TMZ: Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother of Jackson’s two oldest kids

Don’t lie – we’ve all been thinking it. The few pictures I’ve seen of Prince Michael, 12 and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, 11, they don’t look anything like either Michael Jackson or Debbie Rowe. So is it really so shocking to learn that Debbie Rowe was just the surrogate womb, but not the egg? Well, it’s a little shocking. TMZ is reporting just that – Michael Jackson paid Debbie to carry Prince and Paris, but they are not technically her biological children. TMZ does not know if Michael chose the egg and sperm donors, or if he just… I don’t know, went to an egg and sperm bank and played matchmaker? This will most likely change any custodial claim Debbie might have had to the two older kids, but it’s looking like Jackson’s mother Katherine has the best shot at custody anyway:

We’ve learned Michael Jackson was not the biological father of any of his children. And Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother of the two kids she bore for Michael. All three children were conceived in vitro — outside the womb.

Multiple sources deeply connected to the births tell us Michael was not the sperm donor for any of his kids. Debbie’s eggs were not used. She was merely the surrogate, and paid well for her services in the births of Michael Jr. and Paris.

In the case of Prince Michael II (the youngest), we’re told the surrogate was never told of the identity of the “receiving parent” — Michael Jackson. Three days after Prince was born at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego County, Jackson’s lawyer came to the hospital to pick the baby up and deliver him to Michael.

We do not know if Jackson chose the sperm or egg donors or if he even knew who they were.

Although Rowe is not the biological mother, it’s not a slam dunk that she would lose a custody battle. This type of case has never been litigated in California courts. Since Rowe was married to Jackson when Michael Jr. and Paris were born, there’s a presumption that she’s the biological parent. That presumption can be rebutted by other evidence.

We know there are documents outlining the whole arrangement for the birth of all three kids. Nonetheless, it’s still an open issue with the courts.

[From TMZ]

What hasn’t even come up is who provided the sperm, egg and womb for Prince Michael II, age 7. Not that I really need to know, but I have a feeling the surrogate will be coming forward at some point.

So, does this piece of information really change anything in the long run? Do you think Katherine and Joe Jackson were going to ever give up custody of those kids? The answer is “no” – and they will probably spend millions of Michael’s dollars to ensure they remain not only guardians of Michael’s kids, but his estate.

Michael Jackson and his masked kids are shown on 4/26/09. Credit: Fame Pictures. Paris and Prince areshown with their nanny, Grace Rwarmba, in 2005. Credit: Bauergriffinonline.

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

31 Responses to “TMZ: Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother of Jackson’s two oldest kids”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. happymom says:

    I have said this the whole time. There is no way that this woman is biologically related to these kids. She would never have relinquished ALL custody if she was actually their biological mother.

  2. Lem says:

    those are Michael’s kids. Full Stop

    surrogates are incredibly generous even if they are well paid. It is still a wonderful thing to do.

    this crap does not need to be hashed out through the media it only serves to hurt the children and keep the gossip flowing.

    When Michael was alive I would have been more than happy to gossip over his eccentricities but I don’t really care who donated what to make the children. They are Jackson heirs. As long as they are not left alone with Joe. They have every right to grow up as Jackson heirs. They were born into it no matter how they were conceived.

  3. Praise St. Angie! says:

    man, I can’t say it enough.

    I feel SO bad for those kids and what they’re going to go through over the next few years.

  4. Wow says:

    I wish the lawyer would hurry up and give the court MJ’s will already so all of this nonsense can cease and this family, including his kids, can get on with their life and the mourning process.

    Seriously, file the will with the court already. What in the world is taking so long? Does anyone know the legal matters with this will thing? Does it really take this long to file a deceased person’s will with the court? Even for someone who had an estate?

    The longer this takes, the more it seems as if his will could be tampered with or something because there are so many vultures panting for MJ’s money it seems.

  5. dark says:

    This is crazy, all this gossips going around and around. Just leave the family alone. Now what tabloids gonna say? That the children are not from this planet and they were brougth in a spaceship?!!! OMG!!

  6. gg says:

    BULL POOP! Paris looks exactly like Debbie Rowe. Look at the other photos and you’ll see it. It’s in the mouth and the pronounced chin and teeth, and I see the same mouth and chin in Prince. Debbie has a very unusual mouth and chin.

