All her life, Natallie Evans knew she wanted to be a mum. So when cancer treatment threatened that dream, she and her fiancé had IVF and froze six embryos. But then they split - and her ex wanted her potential babies destroyed - killing Natallie's hopes of motherhood too...

When Natallie Evans cradled the newborn baby girl in her arms and watched her take her very first breaths, it was the most bitter-sweet of moments.

This newborn was her niece - and she was the first person to hold her. It gave her a heartbreaking insight into an incredible event she would never experience herself.

However much she longed to be a mother, being her sister's birthing partner was the closest Natallie, 37, will come to having her own baby. Because just 10 weeks earlier she finally lost a five-year fight to become a mum, using the six embryos she'd created with her ex-fiancé Howard.

In April 2007, the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruled all six frozen embryos should be allowed to perish. Natallie, from Bath, had exhausted all legal options and she had no choice but to give up and accept she would never have a baby of her own.

"When my solicitor told me it was all over and my babies were going to be destroyed, I was hysterical," she says. "I screamed, shouted, moaned and wailed. I knew what it felt like to be broken. I just wanted to curl up and die.

Natalie Evans had IVF and froze six embryos but her ex wanted them destroyed

"If I'd been pregnant and my ex had demanded I get an abortion, no judge in the world would have taken his side. I couldn't see how this was different."

This was the end of a journey that had started back in August 2002. A routine investigative procedure to determine why Natallie wasn't getting pregnant naturally revealed she had the first stage of ovarian cancer. She needed to have her ovaries removed, which would leave her infertile.

"The doctor said we needed to act quickly if we wanted to have children together," she explains.

"We'd already been trying for a baby for over a year, and Howard said that we shouldn't let anything stand in our way of becoming a family."

So the couple started IVF treatment, then, using Howard's sperm, created six embryos that were frozen for later use.

Throughout this difficult time, Natallie says her partner couldn't have been more supportive. "We'd cuddle on the sofa and talk about our 'babies'. Howard said if we had a girl he'd like to call her Paris, because that was where he'd proposed to me the previous year. We liked Jack for a boy."

It was picturing herself as a mother that helped Natallie cope with the surgery she had to endure at the end of that year. Fortunately, she didn't need any further treatment.

"I needed to wait two years to give my body time to recover before we could try to conceive. I was just so relieved to get the all-clear and felt as though we could start living a normal life again," she says.

But just a few weeks later, the couple's relationship began to falter, which Natallie put down to stress. In March 2002, Howard said he was going on a boys-only holiday. That was the beginning of the end. They had a huge row, Howard went on his trip, but soon after he came home, the couple split.

Natalie Evans had IVF and froze six embryos but her ex wanted them destroyed
Natallie with her ex, Howard

"Howard said he didn't love me any more," Natallie says quietly. "I threw my dignity aside and begged him not to go. He insisted there wasn't anyone else involved, but I couldn't understand what I'd done to make him leave."

The next day, Howard left. Natallie saw him briefly three weeks later, when he collected his possessions, and hasn't spoken to him since. "I'll never know why he went," she says.

Soon afterwards, in 2002, Natallie received a letter from the fertility clinic. It stated that her ex had withdrawn his consent for the embryos to be used. In other words, their six potential babies were to be destroyed. And with it, her dreams of having children.

"As I read the letter, my mothering instinct kicked in. I was going to fight for them," she says.

She found a solicitor and started her legal challenge against her former fiancé's demands. "I didn't see how anyone would deny me the right to motherhood, using one of my own embryos, created with my former partner," she says.

But they did. And for the next five years Natallie faced one legal defeat after another. As she struggled to cope with each setback, depression set in and she often felt suicidal. "Every time one of my friends got pregnant, I felt sick with jealousy," she admits.

Then, when her sister Natasha, 34, became pregnant, Natallie struggled with a deep sense of injustice and rage. She vowed to deal with it, somehow. And she did - when she saw Natasha cradling son Pharrell, her heart ached, but she soothed herself with the notion that one day soon, she would hopefully also experience motherhood.

Then, in October 2006, her sister became pregnant again and, as she'd split from the baby's father, asked Natallie to be her birthing partner. "This time I wasn't jealous," she says. "I got an insight into the world I was fighting to experience."

But her dream was about to end. In April 2007, she sat distraught in her solicitor's office as he got a call breaking the news that the European court had ruled against her. The clinic would be ordered to destroy all six embryos.

All she'd been fighting for was lost and for a split second she considered ending her own life too. But one thing stopped her - her pregnant sister. "If I did kill myself, I'd be abandoning my sister when she needed me the most. But at first just getting out of bed in the morning felt like an achievement.

"The idea of my babies being taken out of storage and left out to die haunted me. I wondered whether I would sense them dying and that was torture," she says.

A month after the ruling, Natallie woke up with a deep sense of loss. "All day I was so churned up. I felt certain that was the end for my babies," she recalls. And two days later, a letter arrived confirming it.

"My babies had gone. There's been a piece of me missing ever since," she says.

Natallie's grief was overwhelming, but six weeks later, her sister went into labour. As she sat at Natasha's bedside, her sadness subsided a little. "Seeing Macey May being born had a profound effect on me. I bonded with her so completely in the first moments of her life," she explains.

"I cleaned her and dressed her while the doctors tended to my sister. As I did it, I promised I'd always be there for her - that whatever problems she encountered in life, she could come to me for help and support. I felt a tiny part of me start to heal as I tended to my little niece."

Natalie Evans had IVF and froze six embryos but her ex wanted them destroyed
Natallie says Macey May is her reason to carry on

Macey May is now two and Natallie sees her most days. "If we're out, people mistake me for her mum sometimes. I'm quick to put them right, even though it cuts me to the core because I'll never be called 'Mummy'."

In memory of the six babies she lost, Natallie has had six stars tattooed on her right forearm - one for each embryo.

"I needed to do something to mark them," she says. "Otherwise I might stop believing they ever existed at all."

For now, Natallie is single. She's had one relationship, but that ended after a few months. Although she knows she could adopt, she says she won't. "I couldn't bear to go through another period of waiting for other people to decide if I could be a mum. If I got my hopes up, and they were dashed again, I might never get over it," she says.

She says she doesn't hate her ex-fiancé, but does harbour resentment. "I'm sure he will become a father one day, and I pity him, because I know that before he dies he will feel deep regret over what he denied me."

She still has a strong maternal instinct and lavishes attention on her niece - but she's aware she could be seen as overly protective and tries not to smother her with love. Sometimes Natallie laughingly suggests to her sister that she be allowed to raise Macey. "I know it can never happen, but if I'm really honest I'm hoping that if I ask her enough times, one day she'll say yes. Then finally my one and only wish will come true, and someone will call me Mummy."

But for now she has a close bond with the little girl who it seems has saved her life.

"Macey May can't ever replace the children I've lost," Natallie says. "But she is my flesh and blood and I love her with all my heart. She's my reason to carry on." Natasha says: "Natallie's my dearest friend. I feel so sad that she's been denied the wonderful experience of being a mum, but I don't feel guilty that I've been able to have my children. If I hadn't, she wouldn't have the experience of being their auntie, which is a constant source of joy for her."

PHOTOGRAPHY: SYRIOL JONES, HAIR & MAKE-UP: KELLIE

y Simon Ward, 05/07/2009
PORKY Kerry Katona tries to shed the pounds on a bike ride - then recycles her bad old habits with a crafty cigarette break.

At first Kerry, 28, demonstrated real wheel-power on a long mountain bike ride with hubby Mark Croft in Warrington, Cheshire. A source said: "Kerry saw photos of herself looking humungous and is determined to lose that weight."

We showed last month how the mum-of-four had swelled from the svelte size 8 she achieved with £15,000-worth of liposuction to a 12-stone size 16. On a Spanish holiday she was eating 3,704 calories in one lunchtime sitting.

"She ballooned back to her old size," our source added. "And now she can't look in the mirror, she finds it traumatising.

"Mark pledged to help her and these rides are the first step of her new regime - she can't give up fags though, it's a problem.

"But Kerry is going to curb her eating and start living healthily again."

AddThis
Send to a friend

Your comments

This article has 37 comments

I just figured out why Iceland are still using this awful woman as their spokesperson. They are introducing a new range of products. Instead of Fish fingers and Cod steaks they are going to use whale meat instead.

By Lorna Wanstall. Posted July 7 2009 at 9:45 AM.

i think the mitchelin man would like kerry, there both the same size, and have about the same amount of rings.

By karl. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:59 PM.

Well honestly this girl doesn't see a problem with her husband the two of them are well able for one another, im not a huge kerry fan but if she's happy well then thats all that matters, imagine living your life under camera's were every inch of your life was being scrutinized, i dont know how she does it to be honest with you cause i'd really hate it so the moral of all this is Fame and Money doesn't Bring you Happiness

By Gemma. Posted July 6 2009 at 11:25 AM.

leave he alone she doing no harm and as for her putting on a few pounds so what? Only thing she needs to do i kick her ponce of a boyfriend into touch.

By tom birchall. Posted July 5 2009 at 10:08 PM.

forget giving this hippo media space, no talent, no brain, nothing......... nothing but chav....... un-believable!!

By fifi. Posted July 5 2009 at 7:58 PM.

15k for lipo - what was the point?

By Tamsin. Posted July 5 2009 at 7:10 PM.

PLZ LEAVE POOR KERRY ALONE,HER HUSBAND IS THE BLAME FOR THE STATE THE POOR GIRL IS IN TODAY! AL SHE NEEDS IS SUPPORT AND LOVING FROM THE ONES WHO MEAN THE MOST 2 HER..
GOOD LUCK KEZZZ.
KATIE IN EAST BELFAST! XXXX

By KATHY. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:25 PM.

i think kerry is lovely and bad mouth people should stay out of her life because she has no time for people like you so sort your own lives out instead of interfearing in other peoples lives you saddos

By mandy. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:21 PM.

End of the day no ones pefect and its allright 4 the public to bring kerry down but we dont know what goes off behind closed door in peoples homes in england cause i can be 100% sure thre are a lot worst. end of the day shes a mum who tries her best and her kids are loved and thats all that matters. past the past u cant turn back the clock your a longtie in the grave yard

By sam. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:15 PM.

I used to feel quite sorry for her, but have now realised that she actually brings it all on upon herself. I am tired of reading about her car crash life!! She is a disgrace to all good mothers!!

By LC. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:11 PM.

I think the way this person carrys on is a total discrace. Why put those poor children through all this. At first i felt sorry for her but not anymore and what annoys me even more is the fact that the two older girls father has not stepped in must be busy with delta if they were my kids i would have put a stop to it a long time ago...
Cop on kerry before its to late you will only have ur self to blame.......................................................................

By anne. Posted July 5 2009 at 4:20 PM.

I cannot believe Iceland think she represents a normal modern day Mum!! (That was from the Iceland itself)!!

By So Sick of Kerry. Posted July 5 2009 at 4:04 PM.

Once again I find myself highly annoyed and frustrated that this ugly, talentless pig is deemed to be news-worthy. For God's sake why do we ever have to hear about so-called celebs who are purely sub-human and completely pointless individuals. Kerry katona epitomises all that is wrong in this country and I hate her for it. I couldn't give a toss if she wins the Tour de France let alone rides her bike round the streets. With any luck she'll take a wrong turn down a one way street and get flattened by an Iceland truck. That WOULD be worth printing.

By Jeremy Over. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:49 PM.

please stop giving this idiot publicity,im soooooo sick of hearing about her! what exactly is she famous for now,eating free food she gets from iceland thats all,end of!!!!!

By sheila. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:38 PM.

there is nothing wrong with carrying a bit of weight, especially after 4 kids but what upsets everyone is her p*ss poor attitude. she is loud, a poor mother to her kids and that loser she is married to drags her down and sponges of her. you can be a bit bigger and look great in clothes and losing weight has done nothing for fern britton except age her badly.

By mand. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:50 AM.

It beggars belief that people think this woman deserves to have her children taken from her. Since when did being a bit of a grotbag become a reason to remove children? Are the children neglected? Are they starved? Beaten perhaps? No, but this woman gets the same hate directed at her that a child abuser would.
Those of you who bother to gather the facts before casting aspersions will know that Kerry took a drugs test which was published in a magazine for the world to see - negative for all substances. But still she gets no peace.
She's a chav and she's certainly undeserving of any media attention whatsoever but she also doesn't deserve the hatred and muck spreading she has fallen victim too. Pack mentality of the british public rears it's ugly head once more.

By KK. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:12 PM.

she is vile and to those who have said she is good looking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! are u mad or blind, she is a minger and i get so angry she is still in the press

By ella. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:11 PM.

Cheers NOTW, I just threw up my breakfast!

By RedLee58. Posted July 5 2009 at 12:08 PM.

Whats always surprised me is the fact she still has her children. Where are social services?

By Jonathan. Posted July 5 2009 at 12:37 PM.

'Atomic Kitten' my axxe....more like 'Mammoth Fat Cat' !!!

By John Lynch. Posted July 5 2009 at 9:52 AM.

This is what happens when you gorge on drink and drunks...... this girl is a mess and should stay at home looking after her poor kids for once.....i feel so sorry for them and can just imagine the damage she is doing to them... why social services has not yet stepped in I,ll never know. She and her kind are definatly what is wrong witht this country today!!

By june may . Posted July 5 2009 at 10:33 AM.

Why is this person newsworthy?? She is a former has-been and is a very poor representative of this country.

By Mich. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:09 AM.

'Looks common'?? She IS common! Haha @ 'face of primark' remark, hilarious. :)

By jade fandango. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:10 AM.

leave her alone she happy moment. she very pretty girl she happy her family and her kids. leave her alone

By tracy . Posted July 5 2009 at 10:40 AM.

She looks so common with that fag in her mouth. Stop smoking Kerry you are going to get loads lines round your mouth. I gave up 4 years ago using Bioresonace therapy but wish I had done it years ago before the lines took hold!!- Bioresonance therapy was fantastic. I had no cravings or withdrawal symptoms and used a company called Stop Smoking in UK

By carol. Posted July 5 2009 at 9:56 AM.

She should be the new face of Primark.

By Jimmy B. Posted July 5 2009 at 9:27 AM.

The queen of chavs is a talentless mess! This thing shows what is wrong with Britain today, if this is what girls look up to in this country! Just take a look at the chav and chavettes posing here! RIP ous once proud nation!

By Glenn. Posted July 5 2009 at 9:11 AM.

she is a good looking girl!!!!! leave her alone....no ones perfect

By stacey. Posted July 5 2009 at 8:45 AM.

GLANDS?!!!!! You mean CHIPS!

