Debbie Rowe wants "her" two kids with MJ

[CapeMayMommy]

If Debbie Rowe is the biological parent, and has been of good moral character, it would be pretty compelling to give the children to her.

Parental rights are pretty strong.

Michael Jackson's mother is almost 80. Can an 85 year old woman handle teenagers?

It would be even more interesting if Debbie Rowe could prove that she IS a biological parent---and the Jackson clan has no biological ties to the children

 

[luvmy3]

I have to wonder if Debbie was unable to fight for them due to MJ has the$$$$$ to fight. Also MJ mom is 80 years old . What is really best for the children??

Thats what i was thinking, Mama Jackson could die any day now. I'm sorry I know thats harsh but its definitely something to consider when figuring who should have custody. I have no idea what went on between MJ and Rowe but I have my own feelings that the marriage was a complete sham so that MJ could father his own children and then pay her off to go away, and use his money to keep her away id she ever changed her mind. No matter what happens these poor kids are going to have one screwed up life.

 

[Kim&Chris]

Thats what i was thinking, Mama Jackson could die any day now. I'm sorry I know thats harsh but its definitely something to consider when figuring who should have custody. I have no idea what went on between MJ and Rowe but I have my own feelings that the marriage was a complete sham so that MJ could father his own children and then pay her off to go away, and use his money to keep her away id she ever changed her mind. No matter what happens these poor kids are going to have one screwed up life.

I agree completely. Those poor kids - they didn't ask for one bit of this insanity.

Personally, I hope DR does get the kids. It's 99% sure that the Jackson clan has no biological ties to them, and based on their history of raising children, it would be a horrible shame to see these poor kids be The Jackson 3 with Joe Jackson at the helm.

 

[MineMail]

The court always rules for what is in the best interests of the children. They probably won't split up the children. Debbie knows this. She will "gracefully" in the end give up her two kids, to live with Blanket, (after Katherine Jackson forks over a ton of cash.)

I wonder if she filed just so she could say she tried. She's being ripped apart in the press for not having an active role in their lives. She countered that rescheduling missed visits was impossible with MJ.

So, she's files her suit, loses, and goes back into the woodwork with a clear conscience. If it's true that she acted as a surrogate, then that explains her detachment from the children. She never allowed them to call her Mom. She missed scheduled visits and was absent from their lives. I think it would be different if she really was the biological mother instead of a rent-a-womb.

But, it may actually be a good thing that Debbie Rowe has stepped forward if she can somehow push that Joe Jackson only be allowed limited visitation rights, even if the kids end up with Katherine. Separated is NOT the same as divorced. He's probably trying to move back in as we type, to get a hold of those kids.

Totally agree with this. The only part of the story I liked was the restraining order. About time someone thought about the man other than his swanning around looking for attention.

She would have to prove that she is, in fact, the biological mother and probably come up with a pretty good reason as to why she terminated her parental rights (if, in fact, she did.)

The parental rights question is a good point, but she does NOT have to prove that she's the biological mother. She gave birth to the older children and is listed on the birth certificate as their mother. The DNA doesn't matter at this point because California law allows the "intended" parents to be listed on the birth certificate for surrogate births.

Not sure what will happen with the youngest since the surrogate didn't know that Jackson was the intended father. I guess someone could put two and two together, but they only have until August 4th to prove that they were the birth mother/DNA donor.

I doubt the court (or public opinion) will allow the kids to be split up.

Michael Jackson should have had legal advisors who had every aspect of his death planned out - children, assets, debts, etc. Obviously, he did not.

Not sure what you mean - the will was simple and clear. It listed the Michael Jackson Family Trust, which now needs to be set up, as the estate asset holder. It gave executor authority to two (or three?) trusted advisors. He deliberately wrote out Deb Rowe because she already cashed in after the divorce.

The only thing that's flaky is the guardianship: A 79-year old woman separated from a man who used to beat him or Diana Ross! Bizarre, yes, but perhaps he felt that none of his siblings could protect the kids from Joe Jackson?