    Anybody else disturbed about MJ bleaching his little boy’s hair for so many years at such a young age? It’s like he was trying to make him look like Macaulay Culkin.

    edit: That said, Roma’s correct (below) – doesn’t matter whether MJ was the bio dad or not, but I’m guessing we haven’t seen the last of Debbie Rowe and her DNA.

  7. Roma says:

    Thank you, Lem. I am adopted and have been getting into some heated debates over this issue.

    It does not matter if he wasn’t the biological parent, he was their father and he raised them. That is all. If my parents were to die it’s not like my biological parents could step in to claim custody.

  8. BlueSkies says:

    US mag is reporting that Dr. Klein the dermatologist is the dad. Hard to tell with the pics ET has posted.

  9. Zoe says:

    I’ve been a longtime fan and have seen Debbie Rowe on interviews (see my blog, google ‘PopSpiracy’ to read transcripts of a few) and photographs. Debbie Rowe is absolutely the mother of those first two, Paris looks just like her. Same profile and everything. Nice try, though.

  10. Orangejulius says:

    I hate the idea of Joe Jackson being anywhere near those kids.

  11. nnn says:

    This is better than THRILLER !!!

    Now the biological mum or/and dad could manifest himself and battle for the custody.

    I feel bad for those kids. They will be dragged in a nasty business concerning their core history, theier conception. They need to be take care by a psychologist and the truth about their history should come out now to give them a chance to grow healthier.

    I believe they should be raised by the nanny alone. Joe and Catherine are both 80 years old. Enough already. Those kids need stability with another younger family. As for their father’s personal business, it should be managed by a professional team chosen by the Court.

  12. OXA says:

    My local news is sayin that MJ was not the father and never adopted the kids so this throws a new curve to what is happening.

  13. nnn says:

    I don’t think it matters if Michael was the bio or not but i beleive any child should know the truth about their conception and should never be lied to.

    Just like for Anna Nicole’s Smith daughter, it’s in the interest of anyone to know the truth about one’s origin, one’s heritage.

  14. mel says:

    wow i feel bad for those kids and i hope the media wont torture them as they did their father.

  15. Alecto says:

    Am I the only one that finds this whole mess extremely creepy??? After he was accused twice of being a pedophile nobody was sending their children to him. No judge was going to let him adopt a child. So he created children??? Only rich people could get away with that. And what money?? I thought MJ was $400,00,000 in debt. And further more if there is a will I’m sure MJ specified who was to get his children after his death.

    Edit: Ok I read the other article about his money.

  16. nnn says:

    Wow, it’s becoming creeper and creeper.

    TMZ is now reporting that Michael Jackson never adopted his three children, even though he’s not the biological father. . Legal experts tell Jackson would be presumed the father but it’s not conclusive by any means if a third party claim the custody of those children.

    And if true, the Jacksons siblings could even invalidate the will on the pretense that those children are not legally Michael’s if he didn’t adopt them legally.

    What a mess !

  17. aleach says:

    Those poor kids.
    If Joe gets his hands on them be on the look out for the new hitmakers…the Jackson 3! Sad.
    The kids dont even know Debbie Rowe whether she is their bio mother or not. They should be with who they feel most comfortable with, which Im assuming would be the Nanny Grace. I just feel so bad for them, theyre going to be pulled in every direction.

  18. Ceenitall says:

    I don’t remember, were MJ and Debbie married when she had the kids? If so then any children born of that union would be presumed to be of both parents and he would not have to legally adopt them. If they we not married at the time and he was listed as the father on the birth cretificate then he would not have to adopt them legally. Just like any unwed couple who have children, the father is listed at birth and he does not have to go to court to adopt the child.

  19. nnn says:

    If Michael didn’t adopt those kids legally, then anyone of his siblings has enough to invalidate the right of those children to inherit.

    Also, in a strictly legal point of view, if not adopted, they could be given to Catherine on short period of time and could be adopted by anyone afterwards.

    If not adopted, they are legally orphans or abandonned since their birth and i beleive if it wasn’t done properly, the biological mum, whoever she is could exploit any breach and claim for custody.

  20. nnn says:

    I don’t remember, were MJ and Debbie married when she had the kids? If so then any children born of that union would be presumed to be of both parents and he would not have to legally adopt them.
    Not true !

    If Debbie was a surogate mum, even after marrying Michael, a legal procedure should have been done towards the bio mum to secure the adoption afterwards.