By the Cat's Mother. Posted July 5 2009 at 8:32 AM.

describing this person as a celebrity tells us a lot about the world we live in

By hugh glenn. Posted July 5 2009 at 8:10 AM.

why are her children never with her? i have 2 kids, and they are ALWAYS by my side.

By grow_up_kerry. Posted July 5 2009 at 8:08 AM.

Some people can't help getting a bit overweight, it's in the glands. Leave her alone, she's always nice to others.

By Marlene. Posted July 5 2009 at 7:08 AM.

So she has put on a bit of weight - but she's still a very good looking girl.

By Paul. Posted July 5 2009 at 7:04 AM.

Vile trailer trash.She needs to get rid of that disgusting leech of a husband and concentrate on being a proper mother. Its those 4 children I feel sorry for!

By Joanne. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:28 AM.

I will be hoping to sing with kerry on the xfactor live shows come the autum. Leave her alone you rotten lot she has more talent then any of you. Adam Marks.

By Adam Marks. Posted July 5 2009 at 12:29 AM.

Can someone remind me what she's famous for, except being trailer trash!

By Kelly. Posted July 4 2009 at 11:42 PM.

She is disgusting.

I can't believe how much she lets herself go!

By Alex. Posted July 4 2009 at 11:17 PM.
Post your comment here

T'S my birthday and I'll drink if I want too...

Cheryl Cole turned 26 this week and definitely enjoyed the celebrations!

And for many stars a birthday bash - their own or someone else's - is a faaaabulous excuse to go on a bender.

Here we reveal the babes who take the celebrations to the extreme. From boob-flashing and underwear exposing to bleary eyes and swearing, these lasses love a party.

We've ranked these stars 1 to 10 with the biggest caners nearer the top. But what do you reckon? Let us know below.

Kate Moss

1. Kate Moss

Kate Moss is a machine when it comes to partying.

Here she is leaving Topshop boss Phillip Green's 59th birthday bash. The birthday boy is almost a pensioner but has Kate let her celebrations be toned down? Has she hell.

We snapped her leaving the bash at Annabel's Club, Mayfair at 2am. Looking slightly worse for the wear.

Paris Hilton

2. Paris Hilton

Well when you're an heiress I guess you can put pretty much anything on your birthday present list.

In Paris Hilton's case she wanted to be a Pussycat Doll. As you do.

So she treated herself (and her guests) to a Doll's performance by herself on her big day. We snapped her in the middle of her sexy burlesque dance in a law enforcement costume.

Jordan

3. Jordan

Jordan has refined the art of partying - with hardcore birthdays like this one.

Here's the glamour girl - real name Katie Price - celebrating her 25th with a Pimps and Prostitutes themed night at Embassy Club, London.

Sheer class.

Jodie Marsh

4. Jodie Marsh

And speaking of class - here's another good time girl.

Jodie Marsh wore possibly even less clothes than Jordan on her 25th birthday when celebrating her 30th.

The leopard print/fishnet/cup-less bra look was the chosen ensemble for her bash in Essex.

Delightful.

Nicola Roberts

5. Nicola Roberts

Ahh you know what it's like when one of your mate's younger siblings is celebrating a birthday, it's up to you to keep an eye, be responsible, set a good example...

Or you can show 'em how it's done like Girls Aloud's Nicola Roberts.

Here's the red-head at bandmate Kimberly Walsh's sister's 21st birthday - looking like she's having a ball.

Dani Lloyd

6. Dani Lloyd

Serial WAG Dani Lloyd is also a serial partier.

Here she is looking, er, slightly worse for the wear after Joanne Beckham's 25th birthday at the Silver Club, London.

Mind you the fella behind her looks as though he thinks his birthday has come early...

Lily Allen

7. Lily Allen

Me thinks someone didn't get the pressie she wanted!

Here's Lily Allen arriving at Groucho Club, Soho, to celebrate her 23rd birthday.

Give us a Smile hey Lily?

Davina Taylor

8. Davinia Taylor

Oooo dear. And she'd been being so good recently!

Here's Davinia Taylor attending pal Kate Moss's 35th birthday and suffering a bit of a boob!

Mind you, she looks like she's had a good night so what's a little flash between friends...

Naomi Campbell

9. Naomi Campbell

A model partygoer if ever we saw one!

Here's Naomi Campbell leaving the Dolce & Gabbana party in Cannes, France.

Apparently security removed over $1,500,00 of borrowed jewellery as she left - well she doesn't look like she would have remembered where she left it come morning does she?

Kimberley Walsh

10. Kimberley Walsh

She's pretty in pink and been enjoying her drink!

Girls Aloud babe Kimberley Walsh looks like she had a good night celebrating bandmate Cheryl Cole's birthday at Vanilla, London.

Cheers dear!

By Dan Wootton & Tom Latchem in the Maldives, 17/05/2009
TODAY the News of the World uncovers the shocking truth behind glamour queen Jordan's split from long-suffering husband Peter Andre.

The marriage of Britain's most famous fantasy girl pin-up has been virtually SEXLESS for two years.

SEE SHOCKING CCTV IMAGES OF JORDAN SNOGGING BEN

Last night in an emotional confession to pals, 36-year-old singer Peter said: "I've been saying for a long time it was a case of 'when' not 'if' we divorced. The relationship's been going under since 2007 but I was terrified of missing the kids."

Jordan, real name Katie Price, also admitted the first sign of them heading for the rocks came when their sex life went quiet.

See how Jordan and Peter Andre's body language has changed over the years

She told a friend: "We'd lost that passion in bed. I know it goes after a while for everyone but for us it had been so good, so important, so hot."

A pal of Peter told us: "Things haven't been right in the bedroom for almost two years. To put it bluntly, Jordan stopped fancying him. It caused big problems because she has a huge sex drive."

FIVE-STAR HIDEAWAY: Jordan and blonde pal staying put yesterday on the deck of their luxuary villa on Rangali island
FIVE-STAR HIDEAWAY: Jordan and blonde pal staying put yesterday on the deck of their luxuary villa on Rangali island

As well as a sex drought the 3½-year marriage was doomed by demanding Jordan:

* PUTTING Peter down every chance she got.
* BELITTLING him by putting her mum Amy in charge of the house and children in her absence.
* MOCKING his singing talents.
* ACCUSING him of having a secret Cypriot lover.
* LASHING out at him in a row over moving to America.

In an extraordinary week, Jordan was SNAPPED drunkenly flirting with her handsome dressage coach Andrew Gould and flashing her boobs for the camera. That was the final straw for Peter who DECLARED he was dumping her. Jordan then FLEW off to the Maldives with their two children leaving her husband with stepson Harvey. Crushed Peter then JETTED out to Cyprus to be consoled by his family.

As topless Jordan, 30, soaked up the sunshine with a blonde pal at a £2,000-a-night luxury villa on Rangali island she has been briefing friends at home on her trauma.

With three-year-old son Junior and 21-month-old daughter Princess Tiaami inside in the cool, she sobbed: "Pete has broken every promise he ever made to me. I'll never forgive him for what he's done.

MILES APART: Topless Jordan soaks up sun in the Maldives as sad Peter seeks comfort in Cyprus
MILES APART: Topless Jordan soaks up sun in the Maldives as sad Peter seeks comfort in Cyprus

"I'm in complete hell, this is a living nightmare for me. I could never imagine life without Pete but now I'm having to contemplate it because I don't know how I could go back."

But despite her fury, Jordan admitted how SHE had started to drive a wedge between the couple. "Don't get me wrong I'm f***ing angry at Pete," she insisted. "He's acted like a c***. But I know I've caused some of this by not being the best wife in the world, not being the woman he deserved sometimes.

"I always thought I treated him well but maybe I did take him for granted and could be cruel sometimes. But I never thought he had it in him to do this.

"I mean, look at what I've done for the man! When we met on I'm A Celebrity his career was over and he had hardly any money.

"It was me who turned that around for him. I've given him back the showbiz lifestyle he really wanted and he's made so much money because of me."

When we met on I'm A Celebrity, his career was over. I turned that around. He's broken every promise. I'll never forgive him

Jordan is also WRONGLY convinced Peter has been cheating with a mystery woman in Cyprus.

She told her friend: "Why did he go back to Cyprus so soon? He wouldn't leave Harvey for no reason. I'm sure the slag is there."

But a member of the crew on the couple's ITV2 reality show admitted there was NEVER any proof of a fling.

Last night a friend of Peter-who has TWICE consulted divorce lawyers in the past year-told us: "As far as Pete was concerned the marriage was definitely for love.

"He genuinely wanted Kate as part of his life forever. But when you saw him and her away from the cameras the fault lines were obvious." The pal said lucrative TV and magazine deals became a dominating factor in the relationship.

"Everything Kate does is for the money," added our source. "It's quite shocking to see how basically selfish she is.

"Pete's tried to be more like her but it's just not in his character. He's basically a pretty straight guy. What you see really is what you get.

"He adores his kids-and that absolutely includes Harvey who's not his-and he's incredibly family orientated. He was always wanting to invite people round for parties and stuff but Kate very rarely let him. And in the last couple of years there was no sexual chemistry between them unless the cameras were on.

"Kate never appeared interested in what he was doing and told him to shut up all the time. She was so rude to him. If he asked, "Do I look good?' she'd say 'No!' She was incapable of giving a compliment.

"And Pete was jealous of Kate's ex, the singer Dane Bowers. She still takes this weird interest in everything he does and Pete could never understand why. It badly undermined his sense of self-worth.

I'm in complete hell, this is a nightmare. I'm ****ing angry. He's acted like a ****! I never thought he had it in him to do this

"The same went for footballer Dwight Yorke, Harvey's dad. When Dwight visited to see his son Kate would glam herself up. Pete hated it. In the end he started obsessing about his missing sex life.

"He'd make all the running but she just shot him down. They slept in the same bed but often one of them ended up in the spare room. And they hardly ever even ate together."

Another huge row that led to the split was over Peter's growing desire to move to America.

The friend disclosed: "Pete thinks his music career is over in the UK and wanted the family to split its time between here and Los Angeles where he has been working with big names. Katie refused.

"She even started lashing out at him at one point because she'd hated Hollywood and didn't want to go back. It's all about the drama with Kate. She has this need to cause a fuss. She could start a fight in an empty room. She just seems to crave attention.

"They bickered all the time and once or twice a month a major row erupted. She tells him he can't sing and that he's crap at it.

"He told her many times, 'You make me feel so small. How could you do this to me?' But she simply can't help herself. It's as if she had absolutely no respect for Pete.

"Even when Kate was away he got it in the neck-from her mum Amy, who spends a lot of time at their house. If Pete tried to assert himself as being in charge Amy would stamp on it.

"She dominates everything and Pete would walk out."

We lost that passion in bed. I know it goes after a while for everyone but for us it had been so good, so important, so hot

Peter always felt Jordan never accepted his Greek heritage. The source added: "Katie disliked his need for close family ties. He spends hours on the phone to relatives in Cyrpus and Australia but Kate would make up excuses not to join in.

"When she got emotional Kate even referred to Pete as 'The Greek'-not in a racist way but to belittle him.

"Although Kate was very possessive and controlling she had incredible double standards.

"She'd regularly take off for hours on end leaving Pete at home worrying about why she wouldn't answer her phone.

"But she'd get really uptight if he stayed out late, even if he called to ask permission.

"What's so baffling is that Kate seems to have it all yet is utterly miserable.

"Let's face it, she doesn't know what a day's struggle is yet she's tortured by an inability to enjoy what she has. It's very sad."

Additional reporting: DAN EVANS, JANE ATKINSON & DOUGLAS WIGHT

RAPPED and terrified, a family huddle together on a high-rise balcony while a building burns all around them.

With incredible bravery, Rasheed Nuhu and his wife do their best to comfort their two small children in their arms - using towels to shield them from the heat and smoke.

They were only about 30 feet from the seat of the blaze in Camberwell, south London, which killed six people on Friday. The family huddled together while two fireman on a lift ladder sprayed the balcony with water in an attempt to prevent the flames spreading.

Fire video shows Nuhu family trapped on balcony in Camberwell, south London

"I thought this was the end," Mr Nohu later told Channel 4 News. "I looked to my left and saw this massive fireball. I just thought we are in a precarious situation and we have to plan a getaway."

The footage was taken by Anthony Reece, who was heading off to shoot a music video when he saw the smoke pouring from the building and took a detour.

Mr Reece, 25, of nearby Dulwich, said: "I was totally shocked by what I saw.

"It's the worst thing I've ever filmed, but I just thought I'd better let it roll.

"I saw one man [Rasheed Nuhu] try climbing over a balcony with a rope and he was going to jump. I was watching too stunned to film it, but fortunately people were shouting at him not to and he climbed back in."

Jospeh Paco was among those calling out to the man. Joseph, 36, said: "We were all shouting at him, telling him not to do it as it was too dangerous.

"He had tied the blankets together and went to lower himself down to safety. But I kept shouting at him, 'Be patient, help is coming'."

Other shocking scenes on the video show a man going in and out of a smoke-filled flat on the top floor, as he struggles to breathe through a handkerchief. The far side of the building is a mass of flames, so he appears to be unable to escape.

The man survived by wrapping a towel around his head and walking to safety.

The speed at which the fire has swept through the building is all too obvious, with smoke and flames engulfing the whole structure with terrifying speed.

In the streets below there is pandemonium. A car lies on its side, upturned by emergency services in order for them to reach the scene.
Dead

Mr Nuhu said that as the fire took hold, his family gave refuge to two of the fire victims - Helen Udoaka, 34, and her three-week-old baby daughter, Michelle.

When his flat filled with smoke they moved to the flat of his next door neighbour Dayana Francisquini, who was protecting her two children in the bathroom.

Mrs Francisquini and her three-year old son Filipe later died in the blaze. It is thought her six-year-old daughter Thais is also dead, but police haven't made a formal identification.

Survivors and bereaved families will now be demanding urgent answers. Why was the fire able to spread through the building so quickly, leaving so many trapped while emergency services battled to reach them?

Two helplines have been set up for anyone needing information about the fire, a police number 0300 123 1212 and local authority number 0207 525 5000.

Michael Jackson's daughter Paris outshone the stars at his memorial last night as tears and tributes flowed to the King of Pop.

The 11-year-old, comforted by the Jackson family, sobbed as she made her public debut in front of 17,000 fans in Los Angeles - with an estimated billion more tuning in worldwide.

Standing in front on her father's gold-plated coffin, she said: "Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine and I just wanted to say I love him so much."

Paris was given the microphone after taking part in the final tribute song on stage alongside her two brothers Prince Michael Jackson II (also known as Blanket) and Prince Michael Jackson I.

A host of the world's biggest stars took part in the glittering memorial ceremony - but it was the children who made the greatest impression on the night.