 

[sbell111]

If Debbie Rowe is the biological parent, and has been of good moral character, it would be pretty compelling to give the children to her.

Parental rights are pretty strong. ...

I agree. However, she signed away her rights to those children. She has no legal parental rights to them. Had she not signed away her rights, they would have never been placed with MJ's mother.

 

[happygirl]

I agree. However, she signed away her rights to those children. She has no legal parental rights to them. Had she not signed away her rights, they would have never been placed with MJ's mother.

According to the article she really didn't sign away her rights. It was some sort of mistake

Rowe, who was married to Jackson in 1996 and filed for divorce three years later, surrendered her parental rights. An appeals court later found that was done in error, and Rowe and Jackson entered an out-of-court settlement in 2006.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I agree completely. Those poor kids - they didn't ask for one bit of this insanity.

Personally, I hope DR does get the kids. It's 99% sure that the Jackson clan has no biological ties to them, and based on their history of raising children, it would be a horrible shame to see these poor kids be The Jackson 3 with Joe Jackson at the helm.

I don't know what the answer is. I wouldn't want Joe Jackson anywhere near my kids either, but on the other hand DR herself has said she is not motherly and would not make a good mother and she didn't seem to care before now about the kids. It bothers me that MJ didn't do enough to protect his kids. His will is from six years ago, I understand he loves and trusts his mother, but she is 80 years old, did he know no one else, younger and relatively stable that could be guardian? One of his brothers? His sister Rebbie? Anyone?

 

[Kim&Chris]

I don't know what the answer is. I wouldn't want Joe Jackson anywhere near my kids either, but on the other hand DR herself has said she is not motherly and would not make a good mother and she didn't seem to care before now about the kids. It bothers me that MJ didn't do enough to protect his kids. His will is from six years ago, I understand he loves and trusts his mother, but she is 80 years old, did he know no one else, younger and relatively stable that could be guardian? One of his brothers? His sister Rebbie? Anyone?

Like so many other people, he probably thought he had more time, so he put the will on the back burner.

If DR herself isn't "motherly", it doesn't really matter. She's going to get enough cash to hire plenty of people who are motherly. Ideally, she'll hire the kids' original nanny, but who knows.

So now Katherine and Joe are NOT divorced? So let's say Katherine does get the kids (hopefully not), and passes away before Joe....does that mean HE has the kids?

 

[MineMail]

An MSNBC legal expert said that (in California) your will can only suggest the guardian(s) for your children. The court has to decide if your choice is the best one and they can easily overturn that suggestion and assign an alternate (and willing) guardian.

I know someone said this already, but Deb Rowe's parental rights were returned to her by the courts in 2004. Not that she's ever used them for more than occasional visits.

Katherine and Joe are separated. She lives at the family compound in CA, he lives in Nevada I believe. (To be closer to Sin City, lol.)

I don't think a seven-year old will is out of date. There's no expiration on it, although (speaking from experience) if your lawyer dies/closes his/her office, get a new lawyer and will. It's just easier at probate time.

Seven years ago, his mother was in her early 70's, not terribly younger than she is now. While I think it's a mistake, perhaps he really didn't have anyone else to rely on. The children know Katherine more than Debbie, I think. Janet's devoted to her career. I thought he was estranged from some of his siblings. Maybe he asked and they all said no. As long as Joe Jackson stays out of the situation, the kids will probably be fine.

 

[Imzadi]

I wonder if she filed just so she could say she tried. She's being ripped apart in the press for not having an active role in their lives. She countered that rescheduling missed visits was impossible with MJ.

So, she's files her suit, loses, and goes back into the woodwork with a clear conscience. If it's true that she acted as a surrogate, then that explains her detachment from the children. She never allowed them to call her Mom. She missed scheduled visits and was absent from their lives. I think it would be different if she really was the biological mother instead of a rent-a-womb.