    And there is the problem of the third child. TMZ is saying that the surogate mum is unknown and doesn’t know to whom her baby was given, as Michael’s lawyer picked him three days after his birth and gave it to Michael. Again, in that case, a legal agreement should have been done between Michael and the surogate mum, and then a legal procedure undergone.

    I beleive, something is fishy and any breach on the procedure could be exploited by the bio parents.

    In any case, if those kids haven’t been legally adopted, then all hell will break loose for the heritage of Michael Jackson

  21. lrm says:

    One source I read,said the youngest’s surrogate had him at grossmont hospital in san diego [where i currently live,so it stood out],and that his attorney came to the hosptial to p/u the baby,but the mother didn’t know who the baby was going to…’high profile client’ is all…
    i’m sure ppl will be scouring the birth records at grossmont for that time period.

  22. fizXgirl314 says:

    this is really sad… do the kids need to see this? it breaks my heart… they’re his kids… no matter who donated the dna… my heart goes out to those poor children… they’re in for a roller coaster ride of epic proportions 🙁

  23. Dirty Martini says:

    Lets see, so much to say.

    First and foremost, these are the children of Michael Jackson regardless of whose egg, sperm, DNA was contributed. While I could get snarky as the day is long about his motivations and fit for fatherhood, he is–nonetheless–the father of these children in the only way that matters.

    Having said that: this is a freak show in the making, much like the last half of the man’s life. I have no doubt that it will come out to be true. It makes sense that its true in that NOTHING about Michael Jackson makes sense, and why should this?

    And this shows the really crazy side of artificial reproductive technologies. When we start making babies in test tubes, incubating them, and then basically buying and selling them…….to people who have no business being parents……god help us.

    And most of all, God help these dear sweet babies who dont deserve this insanity.

  24. JustV says:

    The whole issue of the birth/purchase of these children is very disturbing. It is always scary to recognize the vast, seemingly unlimited power of the rich!

    I don’t think that it could be argued that MJ didn’t love his children, but it is also obvious that he should not have been the custodial parent to them.

    And I have to second gg’s comment that it is very creepy that MJ has been bleaching/dying at least one of the children’s hair for so long. It just another piece being piled onto the crap heap of a life that MJ created with unstable living environment, constantly moving, his drug use/addictions, etc. In all of this, when and how did these kids receive a formal education? If MJ couldn’t maintain housekeeping services, was he really paying tutors to educate his children? Just a thought.

  25. princess pee says:

    If the surrogate mother of ‘Blanket’ is unknown, how do we know what she did or did not know about the person getting her child? This is bull.

    One good thing, though: this will really open up people eyes about the law and lines of parentage. I bet most of us don’t know much about it, but we will soon enough. And it will certainly have people talking about IVF and other fertility treatments (though I’m not sure that’s a good thing, some people are dinks).

  26. DD says:

    I always thought the whole fertility treatment thing was about having your own biological baby. So why on earth would you choose to have a baby where there is no biological mother or father involved? It’s almost like birthing an orphan. I don’t get the incentive here.

  27. Rosanna says:

    Happymom, I understand you hold that opinion, but… what about women who decide to give up the baby to adoption? According to what you say, it shouldn’t be possible while in fact it does happen, and fairly often!

  28. gg says:

    To which I hasten to add:

    Maybe the Court system will start to make limits on this flagrant misuse of made to order conception. What with Octopussy and MJ’s shenanegans – it’s a sad, sad situation when people “make” children, just to put them in a questionable life situations.

  29. Ursula says:

    Funny but I think those kids look like Debbie, the little girl especially.

  30. Rojer says:

    I don’t think Debbie Rowe even knows what a surrogate mother is exactly. I wonder if Brooke Shields is the biological mother of Paris. Paris kind of looks like Brooke Shields now. Brooke Shields emotional speech at Michael Jackson’s funeral making me suspicious she might me the biological mother. Father I am unsure of but it is possible the children appear completely white probably due to Michael Jackson’s pigmentation disease was already full blown way before the children are born. The third child I think he is definately his as I do see some of Michael Jackson’s features but I am also noticing some features look like they are coming from Lisa Marie Pressely.

  31. paranel says:

    Biological parent. real parent, fake parent. What is with all these rubbish words? Whoever raised you, loved you, nourtured and took care of you is your parent. Stop making it sound like sperm or egg donation equals being a parnet.