[Shaheen Jafargholi]

12-year-old Welsh schoolboy Shaheen Jafargholi won a standing ovation from the packed stadium.

Shaheen, a former Britain's Got Talent contestant, delighted the crowd with his performance of the Jackson Five hit Who's Lovin You?

Afterwards, he said: "I love Michael Jackson. I just want to thank him for blessing me and everyone on this earth with his amazing music."

Choreographer Kenny Ortega praised the youngster and revealed that the King of Pop had personally requested his appearance in his London concerts after watching the child on Britain's Got Talent.

Former South African president Nelson Mandela and singer Diana Ross had led tributes to Jackson at Los Angeles' Staples Centre.

Praising Jackson for triumphing over tragedy in his life, Mr Mandela said in a message read out by Smokey Robinson: "Michael was a giant and a legend in the music industry and we mourn with the millions of fans worldwide."

Many in the audience were visibly upset at the sight of the coffin. Fans were seen breaking down in tears as the body was brought in as the Andrae Crouch Choir sang on stage.

The event, billed as the biggest celebrity send-off in history, ran at least 30 minutes longer than scheduled after Mariah Carey opened proceedings with a rendition of the Jackson Five's ballad I'll Be There, alongside Trey Lorenz.

Usher, the RnB singer who identified Jackson as his greatest inspiration, caused a stir among the crowd by becoming the first artist to touch Jackson's coffin.

After breaking down in tears singing Gone Too Soon, he was embraced by Jackson family members as he was led away from the stage.

Berry Gordy, the founder of Motown, earned a roar of approval from the crowd when he said Jackson was "quite simply the greatest entertainer that ever lived".

[Smokey Robinson]

Before the packed Staples Centre joined in several minutes' silence for the star, singer Smokey Robinson read out messages from Diana Ross and Mr Mandela.

A message from Ross said: "Michael wanted me to be there for his children and I will be there if they ever need me - I hope today brings closure for all those who loved him.

"I send my love and condolences to the Jackson family - Diana Ross."

Mr Mandela added: "We also mourn with his friends and his family for the loss of our dear friend (who) we will miss and memories of him cherish for a very long time.

"My wife and I, our family and friends, send you our condolences during this time. Be strong."

Actress Brooke Shields, who first met Jackson when she was 13, broke down in tears throughout the event.

Describing Jackson as "pure", she said: "He was often referred to as the King but the Michael that I knew was always the little prince.

"Michael saw everything with his heart."

She said Jackson's favourite song was Smile.

Referring to the lyrics "smile though your hearts are aching", she said: "Today, though our hearts are aching, we need to look up and we need to smile."

After her emotional speech, Jackson's older brother Jermaine, wearing a white glove, sang Smile to rapturous applause.

After actress Jennifer Hudson, whose own life was hit by tragedy, sang Jackson's hit You're Always In My Heart, the Reverend Al Sharpton suggested Jackson laid the foundations for a black man to become president of the United States.

The civil rights activist said: "It was Michael Jackson that brought blacks, whites and Asians together. Thank you Michael, thank you Michael, thank you Michael."

Family members held a private funeral service earlier at Forest Lawn Cemetery - but the scene of Jackson's eventual resting place has yet to be made public.

Police blocked off roads and warned those without tickets to stay away because they would not be able to get close to the centre, as an invasion of British fans arrived in California.

Roger Federer savoured "an unbelievable moment" in his career after claiming a record 15th grand slam title with victory in an amazing Wimbledon final against Andy Roddick.

Federer saved four set points in the second set and eventually triumphed 5-7 7-6 7-6 3-6 16-14 to win a sixth Wimbledon crown on Centre Court.

Federer celebrates with his trophy

"It was a crazy match, an unbelievable end and my head is still spinning. This could have gone on for a few more hours I think," said Federer. "It's an unbelievable moment in my career."

Pete Sampras, who had shared the record for most grand slam titles with Federer until today, flew in from the United States overnight to watch the match from the Royal Box and Federer added: "Thanks very much for coming, I know it's a long way but you're a member, we like to see you here and it's such a pleasure to play in front of such great legends.

"It's not really one of those goals you set as a little boy but man, it's been quite a career and quite a month.

"It feels amazing but this is not why I'm playing tennis, to break all sorts of different records, but it's definitely one of the greatest ones to have.

"But this doesn't mean we stop playing tennis. I want to keep enjoying tennis for many more years so I hope to come back here and play some good tennis in the future."

And Roddick is shattered after an epic final

Federer's win also sees him regain the world number one spot from the absent Rafael Nadal, who withdrew through injury, and the Swiss added: "I guess it's nice to have but of course I'm aware that Rafa didn't play here.

"Injuries are part of the game but I'm happy I became number one in the world by winning this title because this is the biggest one there is and I love playing here.

"Things didn't look so good when I lost in the finals of the Australian Open (earlier this year) but to come through and win Paris and now Wimbledon back to back it's amazing."

A gallant Roddick paid tribute to Federer and apologised to fellow American Sampras for being unable to prevent him losing his record.

"Roger is a true champion and he deserves everything he gets," said 26-year-old Roddick, who has now lost three Wimbledon finals to Federer. "I tried, sorry Pete, I tried to hold him off.

"It was a pleasure playing here today in front of great champions like Pete, Rod (Laver) and Bjorn (Borg). I still hope one day that my name will be up there with theirs as a winner of this tournament."

A FATHER who survived the Camberwell tower block blaze with his family has told how they owe their lives to the fact they went on to a neighbour's 11th floor balcony.

Rasheed Nuhu, his wife and two children were huddled in a neighbour's bathroom as the fire ripped through the flats.

Rasheed moved with his family out on to a balcony, a decision which saved their lives.

The five neighbours left they in the bathroom eventually died in the inferno.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, he told of his grief and horror at the deaths and his dismay at how long the emergency services took to reach them.

Fire video shows Nuhu family trapped on balcony in Camberwell, south London

He said: "Obviously it's very traumatising, it's extremely traumatising and I'm still trying to come to terms with that.

INFERNO: Fire rips through flats
INFERNO: Fire rips through flats

"It's almost indescribable to me the trauma."

The family had moved into their neighbour, Dayana Cervi's flat to escape the smoke pouring into their own home.

There they gathered in the bathroom with Dayana's two children Thais, six, and Felipe, three, along with fellow neighbour Helen Udoaka, 34, and her daughter Michelle, three weeks, as it had an extractor fan and an access to water and towels.

As that flat as started filling with smoke Rasheed started to look for another way out. He went outside onto the balcony - and his wife and children soon joined him.

The other five could not be persuaded to leave the bathroom - and all perished in the blaze.

Rasheed said he felt let down by emergency services, adding: "I was expecting a helicopter to drop a ladder or a commando rescue."

He also said he was surprised how long it took for help to get to them.

He said: "I was surprised they didn't get to us sooner then they did because of the trust you have in the British emergency services.

"You think they will have enough ladder to get to the 13th floor, and before you know it the ladder was sitting on the roof of the vehicle there and they were not using it.

"I was screaming from the 11th floor 'get the ladder, get the ladder.'"

Tony Guernsey has been in the wealth management business for four decades. But clients have started asking him a question that at first caught him off guard: How do I know I own what you tell me I own?

More from NYTimes.com:

• Madoff Trustee Starts Hardship Program for Victims

• Suit in Madoff Case Says a Manager Was Favored

• After Huge Losses, a Move to Reclaim Executives' Pay

This is the existential crisis rippling through wealth management right now, in the wake of the unraveling of Bernard L. Madoff’s long-running Ponzi scheme. Mr. Guernsey, the head of national wealth management at Wilmington Trust, says he understands why investors are asking the question, but it still unnerves him. “They got their statements from Madoff, and now they get their statement from XYZ Corporation. And they say, ‘How do I know they exist?’ ”

When he is asked this, Mr. Guernsey says he walks clients through the checks and balances that a 106-year-old firm like Wilmington has. Still, this is the ultimate reverberation from the Madoff scandal: trust, the foundation between wealth manager and client, has been called into question, if not destroyed.

“It used to be that if you owned I.B.M., you could pull the certificate out of your sock drawer,” said Dan Rauchle, president of Wells Fargo Alternative Asset Management. “Once we moved away from that, we got into this world of trusting others to know what we owned.”

The process of restoring that trust may take time. But in the meantime, investors may be putting their faith in misguided ways of ensuring trust. Mr. Madoff, after all, was not charged after an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission a year before his firm collapsed. Here are some considerations:

More from Yahoo! Finance:

• What Billionaires Have in Common, Besides Wealth

• What We're Splurging and Skimping On

• The 7 New Rules of Financial Security
Visit the Banking & Budgeting Center

CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER Financial disclosure rules compel money managers to send out statements. The problem is that the statements and trade confirmations arrive so frequently, they fail to help investors understand what they own.

To mitigate this, many wealth management firms have developed their own systems to track and present client assets. HSBC Private Bank has had WealthTrack for nearly five years, while Barclays Wealth is introducing Wealth Management Reporting. But there are many more, including a popular one from Advent Software.

These systems consolidate the values of securities, partnerships and, in some cases, assets like homes and jewelry. HSBC’s program takes into account the different ways firms value assets by finding a common trading date. It also breaks out the impact of currency fluctuation..

These systems have limits, though. “Our reporting is only as good as the data we receive,” said Mary Duke, head of global wealth solutions for the Americas at HSBC Private Bank. “A hedge fund’s value depends on when the hedge fund reports — if it reports a month-end value, but we get it a month late.”

In other words, no consolidation program is foolproof.

But a blind faith in transparency can also be misleading. The concept has become a buzzword. Would more frequent and detailed reporting have helped Mr. Madoff’s investors when the S.E.C. missed the fraud?

“If a complex instrument is completely transparent, you’re still not going to be able to figure it out,” said Aaron Gurwitz, head of global investment strategy at Barclays Wealth.

He noted that a collateralized debt obligation — a type of security linked to the financial collapse — could be called transparent, while a simple structured note that limits an investment’s losses and gains could be utterly opaque because of the way it was created.

A simpler example is municipal bonds, which have been attracting investor interest because they are perceived as secure. While it is easy to get a price on bonds from large entities like New York or California, the same cannot be said for thousands of smaller issuers. The reason is that there is no designated market-maker for municipal bonds. So getting a price often can mean calling around to several sellers.

Here, though, investors’ fears could be assuaged with more information. However hard they are to price, municipal bonds have a default rate under 1 percent.

SIX RULES FOR HEDGE FUNDS Full information is key to investing in hedge funds now. When times were good, no one was bothered by rules that prevented investors from taking their money out when they wanted. But when the market collapsed in the fall, people suddenly balked at these lock-up provisions.

Mr. Rauchle said he believed that a simple six-step plan could benefit investors and keep hedge fund managers from having to submit to excessive government regulation. The first four points are straightforward: each fund larger than $100 million needs to register with the S.E.C. and have an independent custodian who holds the money, an independent administrator who prices the securities and an independent auditor.

But managers may balk at Mr. Rauchle’s last two proposals: he wants hedge funds to reveal how they price securities and to submit to an independent, quarterly analysis of their portfolios. Up until now, hedge funds have prided themselves on secrecy.

“This is about providing information and letting people decide,” Mr. Rauchle said. “I don’t think we should put an S.E.C. official in every hedge fund office. Nor do I think we should allow fund managers to stay behind this veil of secrecy.”

CHECKING UP While trust that your spouse is not keeping secrets from you is a critical to a sound marriage, trust that your wealth manager is not cheating you is a different story.

Kelly Campbell,an adviser in Fairfax, Va., and the author of a book coming out in July, “Fire Your Broker” (Riverfront Press) suggested calling the firm that actually holds your money to check on the manager. Most independent advisers use a separate custodial firm to hold their funds. (Mr. Madoff was his own custodian, which should have been a red flag.)

“It’s doing a little bit of your own homework,” Mr. Campbell said.

That type of checking is not hard. Dean Barber, an adviser in Kansas City and the host of the radio show “The Wealth Management Show,”said that just about every piece of information an adviser could get a client could get, too.

Of course, shadowing your investment adviser could be as unhealthy as fretting over your spouse’s fidelity. Mike Saghy, director of investments at PNC Wealth Management, said that to prevent this concern he steers clients with at least $1 million into separately managed accounts. This way they know what stocks and bonds they actually own — not how many shares in a fund they have.

“People are showing some angst over mutual fund holdings,” he said. “The want to know that they own a muni bond from the state of Pennsylvania and not a portfolio of muni bonds.”

RESTORING TRUST At the end of the day, living life fearing that the people handling your money are deceiving you is not good for you. Insisting on openness is one way to rebuild trust.

“There are no secrets in our industry,” Mr. Barber said. “If somebody tells you, ‘We have a special way of doing things but we don’t divulge how we do it,’ chances are it’s a scam.”

As harsh as this sounds, the alternative is not practical: even hoarding gold bricks in your basement requires a level of trust. “How do I know it’s not a lead bar painted gold?” Mr. Guernsey asked.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rates

See today's average rates across the country.

*
Mortgage
Loan Type Today Last Week
30 Year Fixed 5.33% 5.38%
15 Year Fixed 4.79% 4.85%
1 Year ARM 4.11% 4.05%
30 Year Fixed Jumbo 6.37% 6.50%
5/1 ARM 4.64% 4.79%
3/1 ARM 5.40% 5.43%
Source: Bankrate
*
Home Equity
Loan Type Today Last Week
$30K Home Equity Loan 8.30% 8.37%
$50K Home Equity Loan 8.15% 8.23%
$75K Home Equity Loan 8.13% 8.22%
$30K HELOC 5.01% 5.06%
$50K HELOC 4.73% 4.79%
$75K HELOC 4.74% 4.79%
Source: Bankrate
*
Savings
Savings Type Today Last Week
6 month CD 1.35% 1.38%
1 year CD 1.71% 1.72%
3 year CD 2.23% 2.26%
MMA 1.26% 1.26%
$10K MMA 1.27% 1.28%
$25K MMA 1.49% 1.51%
Source: Bankrate
*
Auto
Loan Type Today Last Week
36 Month New Car Loan 7.08% 7.14%
48 Month New Car Loan 7.24% 7.30%
60 Month New Car Loan 7.33% 7.39%
36 Month Used Car Loan 7.69% 7.77%
48 Month Used Car Loan 7.86% 7.90%
Source: Bankrate
*
Credit Cards
Card Type Today Last Week
Balance Transfer Credit Cards 10.14% 9.98%
Low Interest Credit Cards 10.41% 10.41%
Business Credit Cards 11.41% 11.24%
Cash Back Credit Cards 11.56% 11.20%
Reward Credit Cards 12.10% 12.03%
Instant Approval Credit Cards 12.99% 12.49%
Source: CreditCards.com

View rates in your area
Sponsored by:
Quicken Loans - 30Yr Fixed $200K loan $1115/mo
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Popular Articles

* Wall Street futures point to higher startReuters - Thu, Jul 9 - 6:07am ET
* Aspen Technology Announces Selected Preliminary Financial Results for the Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2009Business Wire - Thu, Jul 9 - 6:00am ET
* ZAGG Opens New Office for AppSpace.com and Mobile App DevelopmentBusiness Wire - Thu, Jul 9 - 6:00am ET
* Marine Exploration, Inc. Attracts Significant Media Attention upon Discovery of 1725 ShipwreckBusiness Wire - Thu, Jul 9 - 6:00am ET

View more popular articles

Los Angeles (E! Online) – Neverland? Nevermind that, for now. But where exactly will Michael Jackson's remains wind up?