I was also thinking that possibility too. The media has been vilifying her. If she doesn't step forward, she's a cold, heartless mother. Then the fact that they've been saying she's not the bio mother. I think even if she does not want the kids really, she'd like the kids to know they weren't totally engineered like Blanket, but do have a mother they can name.

According to the article she really didn't sign away her rights. It was some sort of mistake

Rowe, who was married to Jackson in 1996 and filed for divorce three years later, surrendered her parental rights. An appeals court later found that was done in error, and Rowe and Jackson entered an out-of-court settlement in 2006.

I would think in the out-of-court settlement they made her terminate her rights then. They just gave her "visitation rights" as publicity.

So now Katherine and Joe are NOT divorced? So let's say Katherine does get the kids (hopefully not), and passes away before Joe....does that mean HE has the kids?

Ack! Don't add that into the mix! Plus, I think that is a separate issue, if/when that time comes. Once she is established as the guardian, then SHE can then request who the kids next guardian becomes. i don't think joe Jackson automatically becomes guardian by marriage. I would think it's like when a mom dies, but the man she married (who is the step dad) doesn't automatically have the rights to the kids if he didn't legally adopt them. The kids' maternal grandparents can step forward and say they want the kids.

I'm sure there is more to turning over the guardianship to Katherine than has been publicly announced. Maybe a stipulation is that Joe never have time or custody with them, if Katherine does take on guardianship. I really don't think MJ would leave something that important to chance.

Also, according to legal experts, MJ & his advisors were brilliant in creating a TRUST, instead of letting the will go thru PUBLIC probate. The Trust was purposely created in order to keep details private. Perhaps there's a stipuation that Joe gets a monthly "allowance" as long as he leaves the kids alone. If he starts interacting with them in any unhealthy way, like trying to get in or take over their lives, his "allowance" is cut off.

 

[NotUrsula]

You know, I think a lot of people are blasting Debbie Rowe for being a bad person because she didn't fight to get custody when they divorced or try to get wider visitation. I really don't think that's fair -- it takes enormous fortitude to agree to bow out of your children's lives if you are a woman, because people will crucify you for it. People will always villify a woman who admits to not being cut out for day-to-day motherhood, even when it is the better part of wisdom for her to do that.

She may well have thought that given the situation at the time, leaving them with their father and staying out of his way was the best thing for them, but now the situation has changed, and even if she doesn't feel up to being a full-time Mom, it stands to reason that she could be concerned about their welfare and want to be sure that they are properly taken care of, even if she isn't the one to do it. Entering a custody claim gives her a seat at that table.

It might be about the money, or it might not. I think that we have to trust the judge to figure that out.

 

[laurie31]

Also, according to legal experts, MJ & his advisors were brilliant in creating a TRUST, instead of letting the will go thru PUBLIC probate. The Trust was purposely created in order to keep details private. Perhaps there's a stipuation that Joe gets a monthly "allowance" as long as he leaves the kids alone. If he starts interacting with them in any unhealthy way, like trying to get in or take over their lives, his "allowance" is cut off.

There's something to hope for!

All this talk has me thinking about our own will. We had it done when we were expecting, so we could name the guardian we wanted. I guess it's different here, but our lawyer said our choice could not be contested unless someone were able to prove to the court that our choice was unfit. The talk about keeping the children in their current lifestyle is something we considered. Not that we have anything REMOTELY close to a lavish lifestyle, but we took into consideration that if our kids went through the trauma of losing both of us, that they should be able to stay in their same school, not have to move huindreds of miles away from their friends, keep the same piano teacher, sports, church, etc. so we named someone unexpected to our families- an Aunt and Uncle who live here, rather than either of our siblings, who live far away. They adore the girls, are young enough to care for them through maturity, and share our values. However, none of our siblings know that this is in our will (hopefully we won't die in the next 8 years and they never will) but I presume if the unthinkable happens, they will all be shocked. But of course, no one will be debating the pros and cons on CNN - lol.

