to prove so, I accept she is indeed the mother. While I am in no way delighted with the fact she gave birth to these children for money and presumably gave them up as part of her pact with that freak, the reality is she did give birth to them, they are her children, and it would scar the children psychologically even more for their own birth mother NOT to step up now when they need her most. It would be yet another abandoment.

    Add up the number of abandonments already achieved or possible in the future based on the facts. (Mother abandons at birth. Father abandons by death at 50. Go with Grandma, you are abandoned by Mom a second time, and then abandoned when Grandma dies….)

    Geez there is no good solution in any of this, but…..

    Rowee has said she is “stepping up”. None of us can do anything about our choices yesterday; all we can do is make better choices today and tomorrow.

    Let her step up now that her children need her the most. It is the best solution available of the options presented.

  48. CL says:

    Ok …. Arnold Kline is in as the sperm donations guy and Debbie the mom….Arnold K was Debs boss. Hum…. CREAPY ….. What about Jermaine Jackson…. He seems very normal…. nice and low key….the court will do what ever they see to be the best for the kids and my guess they will ask the kids what they think and who they will feel comfortable with. Keep in mind these kids can ALL read. Can’t imagine how they feel inside right now. I’m sure they will even wonder who they are? If Debbie is who they are, that is going to mean something if it’s important to them. She may be sought out by them at some point anyway. Keep in mind she also got millions from him already, she’s kind of set, in a way….. AND BLANKET????

  49. LUCI LIU says:

    SHE SOLD THE CHILDREN OR 8.55 MILLION DOLLARS, AND TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS. THE CHILDREN DON’T KNOW HER. SHE’S JUST MAD BECAUSE MICHAEL DISMISSED HER ASS IN THE WILL.

  50. BlueSkies says:

    Because these really good looking children are not hers. Yes, she carried them but they do not exhibit her gene pool of freckled people. No matter how you slice it. Probably just an oven. You’ll see.

  51. BlueSkies says:

    SHE SOLD THE CHILDREN OR 8.55 MILLION DOLLARS, AND TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTS. THE CHILDREN DON’T KNOW HER. SHE’S JUST MAD BECAUSE MICHAEL DISMISSED HER ASS IN THE WILL.

    And somehow you think it is okay to say that as a woman? You just want people to give you hits on your site. Reality, links on this site suck. If you were any good your link wouldn’t be allowed here. Sorry, but true.

  52. t-t says:

    this situation is terrible….i honestly dont think that debbie rowe is all that bad…maybe she just got scared of the kids being near joe…anybody would fear for that…maybe thats the only reason shes doing it…idk. i just hope all the kids stay together

  53. Karen says:

    Michael would roll over in his grave if his father got the kids.

    Are the kids really biologically Michaels though? It doesn’t look like they have a shred of black in them. They don’t look like Debbie either.

    Why should she get the kids? She wanted nothing to do with them after they were born. She’s not their mom.

    Debbie will be a stranger to the kids. Let the kids live with someone they know. They are traumatized enough with their dad’s death.

    I just hope the best for those kids.

  54. PJ says:

    Joint custody of Debbie’s two kids could be a real possibility.

    There are tough choices here: If Debbie gets her two kids, the three siblings will be split up because she has no legal claim to Blanket whatsoever.

    If Grandma Jackson gets all 3 kids, she might die before they reach the legal age of 18. However, there are strong arguments for her retaining custody since the kids have a close relationship with her, the custodial parent (MJ) named her as the guardian, and she very well might live till all three kids are 18.

    I’m betting Mrs. Jackson will get full custody of Blanket, and joint custody could be a compromise position for the other two, since it would allow the three siblings to live together half the time.

  55. gg says:

    Debbie is the mom. They have the same features as she. LOOK AT THE CHIN. They will do the DNA test and everyone will see she’s their bio mom.

    Also, I can’t say this enough: MONEY = absolute power. Debbie was shut out and I believe she’s just been waiting for a way to get through the MJ Shutout Program. I remember when she wanted more visitation – the suit mysteriously dissolved after she was threatened by MJ’s legal team.

  56. snorkey says:

    These kids are white kids and i doubt that they have been around many black kids, whatever one says, there is a difference. Yes, If those kids spent alot of time w/ their cousins, it would be a different matter. I would bet all I have that none of them even know any of Michael’s family. besides those cousins are much older than Michaels kids, so if they go w/ the jacksons, they would be 3 white kids together and the blacks would be as strangers. no not good, not good at all. I say give them to that monster debbie, at least she is the mother and white. I believe children of both colors should be raised together but not in this situation. Their ages do not coincide and the3 new ones would be odd man out.

  57. Tosha says:

    She needs to refund that payment that she received to the estate.

  58. Tosha says:

    The children can say where they will like to be raised and I dont think that it will be “Desperate Rowe”.

  59. Kim says:

    Here’s a question I’d like to hear Debbie answer: Would you take the children WITHOUT the money?

  60. Arlene says:

    DEBBIE ROWE IS THE MOTHER, GIVE HER HER CHILDREN BACK, SO THEY CAN GROW UP NORMAL. EVERYONE SAYS ITS ABOUT MONEY, BUT REMEMBER SHE WAS A “SURRAGATE” AND DO YOU THINK THAT SARAH JESSICA PARKERS KIDS ARE ANY DIFFERENT? SHE PAID A SURAGATE TO CARRY HER BABIES. WHY IS DEBBIE ROWE SO DIFFERENT? SHE WAS MARRIED TO MICHAEL, AND IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SHOULD GET THE CHILDREN, GO DEBBIE GO. IGNORE ALL THOSE THAT SAY YOUR IN IT FOR THE MONEY. SJP BOUGHT HER TWINS FOR $150.000.

  61. Deborah says:

    I have not read all the comments on this website but I will say for myself that Debbie Rowe is a golddigger. If,god forbid she should get these children I wonder how quickly she will be willing to sell them off to the highest bidder as she sold them to Michael? she makes me ill.Anyone who can blow through all the money she made and claim to be broke,is not responsible enough to raise these precious children. She blew all her money on animals and should she get anymore she will do the same.Raising dogs and horses is not the same as raising children. If she really loved these kids she would not even begin to think of seperating them at such a vulnerable time. They belong together with Michaels family who loves them dearly and is obvious they love them back. This crap with Joe Jackson getting his hands on them to make them the next Jackson sensation is bullhockey. There is no way the family would ever consider that,besides they do not live together,he lives in Vegas and Katherine lives in California and I believe they will be very safe with her.I hope if this goes down to a Judge decision,he will think of the good of the children. There are alot of biological mothers who are alive and not raising their kids for one reason or another.Has it even been established without a doubt that she is bio mom?I haven’t heard or seen definite proof.

  62. anke goehring says:

    These kids are not poor,they are under good care and each owes already more than 100 million dollars