Following Tuesday's all-star tribute, Jackson's shiny, flower-adorned casket was wheeled out of Los Angeles' Staples Center.

While the family relocated to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel for a private wake, sources say the coffin was transferred to an ambulance, which was accompanined by a Hummer and destined for...

Well, we're not exactly sure, but we have some ideas.

Although Los Angeles police said there wouldn't be a family motorcade back to Forest Lawn Memorial Park, where the Jacksons held a private funeral service earlier Tuesday, family friend and unofficial spokesman Majestik Magnificent told E! News that Michael's body was returning to the famous burial grounds, and the cemetery had ordered all press to clear out.

Indeed, E! News has obtained a copy of Jackson's death certificate listing Forest Lawn as the mortuary. (Just because Forest Lawn is named, doesn't mean he will be buried there—just that his body had been held there after his death.)

The death certificate, signed by sister La Toya, is dated Tuesday and was filed by a deputy coroner. The cause of death is noted as "deferred." A burial permit was also filed with the Los Angeles Ccounty's Vital Records department, but that document has not been made public.

Because the burial permit was filed in Los Angeles County and not Santa Barbara, the chances of a Neverland burial are dwindling, despite brother Jermaine's stated preference for the sprawling ranch as Michael's final resting spot.

"We have not been contacted by the Jackson family or any of their representatives about a burial or a funeral service at the Neverland Ranch," William Boyer, communications director for Santa Barbara County, tells E! News.

"Because this would be on private property they would actually have to go to the state department of consumer affairs. We would know about it because part of the permitting process is the state goes through a checklist of things they would need to do...local jurisdiction would have to be asked. We have not received any contact from the state."

Dan Redmond, spokesman for the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, concurrred, saying the family would have to get a "certificate of authority" from the bureau and "that has not happened."

Another reason the Jacksons may prefer Forest Lawn: Michael's maternal grandmother, Martha Bridges, is buried there.

—Additional reporting by Whitney English and Lindsay Miller

(Originally published July 7, 2009, 2:28 p.m. PT)

··· THEY SAID WHAT? Get today's most commented stories now at www.eonline.com

MOSCOW — Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev on Monday agreed to cut up to a third of the nuclear warheads in their strategic arsenals, but acknowledged that disagreements linger about a proposed U.S. missile defense shield.

Obama and Medvedev stressed that the proposal marked a turn away from the post-Cold War lows of the past few years.

In addition to the conversation about nuclear weapons, Russia said that it would begin allowing the U.S. to ship arms for Afghanistan through the country. Russia and the U.S. also are resuming military-to-military cooperation, a process suspended after the Russia - Georgia war last summer.

Speaking to reporters during Obama's first trip here as president, both men said that they were determined to put the tensions of recent years behind them.

"It is not a simple job, because the backlog of problems is quite impressive," Medvedev said.

Obama said relations have "suffered from a sense of drift," but he and Medvedev were "committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past."

The recent past includes Russia's invasion of one U.S. ally — Georgia — in August and suspension of gas supplies to another — Ukraine — in January.

The two men, dressed in dark suits and red ties, smiled at each other several times during their news conference in an ornate Kremlin hall, and each nodded frequently in agreement as the other spoke.

The presidents said they'll instruct their negotiators to agree on new limits for strategic, or long-range, warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675 by extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is set to expire in December.

Although the numbers were framed as major news, the figures weren't far from those discussed in recent months. When Obama and Medvedev met in London in April, they said they were aiming for levels below those set by a 2002 treaty that called for 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012. The U.S. is now thought to have about 2,200 deployed strategic warheads and Russia more than 2,700.

The announcement was "a modest step" in the right direction, said Morton Halperin , a former adviser on arms control in the Clinton, Nixon and Johnson administrations. It's "the right way to begin" a new relationship, he said.

For one afternoon in Moscow — a capital used to acrimonious exchange with the U.S. — observers on both sides of the political divide were pleased with the news.

"The new deal is not a breakthrough," said Andrei Kortunov, the president of the New Eurasia Foundation , a Western-leaning research organization in Moscow , "but we have to admit that, at the moment, it is very important to create positively developing relations."

Vyacheslov Igrunov, who heads a government-friendly research organization in Moscow , the Institute of Humanitarian and Political Studies , said the treaty "may be insufficient, but the very fact of making a new deal, a step forward, should not be underestimated."

One cloud over arms control is the split between the U.S. and Russia over a missile defense system the Bush administration proposed in Poland and the Czech Republic .

The U.S. maintains that such a system could counter at most a small number of missiles fired from Iran or North Korea , not a Russian onslaught.

"There is no scenario from our perspective in which this missile defense system would provide any protection against a mighty Russian arsenal," Obama said Monday.

The Kremlin maintains that any anti-missile system close to Russian borders might be expanded to the point that it could counter Russia's nuclear force.

Obama, who's been skeptical about missile defense in the past, said he hoped to convince the Russian leadership otherwise, but added that, "It's going to take some hard work because it requires breaking down long-standing suspicions."

In a joint statement issued later, the two leaders agreed to some modest steps to bridge the gap. They said they would take steps to set up a data exchange center leading to a missile-launch notification system.

In addition, the statement said, experts from each country will conduct a joint review of "the entire spectrum of means at our disposal that allow us to cooperate on monitoring the development of missile programs around the world" — raising the question of whether Russia would be willing to integrate into an American missile defense web.

Gleb Pavlovsky , an analyst in Moscow who's close to the Kremlin, said that the progress with START is encouraging, but Russian leadership remains very cautious about American designs, despite Obama administration rhetoric about building stronger ties.

"This is a sphere of testing the intentions of the United States and their ability to make deals," said Pavlovsky, who has a large picture of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on one wall of his office, and one of Karl Marx on the other. "The question is what is expected of us? Do they want us to adopt the American agenda as our own? Or do they want to reach a mutual agenda?"

For the Americans, there is equal uncertainty, much of it swirling around the question of whether the reformist posture at times taken by Medvedev is authentic. The Russian president has said that he wants to move against corruption in his country, and toward a more open government that cooperates on a wide range of issues with the U.S.

Putin, widely regarded as the most powerful man in Russia , has struck a harder line, lashing out against the West repeatedly during his eight year presidency and in the past year as prime minister.

In an interview with the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta published Monday, Obama said that, "I agree with President Medvedev when he said that 'Freedom is better than the absence of freedom.' So, I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our 'reset.'"

The setting of the interview was symbolic: Novaya Gazeta has carried articles critical of the Russian government and four of its reporters have been murdered.

It remains to be seen, however, whether this will be the start of a new, more stable relationship between Washington and Moscow .

"It's like reading tea leaves or trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing . . . I think the answer is we're not going to know for a long time," said Sarah Mendelson , a senior Russian expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . "I think there are people in and around the Kremlin who want to see a new and different relationship with the U.S. And I'm sure there are people who don't."

Mendelson, who helped organize a summit this week for U.S. and Russian civil society leaders in Moscow , said that even the hint of an opening is worth pursuing.

"We have a unique moment and we'd be silly not to try to take advantage of it," she said.

( McClatchy special correspondent Alla Burakovskaya contributed to this article from Moscow . Grace Chung contributed from Washington .)

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Obama in Moscow : Can tense relationship be 'reset'?

Another foreign challenge for Obama: Georgia - Russia

Flood of Afghan heroin fuels drug plague in Russia

A Ukraine mystery: Who did Russian gas sales benefit?

President Barack Obama, working to drastically reshape U.S. relations with a skeptical Russia, said Tuesday the two countries are not "destined to be antagonists."

"The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game," Obama said, speaking in the Russian capital to graduates of the New Economic School but also hoping to reach the whole nation. "Progress must be shared." (Read the text of the full speech)

Obama used his speech to further define his view of the United States' place in the world and, specifically, to argue that his country shares compelling interests with Russia.

"Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia," he declared.

Obama's upbeat comments came on the second day of his summit in Russia, where polls show people are wary of the United States and taking a skeptical measure of Obama himself. Earlier Tuesday, Obama held private breakfast talks with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at Putin's country home outside Moscow. The atmosphere seemed cordial, and both voiced hope for improved relations between Washington and Moscow.

In his speech, Obama said the interests of Russia and the United States generally coincide in five key areas: halting the spread of nuclear weapons, confronting violent extremists, ensuring economic prosperity, advancing the rights of people and fostering cooperation without jeopardizing sovereignty.

But he also sprinkled in challenges to Russia on its own soil, particularly in the area of democracy. U.S. officials are wary of Russia's increasingly hard-line stand on dissent.

"By no means is America perfect," Obama said. But he also said: "Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course. ... If our democracy did not advance those rights, I as a person of African ancestry wouldn't be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a president."

Obama said the U.S. will not try to impose any kind of government on another country. But he argued for democratic values "because they are moral, and also because they work."

On Georgia and Ukraine - two nations that have sought NATO membership to the chagrin of neighboring Russia - Obama tried a diplomatic touch. He defended the steps nations must take to join the alliance, adding, "NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation."

The U.S. and Russia have plenty of significant differences, but Obama suggested one of the biggest problems is fixable: deeply rooted and harmful assumptions from another era.

"There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another," Obama said. He dismissed that as inaccurate.

Obama said a genuine resetting of relations between the countries must go beyond the governments and include a partnership between peoples.

On the economy, Obama prodded nations to follow the rule of law.

"People everywhere should have the right to do business or get an education without paying a bribe," he said. "That is not an American idea or a Russian idea; that's how people and countries will succeed in the 21st century."

Obama's meeting with Putin lasted two hours - about 30 minutes longer than planned. They met a day after Obama held talks with President Dmitry Medvedev and they agreed that the two countries would seek by year's end to cut their nuclear stockpiles by up to a third. Obama told Putin he thought he had had "excellent discussions" on Monday with Medvedev.

But Obama also said he recognizes that "we may not agree on everything."

Medvedev, Putin's hand-picked successor, is the one getting the bulk of Obama's attention and negotiation time. All sides know Putin still holds much power, too, but Obama sought Monday to cast his meetings with both men as simply reaching out to the whole government.

The Putin session started the second day of Obama's Moscow mission. The goal: Engage the Russian people and persuade them that their interests coincide with those of Americans.

The challenge is more daunting in this country, where Obama is viewed with much greater skepticism than elsewhere and where the Russian people are wary of U.S. power.

Obama hoped to change minds with a speech that White House aides had billed in advance as a pillar of his foreign policy - on the same level with his call for a nuclear-free world while in Prague, or his outreach to the Muslim world in a speech in Cairo.

The matter of democracy is closely watched because the U.S. has watched warily as Russia's control on dissent and the press has only stiffened in recent years. The country is considered one of the most dangerous places for investigative journalists to work.

Obama was also meeting Tuesday with former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev; meeting again with Medvedev at the Kremlin; join Medvedev in taking part in a summit of U.S. and Russian business leaders; and meeting a diverse collection of civil society leaders from both countries - health experts, environmentalists, reporters, human rights advocates - who will be holding their own summit to re-engage bilateral cooperation.

In the late afternoon, Obama was to meet with Russian opposition leaders.

(AP) President Barack Obama, meeting Tuesday with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for the first time, called their talks "an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a strong footing."

Putin told his guest: "With you, we link our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries."

Putin warmly greeted Obama for talks on a clear, sunny morning in Nova Ogaryovo, a Moscow suburb where the prime minister's white and yellow traditional Russian-style mansion is situated along the Moscow River amid a forest of pine, birch and linden.

The body language was positive for both Obama and Putin, who had traded sharp barbs in the days preceding the U.S. president's flight to Moscow.

As the two appeared for a picture-taking session before commencing their private talks, Obama told Putin he "appreciated you taking the time to meet with me." For his part, Putin noted that U.S.-Russian relations have been marked by periods of chill, as well as times of relative warmth. And he said he was "glad to have the opportunity to get acquainted" with Obama, who is making his first trip to Russia.

The meeting, which lasted two hours — about 30 minutes longer than planned — came a day after Obama held talks with President Dmitry Medvedev and they agreed that the two countries would seek by year's end to cut their nuclear stockpiles by up to a third. Obama told Putin he thought he had had "excellent discussions" on Monday with Medvedev.

But Obama also said he recognizes that "we may not agree on everything."

The two leaders appeared together in an ornate room of Putin's country home, sitting in chairs placed in front of a highly colored traditional Russian ceramic stove that at one time would heated the room.

At the end of their brief meeting before reporters, Putin took Obama to a nearby window and pointed out a large outdoor balcony where they were to sit for their meetings over breakfast. The session took place on a clear day, in marked contrast to the cool, rain weather that Moscow saw for several days previously.

Putin's remarks seemed particularly cordial given his tart response last week to a comment that Obama made about him in an interview with The Associated Press. Obama said last Thursday that Putin still had one foot in the old, Cold War of doing things, and the prime minister retorted that he thought that observation to be quite a stretch.

Putin was accompanied at Tuesday's meeting by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. National security adviser Jim Jones, Russian affairs adviser Michael McFaul and Undersecretary of State William Burns were among those who accompanied Obama.

As one-on-one meetings go, Tuesday's session had a sense of diplomatic drama. It was a chance for Obama and Putin to take a measure of each other, offering a little definition to a relationship that thus far had been shaped by reputation and comments to the media.

Medvedev, Putin's hand-picked successor, is the one getting the bulk of Obama's attention and negotiation time. All sides know Putin still holds much power, too, but Obama sought Monday to cast his meetings with both men as simply reaching out to the whole government.

The Putin session started the second day of Obama's Moscow mission. The goal: Engage the Russian people and persuade them that their interests coincide with those of Americans.

The challenge is more daunting in this country, where Obama is viewed with much greater skepticism than in other parts of Europe and where the Russian people are wary of U.S. power.

Obama hoped to change minds with a speech that White House aides billed as a pillar of his foreign policy — on the same level of his call for a nuclear-free world while in Prague, or his outreach to the Muslim world in a speech in Cairo. The speech will be to graduates of the New Economic School, considered to be a center of liberal thinking.