Interestingly, like MJ, we do not have the guardians in control of the money. Having a 3rd party in control of the trust helps prevent inappropriate use of funds. Of course we trust the guardians we've chosen not to do that, but this way (according to our lawyer), there can be no questions about the money being administered correctly. Even my own parents had their will set up this way 40 years ago, and they were even further from being wealthy that we are, so it's not just something for rich people to do.

 

[MineMail]

So let's say Katherine does get the kids (hopefully not), and passes away before Joe....does that mean HE has the kids?

Let's all pray that Katherine enjoys many years of good health and leave it at that, lol.

 

[sunnyday123]

I do not know for a fact but do you think maybe she was bullied and forced out of their lives?He DID have a lot of power.I do remember about 2 yrs ago she went to court and tried to get visits and he had tons of lawyers go after her then it just went away.I could be wrong.
If she is their mom she does have a shot I think.I just do not think the Jackson family would be the best place for them...he did state many times that his father abused him and that is why he had so many issues...is that what is best for sweet little kids?I think ALL of them see $$$$ .The father gives me the MAJOR creeps...he was advertising his buisness the day after his son died!
I hope that the kids end up with someone that will love them, but even though she gave them up I still think they should know their mom and one day they WILL seek her out anyway.

I agree. We don't know the whole story as to why she wasn't in their lives. Honestly, anywhere besides the Jackson family would be the best thing for those kids. Katherine Jackson let Joe Jackson abuse those kids, she's just as guilty for the way MJ turned out.

 

[MineMail]

People will always villify a woman who admits to not being cut out for day-to-day motherhood, even when it is the better part of wisdom for her to do that.

I'm not villifying her; I think that's exactly the situation - she bore those children, but didn't want to be in the role of "mother." The custody filing (which had to be done by this coming Monday) was more to say "I tried."

We had it done when we were expecting, so we could name the guardian we wanted. I guess it's different here, but our lawyer said our choice could not be contested unless someone were able to prove to the court that our choice was unfit.

Same here. When I moved out of state, I had the lawyer that handled my new house closing look over the will and he said it was okay since both states' laws were similar. Apparently, California's different.

Interestingly, like MJ, we do not have the guardians in control of the money. Having a 3rd party in control of the trust helps prevent inappropriate use of funds.

Our lawyer actually advised it to provide "checks and balances." In our first will, we named one of our family members as our estate executor. He was a professional with his own business, didn't really have experience with kids, it seemed like a good choice.

Unexpectedly, someone else died naming him as their executor. He was TERRIBLE. Paperwork was filed late/last minute, incomplete, and while he did spend a lot of time handling the estate, you could tell that paperwork/legal just isn't "his thing." It took five years to close the estate!

When we redid our will a few years ago, we changed executors to someone else who will be less overwhelmed by the paperwork. Kept the same guardians, though.

The hardest part was telling everyone about the changes/lack thereof. We used our upcoming relocation as a face-saving excuse because the original executor would be living far away. I think he was relieved, to tell the truth.

 

[Aisling]

I agree completely. Those poor kids - they didn't ask for one bit of this insanity.

Personally, I hope DR does get the kids. It's 99% sure that the Jackson clan has no biological ties to them, and based on their history of raising children, it would be a horrible shame to see these poor kids be The Jackson 3 with Joe Jackson at the helm.

As long as Joe Jackson has no part of it, maybe it would be a good thing if the kids stayed within the Jackson family. They have lots of aunts, uncles and cousins who are Jacksons. I know the other Jackson brothers are married with (older) children and I've never heard anything bad/wacky about any of them.

As for Debbie Rowe, all of a sudden she's concerned for the kids? She knew how nuts MJ was when she married him and "gave him her womb as a gift". Why did she do it knowing the VERY weird life they'd be living? She's already proved to me that she's an unfit mother just by "giving" MJ children.

And as for Diana Ross, WTH? It looks like MJ never got over his crush on her. I can't imagine Diana Ross wanting to take on the responsibility of raising young children who aren't related to her at her age. From what I've read, she hasn't been in MJs life for a long time.

 

[RadioNate]

I agree. However, she signed away her rights to those children. She has no legal parental rights to them. Had she not signed away her rights, they would have never been placed with MJ's mother.

Debbie Rowe has full legal rights to the children. She never signed away her rights. I believe it was a 'fine print' thing (added by Jackson's lawyers no doubt) in the divorce settlement. The CA courts overturned that and reinstated her rights many years ago.

We don't know what Debbie Rowe did or didn't do in regards to her children. Like a PP said, Jackson wasn't exactly a poster child for good mental health. He had very very powerful people in his corner and certainly had the means to mount a monster custody battle. He could have bankrupted her easily.

If we are going to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt, doesn't Debbie Rowe get at least a bit of it?

I'm not sure what is best for the kids. I'm leaning towards Katherine IF Joe stays away (he won't) and she is healthy. It is what Michael wanted.

But I'm not ready to completely rule out Debbie Rowe. She IS their mother and if she is willing to step up she may be the lesser of two evils.

 

[wall*e2008]

I have to wonder if Debbie was unable to fight for them due to MJ has the$$$$$ to fight. Also MJ mom is 80 years old . What is really best for the children??

I am sure MJ's $$$ beat her down. In a divorce the spouse who has the largest income or their own money wins. The other person cannot fight them in court.

I would rather see her get all three kids than the Jackson family to get them.

From what I see Katherine is a nice women but she IS NOT divorced from the child beater Joe and as such should not get custody of the kids.

 

[Mickeyistheman]

An MSNBC legal expert said that (in California) your will can only suggest the guardian(s) for your children. The court has to decide if your choice is the best one and they can easily overturn that suggestion and assign an alternate (and willing) guardian.

I know someone said this already, but Deb Rowe's parental rights were returned to her by the courts in 2004. Not that she's ever used them for more than occasional visits.

Katherine and Joe are separated. She lives at the family compound in CA, he lives in Nevada I believe. (To be closer to Sin City, lol.)

I don't think a seven-year old will is out of date. There's no expiration on it, although (speaking from experience) if your lawyer dies/closes his/her office, get a new lawyer and will. It's just easier at probate time.

Seven years ago, his mother was in her early 70's, not terribly younger than she is now. While I think it's a mistake, perhaps he really didn't have anyone else to rely on. The children know Katherine more than Debbie, I think. Janet's devoted to her career. I thought he was estranged from some of his siblings. Maybe he asked and they all said no. As long as Joe Jackson stays out of the situation, the kids will probably be fine.

I agree with pretty much everything you have stated and I just wanted to ad, what about what Michael wanted for his children? Those are his wishes so that he knows they will be taken care of, also Debbie is the one that wanted a divorce not Michael. She also said in an interview that she didn't really want contact with the children she wanted to have them for Michael. That to me is odd, scheduling conflict or not I would try my best to be in contact with my children.

I wonder also if the Judge will ask the eldest Prince, he is 12 years old and even Paris (11) what they would prefer. I wonder if they even get to say anything. You really feel for the kids, I bought US Weekly and they show several pictures of the kids with MJ and they look really happy.

 

[underdesea]

From what I see Katherine is a nice women but she IS NOT divorced from the child beater Joe and as such should not get custody of the kids.

Did anyone see Joe's interview on the red carpet at the BET awards? At one point, he was rambling on about a supposed 60th anniversary party he and Katherine had (unless I misunderstood him, which is certainly possible) and how a lot of the Jackson children were there blah blah blah.

I thought from his talk at the time that he and Katherine were still married, which obviously isn't the case. I wonder if he was trying to establish some kind of basis for weaseling his way back into the Jackson clan -- or at least create the appearance of being a bigger part of Katherine's life than he really is...