Obama is expected to define major U.S. interests and put each of them — like democracy, energy, confronting terrorism and rogue nuclear threats — in the context of Russia.

The matter of democracy is closely watched because the U.S. has watched warily as Russia's control on dissent and the press has only stiffened in recent years. The country is considered one of the most dangerous places for investigative journalists to work.

"It's an issue that he's not afraid to come and talk very deliberately about why he cares about it," McFaul said of Obama's democracy theme. He said that in his speech, Obama will raise the matter "very, very precisely, first thing."

Obama on Tuesday also planned to meet with former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev; meet again with Medvedev at the Kremlin; join Medvedev in taking part in a summit of U.S. and Russian business leaders; and meet a diverse collection of civil society leaders from both countries — health experts, environmentalist, reporters, human rights advocates — who will be holding their own summit to re-engage bilateral cooperation.

In the late afternoon, Obama was to meet with Russian opposition leaders.

Hundreds of Han Chinese armed with clubs marched through the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi, knocking over food stalls run by Muslims.

Police used loudspeakers Tuesday to appeal to the marchers to stop, but about 300 of them were marching down a street about four blocks from People's Square, the starting point of Sunday's riot that left 156 dead.

The crowd waved their wooden sticks, lead pipes, shovels and hoes in the air as they marched. As they headed down a back street toward a mosque, several loud explosions rang out followed by rising white puffs of smoke - possibly tear gas that anti-riot squads have used in previous days.

Earlier, women in flowered headscarves scuffled with armed police Tuesday in a fresh protest in the western Chinese region of Xinjiang, where at least 156 people have been killed and more than 1,400 arrested in the area's worst ethnic violence in decades.

About 200 Uighurs blocked a street, some screaming that their husbands and children had been arrested in the massive crackdown on members of the Muslim minority by Chinese authorities since the violence started Sunday in the Xinjiang capital.

The incident played out in front of reporters who were being taken by authorities around the city to see the charred aftermath of the riots. Riot police were at one end of the street, and paramilitary police at the other.

One woman said her husband was taken away and she would rather die than live without him.

As they marched down the street, paramilitary police with sticks marched toward them and pushed the crowd back. A woman fell. The brief scuffle ended when the police retreated. More police with assault rifles and tear gas guns took up positions on the other side of the crowd.

The women stayed in the street, pumping their fists in the air and wailing. Meanwhile, police tried to weed the men out of the crowd, herding them down a side street. Two boys ran out of an alley, and a policeman barked "Go home" and grabbed one around the neck, pushing him.

The 90-minute protest ended when the women walked back into a market area without resistance. Police also tried to shepherd the journalists away.

The new protest came after state media said Tuesday that police had arrested 1,434 suspects for their roles in Sunday's riot.

"China's violent crackdown in Xinjiang is based, in part, on China's allegation that the some of the Uighurs are associated with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which was designated by both the U.N. and the U.S. as an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk, from Beijing. "That is why there was so much sensitivity about what to do with the 17 Uighur detainees who had been held in Guantanamo."

Falk reports that the region has been on the radar of the U.S. and the U.N. for more than a decade, "because of the mix of terrorist organizations stoking violence, on the one hand, and the religious freedom issues of the Chinese Muslim community, on the other."

"And although there has been violence in the past in the far western region of China, the scope of the fighting is larger and unexpected at a time when President Hu Jintao is out of the country, promoting the strength of the Chinese economy," Falk added.

The violence does not bode well for China's efforts to calm long-simmering ethnic tensions between the minority Uighur people, largely Muslim, and the ethnic Han Chinese in Xinjiang - a sprawling region three times the size of Texas that shares borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries.

Many Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gers) haven't been wooed by China's rapid economic development, which has attracted large numbers of Han - China's ethnic majority - into Xinjiang. Some want independence, while others feel they're being marginalized in their homeland.

There were no independent figures on the ethnic breakdown of the casualties in the rioting. Xinhua quoted Li Yi, head of the publicity department of the Communist Party in Xinjiang, as saying Tuesday that 129 men and 27 women died. Li said 1,080 people were hurt in the rioting.

The unrest in Urumqi began Sunday after 1,000 to 3,000 protesters gathered at the People's Square and protested the June 25 deaths of Uighur factory workers killed in a riot in southern China. Xinhua said two died; other sources put the figure higher.

Internet and social networking reports on the incident had raised tensions in Xinjiang over the last two weeks. Mobile phone service and the social networking site Twitter have now been blocked, and Internet links were cut or slowed down.

A nonviolent protest by 200 people Monday was broken up in a second city, Kashgar, and the official Xinhua News Agency said police had evidence that demonstrators were trying to organize more unrest in Kashgar, Yili and Aksu. It said police had raided several groups plotting unrest in Dawan township in Urumqi, as well as at a former race course that is home to a transient population.

The government often says the Uighurs should be grateful for the roads, railways, schools, hospitals and oil fields it has been building in Xinjiang, a region known for scorching deserts and snowy mountain ranges.

But Uighurs have said the government limits their religious freedom. After a series of deadly attacks in the region during the Beijing Olympics last year, overseas Uighur rights groups accused the government of mass arrests, which police deny. Several local governments also cracked down during the Muslim month of Ramadan, ordering government employees, teachers and students not to fast and increasing surveillance of mosques.

Similar tensions exist in Tibet, where a violent protest last year left many Tibetan communities living under clamped-down security ever since.

Uighurs frequently compare their persecution to that imposed on Tibet, but say their cause is not as well known because they lack a Dalai Lama to publicize their cause.

But one spokeswoman, the exiled Xinjiang Muslim Rebiya Kadeer, called a news conference in Washington on Monday to refute accusations by the Chinese government that she orchestrated the riots.

Kadeer, now president of the World Uyghur Congress and Uyghur American Association, said she learned from Web sites of protests planned by Uighurs, and she called her brother to urge him and other family members to stay away.

The real problem, she said, is brutal repression of Uighurs by the government.

"Any Uighur who dares to express the slightest protest, however peaceful, is dealt with by brutal force," Kadeer said.

She condemned "the violent actions of some of the Uighur demonstrators" said she and her organizations mourn the loss of life of both Uighurs and Han Chinese, but she estimated that more than 90 percent of those killed have been Uighurs.

© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

LITTLE Jamie Goodier faced death after being born with two heart valves missing . . . but doctors had UDDER ideas.

His heart had already stopped once - and tearful parents Rebecca and Stephen were convinced they'd lose their precious baby son at just six months old.

But in an astonishing seven-hour operation surgeons rebuilt Jamie's ticker with tissue taken from a COW - and saved his life. "When they said what they were going to do we were totally shocked," says Rebecca, 26. "But we just wanted to save him - and if it took part of a cow to do it then fine, whatever helped Jamie survive."

Fatal

It was the youngster's last chance after an agonising start to life. Jamie had been born with Down's Syndrome. But Rebecca and partner Stephen, 27, were simply overjoyed he was alive. However, the worst was to come. Tests revealed Jamie had a life-threatening abnormality called atrioventricular septal defect. His heart had only two valves instead of four so it struggled to pump blood around his body.

Rebecca says: "It was devastating news. Doctors told us it could be fatal and he would need surgery as soon as he was strong enough to cope."

So the couple, from Winsford, Cheshire, took their baby son home and waited on tenterhooks for him to grow stronger. But at four weeks old Jamie turned blue and had to be put on a ventilator and pumped with drugs to keep him alive.

The family's biggest scare came when his heart stopped and doctors had to restart it. It was touch and go. We were terrified we'd lose him," says Rebecca.

But five months of tender care made him strong enough for surgery at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool.

And it was then doctors told his mum and dad they were going to perform a TRIPE-le bypass. They used tissue from around a cow's heart to repair the missing main wall in Jamie's before splitting his two valves into the four he needed.

Rare

Cardiac surgeon Nelson Alphonso said: "This was a very unusual case. We used a plastic band on one of Jamie's main arteries to restrict blood flow to the lungs. That allowed his condition to improve until he was strong enough for the operation "

Now 21 months old, Jamie has gone from strength to strength. "He's a lovely healthy colour and he's full of energy," says Rebecca.

News of the World GP Dr Hilary Jones said: "Animal tissue is very similar to human tissue. To prevent rejection they coat it with chemicals and the patient's own cells grow over the top of it. It undoubtedly saved Jamie's life."

Rebecca adds: "It is strange to look at him and think he has part of a cow inside him, keeping him alive. But one day when he's old enough I will tell him how it saved his life."

AddThis

There are always going to be people against euthnasia, but as human beings we do have the freedom to choose what we do with our lives.
No one should condemn those who have decided to end their life, because of an incurable illness.
Dr Carey has once again opened his mouth and put his great foot in it. No one listened to him when he was Archbishop so just ignore the cretin and his diatribe and maybe he'll crawl back up his organ pipe and disappear.

By Lorna Wanstall. Posted July 6 2009 at 1:13 PM.

Further to the comment by Emma, these Do Gooders
shoud have to stand and watch someone with MND lose the ability to speak,eat, breathe unaided and maybe finally choke to death then maybe they would see the point of "mercy " suicide.the grief of such a terrible illness for yourself and your family is too much to bear, both physically and mentaly, as MND is always at the back of the queue. Is that all there is for them ?

By Rita. Posted July 6 2009 at 1:22 PM.

Isn't this country strange? leave an animal to suffer and you can be prosecuted for cruelty or neglect, but help a Human to end their own suffering and you are in bigger trouble. No one wants what the scaremongers are claiming..elderly people cajoled in to ending their lives prematurely,all that is wanted is the right of a terminally ill person to decide when they have had enough.

By Rita Roberts-MacCutchan. Posted July 6 2009 at 12:37 PM.

Sadly Dr. Carey misses the point. Someone with a terminal illness SHOULD have the right to decide when they have suffered enough. Surely the point of this ammendment should be to meet similar criteria
to those required in places like Switzerland so that people should not have to go through the stress of travelling to another country away from their family.
Yes, you can make a living will or complete an ADRT
already but there is still the worry of prosecution of someone in the familywho may have helped the suicide.That is the first item to be addressed and clarified,then maybe we can sort out allowing people to escape the indignity and suffering that can come with a terminal illness like
Motor Neurone Disease

By Brian MacCutchan. Posted July 6 2009 at 12:29 PM.

My Life, my choice. I do not want religious extremists like MR Buxley and Tom et al interfering with me. Keep it under your hat Gentlemen, I do not need or appreciate your unbeliveable selfish comments. But you are entitled to them and there lies the difference between us.

By billy. Posted July 6 2009 at 3:19 AM.

If people who are suffering a terminal illness and know that they are going to be in pain physically and mentally. It is up to them to take their own life while they are still able to do so and not to ask someone else to assist them in dying either in this country or abroad.

By Netty. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:06 PM.

The first steps to the Holocaust were taken in a remarkably similar way.

A bill was passed to have doctors assess mentally and physically ill patients. If considered incurable, they were medically certified for euthanasia.

The "humane" method used was gassing, and the "pioneers" of this treatment, from the Nazi T4 department, went on to set up and operate the death camps.

Falconer, Bliar's ex-flatmate, is a morally bankrupt pygmy. Not content with 120,000 dead Iraqis and Britsh soldiers, now he wants to start on the sick and vulnerable in this country.

I've seen three elderly relatives die in the last couple of years. In each case, they were hastened on their way by nursing staff...one with a chest infection left lying flat to develop pneumonia, all given injections of morphine within 5 minutes of death, yet all already receiving adequate medication via syringe driver.

We're already killing the vulnerable - this bill would simply protect the guilty.

By Amanda. Posted July 5 2009 at 12:03 PM.

Sometimes I despair we are still living in the Dark Ages! Yet again religion is quoted (words that are written and interpreted by Men),to keep us in place. Then the threats of the wicked who will kill off the elderly for greed. Most of us are now educated and understand that any law passed will not open the floodgates! Presumably there will be proper counselling and commitees etc involved before the deed is done. I for one would not wish to prolong either my own life or my loved ones from a disease like motor neauron,what point is there in prolonging loss of dignity and pain. If you really want to bring religion into it,you could argue that He gave us knowledge to use medicine for our benefit for all our lifespan including the end! Please lets have some common sense and stop making people fly abroad for some compassionate help.

By Marie. Posted July 5 2009 at 1:28 PM.

No it can`t happen. Who`s to say all the people `helped` to commit suicide actually wanted it...? God that`s giving a license to murder to some people ! Also it will make a lot of terminally ill people think that`s what they should do, as they are being a burden. This is a very sensitive subject and has to be taken extremely seriously by all before any decision is made. As someone already said - inheritances and such would make unscrupulous people step out of line - it would be criminal to encourage it.

By lana. Posted July 5 2009 at 12:54 PM.

Think of the people with horrific illnesses such as motor neuron disease. Eventually the muscles in your throat stop working and you will most probably choke to death. If there is a God, I can't imagine one who would want to force anyone to suffer ithis pain and indignity against their will. This system already works in Switzerand and the Netherlands and will also work here when it finally gets passed. Hopefully this will be sooner rather than later..

By Emma. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:06 AM.

God, himself has preordained the number of years, you shall endure, whether your years are good or bad, is also preordained. He and only He can determine these things and it is one of the Bibles great mysteries, that have to be taken on faith. Life is given by God and shouldn't be tampered with, or we make a mockery of the line in The Lord's Prayer: "Your will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven." We pray this in faith and who are we, to then go away and scream about it, when he does just that.
The sufferers on earth, shall suffer no more in Heaven, Thank God for that.

By Mr Derek A. Buxey. Posted July 5 2009 at 9:31 AM.

To deny the terminally ill to put an end to the final weeks or days of their pain is totally lacking in humanity. I have no doubt Dr Cary means well but in the real world suffering must take precedence over dogma.

By Simon Marshland. Posted July 5 2009 at 8:41 AM.

The wishes of the person concerned is the prime concern, a living will made when the person is fit and well as to their future wish should their health change.
Any problems other countries who allow euthanasia may have encounterd could be written into our law.

By Harry. Posted July 5 2009 at 7:55 AM.

Bravo George Carey!

This law will be like all-too-many laws like it before, and have unintended consequences.

The law will quickly be used by the greedy and unscrupulous to accelerate the demise of those who are draining inheritances.

Think of all the sons, and daughters, -in-law who care little of the elderly parent in such a situation who is costing a fortune in nursing homes and so on - and who can't wait to get their hands on their money?

Yes, they will dress up their infirmity as an excuse to hasten their deaths.

They will persuade those incapable of rational decisions to 'do the right thing' for their families.

The law will be roundly abused and in not too long, bumping off expensive elderly relatives will become the norm - what progress for humanity that will be?

Then they will come for the disabled too - oops, they will be victims of this law as well.

Lord Faulconer should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for proposing this law whose malign, murderous consequences are manifestly obvious.

Tom

* CAMPAIGNERS fear hundreds of vulnerable people will lose their lives if new laws on assisted suicide are passed.

The Lords vote next week on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill which would let relatives help ill patients kill themselves without prosecution. The change is proposed by peers led by Lord Falconer.

* But former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has joined the chorus of calls to block it.

The debate was sparked after the parents of paralysed rugby player Daniel James, 23, were taken to court over his suicide at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland - which featured in a TV documentary on the death of Professor Craig Ewert last year.

* Here Lord Carey tells why he is opposed to the change.

REMEMBER the Bridgend suicides? That heartbreaking spate of futile deaths by despairing young people.

Lord Carey, Former Archbishop of Canterbury
Lord Carey, Former Archbishop of Canterbury

Well, the Government is trying to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen again.

One small part of its Coroners and Justice Bill, now before Parliament, makes clear that sick websites that promote suicide are against the law.

Full marks to the Government for that!

But the euthanasia lobby is trying to hijack it.

While the Government is trying to outlaw websites that encourage people to commit suicide, these opportunists are trying to make it do the opposite.

They are actually proposing that we should be licensed to help seriously ill people to kill themselves.

Yet making it legal to help someone commit suicide is just another way of encouraging it.

We're told it's all about compassion - that the handful of people every year who help friends or relatives to kill themselves shouldn't have to worry whether they will have to face the courts. In practice, that only happens if there's evidence of foul play; and that's rare - because we don't license and encourage it!

We're also being told by Lord Falconer that his amendment is only an innocent attempt to bring the law in line with the fact that Britons are already assisting people to fly to Switzerland to commit suicide and are not being prosecuted.

So it's just a technical change.

In those lights it can be seen as a wholly unnecessary change - yet if it succeeds it will overturn the Suicide Act 1961 and open the door to the unscrupulous and manipulative.

People who are seriously ill often talk about "ending it all", not because they really want to but because they think they should "do the decent thing" and spare their families a burden or stop wasting money on care homes.

And, though most relatives are kind, let's not forget there are greedy and unscrupulous ones too.

Mercy killers are hijacking the suicide bill | Lord Carey
SUICIDE: James, 23

This change in the law could lead some relatives, impatient for their inheritance, to cajole the elderly into an early and unwanted death.

Remember also, it is not only those who are in favour of assisting suicides who have had experience of the decline into suffering and helplessness of loved ones at the end of their lives.

For me, this is a personal issue because my family have been through this too.

One elderly relative always insisted, when she was fit, that if she ever became senile she would rather die than suffer the indignities that came from Alzheimer's.

But when it happened, she begged us never to leave her.

And we would like to think that as a family we provided her with a loving and happy environment as we cared for her and she eventually died a happy death.

Great strides have been made in caring for the vulnerable and dying since those days.

The achievements of the hospice movement have been extraordinary and their growth should be encouraged.

Yet the answer for those particularly painful and heartbreaking examples of suffering is not a complete change in the law on suicide, but a determination to provide the best palliative care possible.

At the moment the provision is patchy across the country, but this is an area which needs more resources.

In an ageing society we have to protect and care for greater numbers of vulnerable people than ever before. The medical profession is attempting to rise to this challenge.

Doctors themselves resist euthanasia because they know that it will change the nature of their sacred work overnight.

They know that their honourable profession has to have a strict code of ethics to ensure that every patient trusts their doctor with life and death decisions.

The worry is that although cases such as Dr Harold Shipman are rare, the public could come to see doctors as killers, rather than carers and preservers of life.

And although this change to the law does not amount to a free-for-all in euthanasia, it is a gradual step to that outcome.

The law we have now protects the sick and vulnerable.

What is being suggested is a charter for their exploitation. Parliament should have nothing to do with it.

By Dan Wootton & Lottie Lumsden, 05/07/2009
LOVE-SPLIT Jordan flew into a hysterical rage over Peter Andre wanting sole custody of their kids, and screeched: "To want to take babies away from their mother is sick!"

In a rant to a pal aimed at her estranged husband, the emotional glamour model raged: "You're the lowest of the low and I can't even believe I ever married you.

"Sick is exactly what you are. People have got into your head. It's unbelievable how you've changed."

As the pair's battle becomes increasingly bitter, we can also reveal how Peter, 36, has:

RIDICULED Jordan as a "robot housewife" in his latest video;

ATTACKED her over her boozing; and

STOPPED eating because of the stress she has put him under.

The feuding husband and wife were both talking to lawyers last week about their son Junior, four and daughter Princess, two.

Jordan, 31, also has an older son, seven-year-old Harvey, with footballer Dwight Yorke.

Yesterday she was opening a polo tournament in Epping Essex - wearing a knicker-skimming animal-print dress and towering pink stilettos. At the same event was her ex-boyfriend Dane Bowers, and the pair were seen sending text messages to each other.

Elsewshere, Peter was snapped with Junior and Princess at a village fete in Cowfold, West Sussex.

Originally he was seeking joint custody of the two kids - but after hearing of Kate's wild partying in Ibiza last month he changed his mind and told her: "I'm not taking any s*** any more.

"You need to change the way you're acting."

A pal of Jordan told us: "The priority has become sorting arrangement with the kids. It's the hot-button issue now.

"Pete wants them. Kate'll do anything to stop him getting them. All of a sudden she's less concerned about him taking any money.

"The battle lines have changed."

"Kate is petrified about losing her kids, she's terrified about losing her career - but most of all she's overwhelmed by loss because she always thought Pete would come back to her in the end."

With the custody fight raging on, Jordan is accusing Peter of getting publicity for his career by posing for snaps with their children. Last week it was announced he had a £1 million record deal with indie label Conehead, which is releasing his new album next month.

Jordan's pal said: "To use the kids to help publicise your music is pathetic. That's the main thing she's angry about. All he wants to do is sell his record."

The album was recorded in Los Angeles earlier this year - before the couple's split was announced.

Peter, who previously had a No1 with Mysterious Girl, now hopes to do more work in the States - and take the kids with him.

Unstable

He told the News of the World: "I would like to go back to record in America in the future. I met a lot of great people out there."

But Jordan's pal said: "She has started to get hysterical about the prospect of losing the kids to Peter.

"She let him take the children to Cyprus but now he's starting to get it into his head that they should travel with him when he's on business when it fits around their schooling and nursery here.

"She's beginning to think she'll lose the custody case because everyone's turning against her.

"The prospect of life without the kids has frightened her and makes her feel very unstable." The first single from Peter's album is Behind Closed Doors - and it will be released on August 10.

In the video he has a dig at Jordan's lifestyle by basing it around sexy housewives who act like robots.

It is already being compared to Justin Timberlake's controversial Cry Me A River video, which he filmed to relaunch himself after his split from Britney Spears.

A music industry source told us: "Peter's video is inspired by the original Stepford Wives film and features housewife robots.

"It's an attempt for Peter to explain through art how difficult his marriage had become."

Peter has also cast a string of sexy models to appear alongside him - a decision that will infuriate Jordan further.

The source said: "Peter plays a photographer who becomes obsessed with the models.

"It's something he would not have even been able to consider doing while he was with Kate, because she kept insisting on starring in his videos.

"It's like Peter's coming-out moment. He's finally his own man again - it will be very liberating for him."

But Jordan's pal hit back, saying: "Kate has laughed in his face about his so-called 'comeback'.

"She's also disgusted that he's using the breakdown of their marriage to try and have another hit."

ITV1 viewers will see her put her side across when she is interviewed by Piers Morgan next Saturday.

Last week Peter talked to the News of the World during a rare night out - and launched a thinly disguised attacked on his estranged wife's recent boozy antics.

Rival

He told us: "I haven't drunk or been out since my break-up. This is my first night out in months." Then he raised his eyebrows and added: "One is enough for me, though."

He also told how the split had taken a toll on his health, saying: "I've lost lots of weight - over a stone.

"I haven't been dieting - it's all from the stress of the last couple of months. The weight's dropped off. I've started training in the gym with my brother Michael though, to build myself back up again."

In another interview last week, Peter also hit out at rumours he was dating Celebrity Big Brother winner Chantelle Haughton.

The pair, who are managed by the same company, were snapped leaving a champagne bash together a few days ago.

But Peter said: "There's not one little bit in my head that could think of anyone else to be honest."

Jordan still raged to her pal though: "That sl*t had better keep away from my husband or she'll have me to contend with."

MICHAEL Jackson's former housekeeper today reveals how the star would lock boys in his bedroom for days, plying them with booze before sexually abusing them.

Adrian McManus also told the News of the World he even issued veiled DEATH THREATS to his staff to STOP them telling cops about it.

"Every night I went home feeling sick to my stomach," said Adrian, 47, one of the Neverland Five who sued him for wrongful dismissal. "He was a lonely, deranged, sick human tragedy.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE MICHAEL JACKSON STORIES, PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

"And he wasn't playing at being a boy again, this man was molesting boys."

WITNESS: Adrian saw abuse
WITNESS: Adrian saw abuse

Trusted Adrian, who worked for the star for four years, had the only keys to his downstairs private quarters which included his main bedroom with the children's rooms in a loft above him.

"He was at his happiest when he had little boys with him," she said. "He would lock himself in his bedroom for days at a time with them. He acted inappropriately with at least ten boys."

Teetotaller Jacko also kept wine in his room to spike soft drinks - which he gave his young guests in babies' bottles. "He would buy dozens of these baby bottles for the older kids," said Adrian. "It was obvious he was drinking and slipping wine into their drinks.

"Michael filmed the boys with cameras and videos, and packed photo boards with their naked bodies."

She tells how she saw Jackson abuse Jordy Chandler in his room. "I saw Michael kiss and touch Jordan. They both bounded into the bedroom, soaking wet, after playing under the waterfall at the side of the house.

"Then Michael just lent forward slowly and kissed Jordan on the lips. Michael then moved his hand down. I froze and realised that my boss was a paedophile." But Adrian and other staff felt they would be in danger if they spoke out about what they saw. "On one of my first days Michael said very calmly, 'You know Adrian if you do or say something I don't like, I will have someone take care of you - but it wouldn't come from me.'

"I took that as a death threat." Adrian says she witnessed Jackson's physical decline as years of plastic surgery took their toll.

Even in 1993 the star, enjoying a comeback with the Dangerous tour, was already a wreck.

Adrian said: "He weighed no more than nine stone and he'd lost so much of his hair he had weaves put in every couple of months.

"His nose was always a problem. Now and again he wore plasters around the side to cover or support it. It was severely caved in.

"In his closet he had a jar of fake noses and stage glue, which he told me he used for disguises - but some were similar to his real nose, just without the hole."

Adrian also revealed the star dabbled in the occult. "In his room he had a Ouija board and voodoo dolls which he and the kids played with," she said.

"He loved collecting books on oddities, like midgets, the elephant man and aliens. He also had a wide selection of books on mind control and manipulation."

Adrian even claimed the star wed Lisa Marie Presley for her dad's lucrative back catalogue. She said: "Michael wrote a note on his bedroom pin board 'Got to acquire the song list for Elvis'. Within days Lisa Marie turned up at the house."

But she said her most vivid memories are of the abuse. "Michael Jackson is no hero, but a depraved monster who went through some very dark times. Now he's dead, the world should know the truth."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE MICHAEL JACKSON STORIES, PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

Whatever the outcome of the custody of the children is. Let's just hope they are placed where it is in their best interest to be. We know she said interviews he was a great father. We don't know the real Debbie Rowe we just know her from what has been said about her and what she has said in the very few interviews she's had. But we do know what is written in that will. And one thing is for sure he adored his children. And that is so apparent in interviews and pictures and how he tried to protect his children. In her interviews she has said the same, he was a great father. So as a great father he chose who he believed would raise his children best. I just hope this is over soon those children are mourning their father and are old enough to know they are being fought over. Let's hope Michael's children have a happy loving future. That's what he wanted for them.

By sandra. Posted July 7 2009 at 8:02 AM.

Respect Michael Jackson's will. That's all i can say, we human didn't respect him before, now that he is dead people are fighting for his will, "to be or not to be"...he is a Star and always will be..R.I.P MJ

By cathy. Posted July 7 2009 at 7:27 AM.

Still crying over your death michael. I lost my mom the same day and the pain in my heart is unbearable. May you rest in Peace my beloved King of PoP and God bless your children.

By Lillian Robles. Posted July 7 2009 at 6:49 AM.

Everyone is painting MJ as a bad person, every adult can think 4 ourself. If Debbie didn't need the money that much why would she do it. As a mother i wouldn't give up custody of my children (Think people).

She was paid good good money If her father is very very rich and she doesn't need the money why do it because the dam money is the father own not hers. She needed money 4 herself.

Don't blame MJ he did what a father or mother would do in what ever situation they are in.

R.I.P
MICHAEL JACKSON
YOUR FRANS WILL
MISS YOUUU

By Lynn. Posted July 7 2009 at 5:03 AM.

Michael Jackson created playmates, not children he would parent. Joe Jackson made some rather telling comments last week. He said that the kids had never played with other children and basically said they didn't get the education they deserved thus far. I am sure Debbie was intimidated into dropping her last custody bid ans was kept away. Now that Michael is dead, she should fight vigorously for them. She is their best hope.

By Adrianna. Posted July 7 2009 at 4:28 AM.

michael, kids mom and michaels first kids

By tink. Posted July 7 2009 at 4:19 AM.

Debbie Rowe should just back off these kidds does not belong with her to their grandma when she is not capable then to Diana Debbie back off u must did something really bad to Micheal i cant belive Micheal is gone R.I.P U ROCK MY WORLD

By JOAN S PHILIP. Posted July 7 2009 at 3:54 AM.

Debbie Rowe had a agreement with MJ....NOT with Katherine or Diana Ross...Is Debbie any worst than a mother giving a baby up for adoption or a surrogate mother?....I would think she knew that MJ could give the children the world and she could not....But he died...changes things now...If she is the biological mother she should have her children....Everyone says,"she just wants the money"...that is what the executors are for, to protect the children's future...We can all see that MJ is not the biological father....did he legally adopt the kids?

By Donna. Posted July 7 2009 at 3:05 AM.

MICHAEL Jackson, was one most favorite in Puerto Rico, all portoricans loved him, for his music, dance and the trajectory for all scenes in the world. We remember forever.

God, have Michael in a good places and in a big scenes in the sky. God Bless for your babies.

By Solamina Castro. Posted July 7 2009 at 2:34 AM.

The man is Dead!!! Let the man rest in Peace!!! What satisfaction are u getting from digging up his life!!!! His last wish was for his kids to be with his mother or Diana Ross!! Respect his wish!!!

Y'all need to get a life!!!!
Why are u trying to damage his image and his legacy???????????

By Tamara B. Posted July 7 2009 at 1:46 AM.

If you saw the video on TV today, Debbie Rowe being called Maddy would be correct. She was shown to have a temper worse than Joe Jackson. She was threatening to beat up the media and they had to keep bleeping her language. At least Joe Jackson can control his temper in public.

By Rowe has a bad temper. Posted July 7 2009 at 1:18 AM.

NO Debbie should NOT get the children. She didn't even make a big enough fight to get them in the first place. THEY DON'T KNOW HER!!!! They should ask the kids who they want to be with, they're not that young, they can answer a simple question like that!
I don't know about her "trying to get custody" or whatever but obviously she didn't fight hard enough and she was even quoted saying "I didn't become a mother to be a mother..." And she was video taped saying that she gave them to Michael as a "gift". She shouldn't get them back...

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HER!!!!

If she gets them there's something seriously wrong. AND Michael was AQUITTED of his charges, Michael never did anything harmful or wrong to children and everyone that believes he did is SOOO naieve and brainwashed by the media, get your own brain! The Bible says "BELIEVE NONE OF WHAT YOU HEAR AND HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE".


By Carolyn Powers. Posted July 7 2009 at 12:48 AM.

poor Michael! he looked so uncomfortable in that video!

By Lil Jackson. Posted July 7 2009 at 12:57 AM.

were Jackson & Rowe still married when the youngest child came along?
If so, she may have legal rights to that child as well.
I cannot believe how stupid everyone is who has an opinion.
A married couple has children. They divorce. Father has primary custody. Father dies. MOTHER gets the children.
MJ is DEAD. He has NO SAY--nothing! And even if he did, he has a track record of DOING BAD THINGS to children!
Maybe its a good thing for those poor children that that FREEK has died.
BTW-listen to the WOMAN who wrote "man in the mirror" singing. (I don't know her name-it is easy to find on youtube©).
HER voice is the one that Jackson PRETENDED was HIS!!!
It wasn't even HIS voice!!
Maybe when he was a little child, but I tell you that woman artist was the voice that everyone thinks is MJ.
Please WAKE-UP PeoPle!!
The stupidity astounds me!
The children go to their mom and that's final!

By hbic. Posted July 6 2009 at 11:30 PM.

Michael Jackson was inocent of this charges.People makes things that is not true

By Jose. Posted July 6 2009 at 10:42 PM.

If Katerine gets custody, she will not live long enough to raise them. Also, she will let Joe have acess to the kids and the money. They will be abused and thier money will be squandered on whatever toy, Joe wants. The judge should put the children in the care of Grace and see that she has access to the money she needs to raise them. Didn't Michael realize that by giving his Mother custody, Joe can get to them. And Diana does not know these kids well enough to raise them and care for them. She is too old for one thing. Turniing their money over to her does not seem like a good idea either. Who gets the kids and the money that comes with them, if something happens to her? Michael left a mess. He should have though this through.

By Eve. Posted July 6 2009 at 9:48 PM.

She gave the kids to Michael to raise. She thought Michael would be the one to raise them. She wasn't counting on him dying and someone else raising them.

By steve moore. Posted July 6 2009 at 9:36 PM.

even if they were not michael jackson kids he loved him very much ....so dabby rowe should not take the costudy for his children.rest in peace michael,you will always be in our hearts..............
WITH ALL MY LOVE
DIELLZA FROM KOSOVA

By diellza. Posted July 6 2009 at 8:37 PM.

In T.V, i saw a phsycic that saw MJ's dealth coming before July and wow he was right. The interviewer asked "what is doing to happen to his children" and the guy said the kids are going to stay with Katherene in Encino,CA. He also said that Janet Jackson was going to become a mother figure for them!

By Jasmine. Posted July 6 2009 at 8:14 PM.

Before one puts blame on anyone, just remember one thing. MJ was powerful enough to use his money and influence to buy anything. Fortunately in this country, children are not bought or sold, and any parental rights either of them had should be honored by the laws of the state of California. It doesn't matter how much money was exchanged for the right to live with the children. I see Ms. Rowe as more of a victim than someone who wants the money left to them. No matter what happens, Ms. Rowe will, unfortunately, always be portrayed negatively as a "golddigger." It's all very sad.

By Terri. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:21 PM.

Helloooo people.. who claims to have the divine right to pass moral judgment on others here? What makes you people think that Debbie "SOLD" her children? It was obvious that MJ wanted someone to birth children for him for a fee and Debbie obliged. Bond between mother and child is always there from birth to death regardless whatever happens in between. Now that MJ is gone, Debbie would be the best person to give normality to the children. With due respect, Grandma Katherine and Diana Ross are a bit old to keep up with the teens...

By lullaby. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:02 PM.

A Surrogant is just that. I don't believe that Debbie has the right to the kids. At all. If she does get custody, that means that all surrogant mothers can come back years later and claim the kids that they carried, and got paid for. Micheal did what he was supposed to do. His will should be honored. The kids are better off with his family. Let the man be in peace.

By Serena. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:02 PM.

I'm a mother of one child. As a mother, I'd lose my sense being away with my child in exchange for a price. I love my child & my child is priceless for me & never in a single moment should I give up my costudy to my child for a price if I were to divorce my husband. Debbie dont have one but even two children...where is her sanity, her affection or her love as a mother when she gave up her costudy for a price tag? What kind of mother would she be raising her kids in the future? SHAME! That's why I would understand why MJ mentioned his mother or his close friend as the guardian of his children...because as a sane, loving & affectionate parent, he would surely be concern & fear his children's future if Debbie will have the costudy of them. As a mother, I would pray the God will enlighten the minds of the judge & the jurries over this matter and give the right costudy of the three children to person, whom MJ whole-heartedly know, has the best capabilities in raising his child better that their surrogate mom.
Your a true and compassionate parent MJ. You'll always be remembered.

By vanessa. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:25 PM.

It doesn't matter what any of you think about Debbie Rowe, she IS their mother!! And if anybody
knows, if you've seen enough of Oprah, these kids
will eventually want to be part of their mothers life.
Michael Jackson trusted Debbie enough to have
these children. I hope she gets them.

By shirleyA. Posted July 6 2009 at 8:02 PM.

though rowe gave out her children for the money nobody knows underwhat condition she did that maybe under pressure.all thesame she is stll the kids mother.she should b allowed to visit the kids and build a bond with them and the same love shuld also extend to prinec 11.when they are old enough they ll decide who to b with.

By chinazo uchebo. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:47 PM.

I dont think micheal is the natural father, but then the mother is despicable to give up her children for money, she doesn't deserve them back. God help these poor children, being raised in this bizarre family

By pauline. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:50 PM.

These kids only blood relation is Debbie Rowe, she deserves her children.

Sadly, these kids were really nothing more than a science experiment to Michael....and maybe some warped form of a status symbol.....but certainly not blood relations.

Why did he feel the need to create children with none of his own genetic make up? There's millions of poor children all around the world that he could have made happy, but he chose to make Turkey baster children.

This man's mind was deeply warped by fame, money, and fortune. I pray his sould can find some peace now.




By Paul. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:54 PM.

Jacko's family should keep the custody. Debbie Rowe might be the birth mother, but she had entered a surrogate agreement with MJ, which means that she did him a favor. Is not like she wanted to have his children becauser she loved him, she agreed to be a surrogate for money. Jacko was a good dad and she just wants more cash, because now he is dead and those kids get the rights to all his future revenue...

By A.D.. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:54 PM.

Debbie Rowe was a surrogate plain and simple. You have a baby and you give it up for money. She got her money and now the children need to be cared for by their family the ones that know them and love them The Jacksons. Rowe is just a surrogate. Michael only married her so his children would know that they had a mother. But two meetings in all these years does not a mother make. Just like a father just because you make one doesn't make you a dad. I fshe truly cared for the kids she would take her money I'm sure she wants more and run.

By Marie. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:41 PM.

On a purely legal note.... Ms. rowe did TERMINATE her parental rights to Prince and Paris. thus she is not the PARENT of either child nor does she have ANY future claim or controlling interest in their lives. This is what happens to ANY birthmother who CHOOSES to relinquish her rights. By giving the two (or god forbid 3) children to Ms. rowe's custody the court would be saying that ANY subsequent birthmother could then interrupt the life of the child she gave up when that child's PERMANENT and LEGAL family had tragedy strike. What a bunch of shenenigans that would be. As a birthmother I feel sympathy for her situation but the fact remains those children ARE NO LONGER HERS!

By laura. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:40 PM.

Hello, from Pittsburgh,PA in the USA !
Michael's children do not look at all like him!
He was and will always be a musical genius.
I'll watch the memorial for him on TV tomorrow.
It will be unforgettable !

By NICOLE L. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:42 PM.

Just a short sentence here, HE STATED IN HIS WILL, who should have his children, why do we go through soooooo much trouble to write up a will if, somebody can decide what is right or wrong, these were legally MICHEALS kids, and no matter who he wanted to raise them he chose that person.

By Patty. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:35 PM.

She should get the children back because she gave birth to them. People w/money sometimes pushes people to the point that they have no other choice in what happens. He could have made her life miserable is she hadn't agreed to a settlement. He isn't the father so let the biological mom have them back with close contact with MJ family and w/ visitation. This would only make sense for the children.

By bj. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:34 PM.

I have read everyone comment it's really SAD about MIcheal I believe he was great NO one will ever replace him or his MUSIC at all. and as far as Debbie Rowe you sold your children gave them up for money! I certainly hope the will stands and that
his mom Katherine can keep the kids and raised them as the way he wanted I am sure he trusted his MOM with all his heart who better than his MOM! go kathrine dont let her get away with it she ONLY wants MONEY!!! not fair at all. Michael may you rest in peace you will never be fogotten.

By Julie orozco-fernandez. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:31 PM.

Debby Rowe is nothing more than a brood mare.

By ncjoy. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:28 PM.

what kind of sicko would take a baby out of the hospital before the mother could see it? They were still married at the time!

By molly. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:25 PM.

Debbie may have decided it was in the best interest of the children to step back. A nasty custody fight (after an agreement) against all of MJ's money and fame plus the terrible publicity a custody battle would receive, isn't something children understand from either parent or appreciate under any circumstances. Now that MJ has passed, the court should rule on what is best for the children, not what Michael "requested" in what is now known to be his Last Will and Testament.

By Ta Ho. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:19 PM.

The children are 11 and 12 years old and probably have a voice of their own. what do they want? We are so eager to speak for them and be judgmental outsiders. Really how much do we know about the life inside the jackson house(s)? There are so many questions like; why was jackson so paranoid about loosing the kids? Were they a right of passage for him? In a larger than life reality it is easy to loose sight of what the real issues are. Lets not forget there is two sides to every story and we have only heard his. I hope the love we all have for the jacksons doesn't get in the way of what is right. I also hope and pray we can show the world we have an open mind to the rights and well being of the children. No matter what that happens to be.

By molly. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:14 PM.

michael jackson's kids should stay with his mom and not his wife who is just in this whole thing for money
!!!!

By jamie. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:14 PM.

No one will ever convince me those kids are half african-american. Since she was willing to be a surrogate mother why did they chose a white donor? Could it be because MJ was hoping he could pass them off as his as he turned whiter by the day? Why would he want kids that are no way related to him instead of half african-american and half white. that doesn't make sense at all. Since she is their mother by blood she should raise them. Here they are, all white trying to grow up in a black family. God help them.

By Sally. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:14 PM.

I think it is great that all of his children are white, but people are concentrating on this great black man. Michael didn't see color...neither should we!

By seeonecolor. Posted July 6 2009 at 5:56 PM.

Get real people. Who in the world would have the means to fight someone who was as rich, with powerful friends from one end of the globe to the other, for custody of their children? I guess it would be another person in the same position as MJ. The grandmother and Ross have no claim to those children. However, money talks in this country. My prayers will be with their Mom to have custody and to be able to live a life where they will be loved and cherished. She gave up her parental rights! Yes, but can you imagine under what circumstances? Put yourself in her place. Someone mentioned that she only wanted the money that came with the children. What about the family that wants them now? Get a grip!

By Columbo. Posted July 6 2009 at 5:58 PM.

first off, no one here knows Michael Jackson or Debbie Rowe. No ones knows their relationship together or her relationship with her chilkdren. It is not unfathomable to think that Michael didn't have the means to keep her away from the kids no matter how hard she would try to see them. She didn't sell her kids, she presented herself from the beginning to be a surrogate for Michael Jackson, they knew each other, he had to have trusted her on some level. She was perceived by the Press exactly how Michael wanted her to be and now that he is gone, possibly the truth will come out. Michael was a master marketer, he was taught by the best, Berry Gordy. Michael was 12 when the Jackson 5 debuted but they said he was 9 because it sounded better, Diana Ross didn't discover the Jackson 5, Tommy Chong (yes of Cheech and Chong) actually discovered them. Michael spent his whole life creating all that buzz, creating that mystery that surrounded him and he ultimately took it too far which led to him being accused and people trying to take advantage of this perception that Michael Jackson was a freak. SO now in his death..he will be remember as a legend, and inovator, as well he should be.

By matt. Posted July 6 2009 at 5:39 PM.

There is a saying that goes... "When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets hurt". Those kids are no more than little blades of grass that can get hurt when these people start to fight over them. Can't Katherine Jackson and Debbie Rowe share custody, keep all the kids together, and really care about them as people, not possessions? On one point I absolutely agree... no matter who they end up with, they should be kept far away from Joe. If anyone cared more about money than his kids, it was Joe. And on that subject, Joe stole Michael's childhood. Katherine stood by and let it happen. What happens if Joe decides to make Jackson's kids into little superstars as well?

By Heather. Posted July 6 2009 at 5:36 PM.

Debbie Rowe gave up her parental rights for money so comments about she didn't need the money are absurd. What is the point of having a will if the person's wishes are challenged and thrown out. His mother should have custody of those children and Diana Ross is her successor. Ultimately, Debbie has expressed no real interest in her children since receiving her "pay off". I believe they already had a predetermined deal for her to exit the picture anyways. She is truly "unsure" if she wants to pursue custody. So we have to respect the Will. Those children are legally and officially "Jacksons" and there is nothing anyone can do about it. They will never live a "normal" life as long as they are known as Michael Jackson's children...RIP

By Queen. Posted July 6 2009 at 4:51 PM.

She sold her children.
And I don't know what she is talking about now.
I think that she don't deserve them.

Angel,R.I.P.

By Marko. Posted July 6 2009 at 3:07 PM.

Yes,walk away from her children in excange for money. Wonderful mum. My mother will never take that money,even we talk about 100000000000000 $.
I think that she is just ONE BIG LIER.
And I hope Paris,Prince Michael and Blanket will stay with granny or Diana. Becouse he knew what is the best for his children.

I love you Michael!

By Una,Serbia. Posted July 6 2009 at 2:56 PM.

Hey people get a life. we are all the same on the inside people are just people who ever we are!

see yaa..

By god. Posted July 6 2009 at 10:52 AM.

Rowe is the biological mother she gave custody to MJ she never gave up her parental rights. And according to reports, their agreement was that 'she never contest that Michael Jackson is the father of the children'. So MJ never formally adopted them. Basically at any time Rowe could have said 'I want my kids. Michael Jackson isn't even the father.'

So if she wants her kids she'll likely get them, even if Michael Jackson was alive, but she'd definitely get them over an 80 old woman who's not even related to them and is not like the grandmother next door that saw them everyday. She's a stranger to the kids too.

By Jim D. Posted July 6 2009 at 9:55 AM.

I am really impressed when I have seen this photo they are amazing,they are really really beautiful, I loved so much, I to hope to see another ones so that I can collect them all ,this make part of Michael`s lagacy, Michael debbie and the kids are so cute How wonderful ...so many thanks for making us see this photos.

By Agostinho e Larilde Patricia. Posted July 6 2009 at 9:22 AM.

I adore Michael as a performer. But Debbie could never win against him no one could. Why has Michael told Diana to keep the kids away from their mum. Michael never allowed her to be a mum he is a control friek to deny them of Debbie.She would have got money with or without the kids. I think she was controlled into staying away, because she could have made millions selling storys of her life with MJ but she never. Give her the kids and blanket, she would be a great mum now MJ cant take control. How many dads walk away from their kids only to have them into their lives once mums done the hard yards alone. Granny and Diana are way too old to be their mother figure. RIP MJ its time to share what you helped create

By robyn. Posted July 6 2009 at 9:14 AM.

i have no doubt that katherine jackson will be loving, but i am not sure if the environment (with joe jackson and others) within which the kids will be brought up is that 'perfect'. (take a look at mj and his siblings and you can tell this is a rather complicated family)

i don't know about rowe. i don't trust her entirely.

diana ross may be a good option, but that's too much responsiblity to be placed upon someone who is unrelated.

so it's back to square one. the kids are better off placed with their grandparent, but they are going to need a lot of support in the difficult years to come, esp. from the media and paparazzi - they've ruined enough lives already. time to give the kids some privacy and normalcy so they can really live their (not our) lives.

By janice. Posted July 6 2009 at 8:27 AM.

I think the children should stay with katherine jackson. They DO NOT know Debbie Rowe. To all the parents out there: If something happened to you wouldn't you want your children to go to people who love them and know them or to someone who is a complete stranger (ROWE) to your children just because they share the same blood. Giving these children to Debbie Rowe would be like giving a child whose been adopted back to the biological parents(total strangers) if the adopted parents died. IT'S WRONG. Grant Micheal's will and let those children be with their grandmother and STAY TOGETHER! Haven't they been through enough. They shouldn't have to worry about being split up. THE CHILDREN ALL BELONG TOGETHER!

By Melissa Evans. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:22 AM.

She sold her children. It makes a mockery of motherhood. As a woman who can't have children myself I find the fact that she sold her babies absolutely sickening. It's impossible not to fall in love with a newborn baby even when it's not your own. Makes you wonder if she has a heart or a soul.

By shell. Posted July 6 2009 at 7:04 AM.

Rest in peace the man with the bigest heart in the world , I vow to work hard to carry your message through my music ,I enjoyed the dance lessons in 1971.My brother stonney will be in heaven awaiting to make some music for our Father.
RIP my brother Ill allways Love you

Dennis

By Dennis Kitchen. Posted July 6 2009 at 6:41 AM.

I am heart broken that Michael is gone and I feel so bad for his children. The kids have been traumatized enough losing their father. Taking them away from the only family they've known would only do further damage, yet, I think it may be in their best interests for Debbie to be introduced into their lives. I've always believed that Michael was innocent and I think he was a victim of his own naievity and he was an easy target with a lot of money. Michael did so much for so many people around the world, he was amazing. It makes me extreemely sad to think that he felt he had to change his appearance so much, because no matter how he looked, his fans loved him anyway. It hurts my heart to know that I will never see him dance again. I love you Michael. Rest in peace.

By Michelle. Posted July 6 2009 at 5:13 AM.

In California, as in the rest of the US, the mother enjoys an advantage in custody cases. If Debbie Rowe had fought vigorously for her children, barring any finding of gross unfitness, she would have gotten them. Because she did not seek custody when the children were infants, it would seem odd to grant it now that her two kids are older and more self-sufficient.

Joe Jackson is in his eighties, has been separated from Katherine for many years, and may be getting senile. The children have nothing to fear from him. As for Diana Ross, she has raised five well-adjusted, successful kids. She would make a fine guardian for the Jackson children.

I'm sure the children are Debbie Rowe's, but I'm not convinced that MJ was NOT their father. Nearly all African-Americans have mixed genetics - Malcolm X and Redd Foxx had bright red hair. Vanessa Williams, Smoky Robinson, and James Earl Jones have blue eyes. When African-Americans marry white people, it's not unusual for the children to look completely white, for example, like the off-spring of Donna Summer, Eartha Kitt, and soap opera actress Victoria Rowell.

Prince Michael has MJ's eyes, his facial structure, and his physique. We'll never know. Because the children were born when Debbie and MJ were married, by American law, MJ is their legal father, no adoption or DNA test required.

By simba. Posted July 6 2009 at 4:49 AM.

THIS IS SO SAD!!! first off debbie rowe gave up her children for money!!!!!!!!!!! what kind of mother does that! it clearly showes she only wants to come back into there lifes for the money. michael wrote a will states his mother katherine should be the one to care for the them, those kids donot know debbie as a mother!! let michael rest in peace knowing his kids are in hands of the people he loved the most!!!!shameless joe and debbie need to step out of those kids lifes. rest in peace michael you are so loved around the world!!!

By sugar. Posted July 6 2009 at 12:27 AM.

everyone only wants these children for the money that is involved.debbie was quite happy to give up her children for money and now she wants them back to get some more.The jackons want the children for the same thing its not like you ever see them together they are hardly the closest of families lets face facts the children probably spent most of their time with the nannys anyway, the family have done a few family appearences since michael died but i have'nt seen any tears apart from the few that joe managed to sqeeze out.the day after he died there was already reports of which members of the family were going to take over the shows what greiving family thinks of that at a time like this i think that speaks for itself and lets everyone know what their minds are on.

By t. Posted July 6 2009 at 12:14 AM.

You people are a joke

The Jackson's don't seem normal but you're so sure Rowe is? She seems off to me.

People rarely take the stand in their own cases, so there is nothing abnormal there

People with money and celebrities pay settlements to get cases over and done with

The majority of cases are settled rather than going to trial.


You people just don't know what you're talking bout. Plus, Michael just makes an easy target. Once someone accuses you of something, anyone who accuses you after people will believe. Plus, he came across as much a meek person he seemed like a pushover.

By Raymond. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:37 PM.

People like the poster Kathleen make me sick. Very few celebrity children have a normal, plus you are just running you're mouth and don't know what you're talking bout. Michael did the best he could to shield them from the limelight and to give them some normalcy. You have no idea what was going on away from the cameras

By Raymond. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:25 PM.

Anyone can make or have a baby. I guess anyone can make or have a baby, not really be involved, and just up and have the kids whenever they want like some ar on here suggesting

By Raymond. Posted July 5 2009 at 11:05 PM.

I love Michael Jackson and people should just leave him alone even after hes gone loosers dont let him rest in peace. The video posted of Michael being interviewed is showing a man whos sick of people being silly and accusing him of DISGUSTING actions.
He was too kind and beautiful but people took advantage of him. The Lord put this man on this earth for a reason but some foolish individuals did not want to take the time to understand him.
May Michael Jackson live forever through those who aappreciate him for the wonderful talented man he was.
R.I.P MJ you have a special place in our heart forever nomatter what anyone says xxxxxxxx

By shabana . Posted July 5 2009 at 10:18 PM.

This is an instance of "thank goodness" for the court system, which regardless of MJ's wishes in the matter, the court will decide what is in the "best interests" of the children themselves. I certainly hope it is not with the terribly dysfunctional J-family where they could grow up to repeat all the bizarre and excess nonsence of MJ's life. Who cares what MJ's 'wishes' or 'directions' were in his will? He didn't even provide the 'material' to become their biological father. Who knows what could have happened later? At least Deb R appears to be their bio-mother. And you can bet that the court will take that into heavy consideration.

By kevin E.. Posted July 5 2009 at 10:18 PM.

the kids should go with whoever MJ put in his will which is Diana Ross so yano. I feel really sorry for the kids cuz they gotta learn to be kids =\

By Sarah . Posted July 5 2009 at 8:54 PM.

I think that, at least, Debbie would be better than Joe to raise the children...because give the kids to Katherine means give them to the horrible Joe, and the grandma is even too old for them..i don't know if Debbie would be "the perfect" mother,but I think that she would be better than the Jacksons..c'mon look what they did to Michael!
long live the King,anyway xxx

By Silvia. Posted July 5 2009 at 8:52 PM.

debbie rowe just makes me sick to my stomach what kind of mother in my eyes sells her own children .she clearly has had no interest in her children lives for years and now all of a sudden because michael has died shes interested if she didnt do it for money then what did she do it for shes a disgrace to motherhood .michael was a wonderfull father to them children all there lives and if he wanted his mother to look after them then she should .r.i.p michael you will shine forever xx

By maz. Posted July 5 2009 at 7:20 PM.

Debbie Rowe, comes from alot of money.. Her father is a very rich man..She doesn't need money..
Loved Michael, but there is something very wrong with the Jackson family..Michael didn't have a normal childhood.. That father Joe Jackson is bad news..Diane Ross, is a drinker, and not fit, plus she is too old to bring-up the kids..
I believe Debbie should get her children and bring them up, at least she seems normal..

By Annmarie. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:41 PM.

put it this way WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SIGN YOUR RIGHTS AWAY TO BEING A MOTHER surely u want to see your kids grow up, by doing what she did was deny the kids their aunties and uncles and cousins etc on her side.

she was WRONG to do that as someone else put she SOLD her children. for me i would seriously qustion her judgement no one in their right mind would do that. so for me she shouldn't have custody they dont even know her.

By janet. Posted July 5 2009 at 6:06 PM.

KLids look soooooooo sad!!!!!!!

By Nigel. Posted July 5 2009 at 5:48 PM.

Michael can not leave his children to someone in a will. They are not and have never been his property. Whatever deal or disagreements he had going with Debbie have nothing to do with the relationship they children should have with their mother. When a husband and wife divorce, the children are not, should not be a part of this. The visitation and divorce are business agreements between adults - not children. They have a right to be with their mother and more importantly, in the eyes of the law, she has more of a right to have custody of them than his family or friends. It's called by blood. I do think the youngest child should absolutely stay with the older two, wherever they go. His little world would end around him if he were separated and that would be horrible....

By Tangledweb. Posted July 5 2009 at 5:43 PM.

No mistaking who the mother is those 2 kids are the spit of her.. But she signed away her rights to them why should the courts go back on that?
Those kids don't even know her and they been through enough losing their dad. Leave where they are with the family they know and love who knows and love them.
If she really wants to be a part of their lives why dont she just go for visitation seeing them for a few hours a week and building up a bond with them is better then ripping them from a home the ONLY home they have ever known.

By annakel. Posted July 5 2009 at 5:41 PM.

You really have a slim argument for Ms Rowe being a good mother on the basis of these photos.
The photographer in the ones where Prince and Paris are older has obviously told them to look serious and they all have. There is one photo from the same set that is so comfortable and loving ,unguarded and unposed. If I were the judge I personally would leave the chidren with their family, but stipulate that if Ms Rowe wishes to play a greater part in their upbringing she be allowed to do so. Under no circumstance should they be removed from their family as this would only cause them undue suffering and they, after all, are the only ones who stand to bear another loss in their lives. I wish them joy and as little press intrusion in their lives as possible.

By Kathleen. Posted July 5 2009 at 5:37 PM.

These children are scarred for life through no fault of their own.
Judging from his background, the way he lived and oddball behaviour, does anybody truly believe that Jackson was fit enough to be a father?
He could not and did not provide them with a stable, normal and balanced upbringing, especially as their biological mother was absent from their lives.
They couln't attend a normal school,they were isolated, they had to wear masks to hide their faces when going out. The youngest one was dangled over a balcony as a newborn, plus they had to put up with allegations that their father was a child molester and a wacky character.
What kind of system allows for someone like Jackson, to bring up three innocent children, without him even being their biological father?
Could it be money, fame , power and connections in the right places?
I do as i please, when i please, how i please just because i can and without repercussions.
Did anybody really care for these children's wellbeing?
Spare a thought for these three innocent young kids, who were thrusted into the wacky world of Jackson without their asking and who now are going to be used as pawns in the ensuing legal battles

By pete. Posted July 5 2009 at 5:39 PM.

Debbie Rowe said she wanted to do something for Michael so she gave him the gift of fatherhood, which he embraced. She said it was at her request that the children be masked whenever in public Micheal adhered to her request and was pilloried for it. I am unaware of any other demands she made regarding "her" children but I do know from what I've heard and read that Michael was a good attentive loving parent and his children loved him. Accusations were made against him of which there is no definative proof as the accusers were paid off. If I were molested I would not be silenced by any amount of money. Those accusers will now crawl out of the woodwork again as the newspapers will pay top dollar for any alleged dirt they can print on someone who can no longer defend himself. These trite please for Debbie Rowe to get her children back are not thinking of the damage her case and these so-called victims will do to the children. She is not the woman to preserve the children's happy memories of the only parent they knew. Her getting custody of Michaels children will do them more harm than good.Michael is dead now he cannot be hurt anymore but his children and family can.

By Pam. Posted July 5 2009 at 5:19 PM.

michael jackson the legend has died but he won't ever be forgotten.he was the master of entertainment.nobody will ever equall the standard of his music , dance and videos.a true genius.RIP michael

By neil robbo. Posted July 5 2009 at 4:56 PM.

bottom line this challenge from rowe. Rowe can not claim the kids even if she wanted to, she knows that jacko has a will that must be obided by as it was jacko's last thing he would of wanted up on his death. as it state according the media, rowe can not have any part of the kids or anything else jacko related including the money and even the dirt at his former ranch. what is their claim, a picture only proves she held the kids and nothing more.

By JT_Cro. Posted July 5 2009 at 4:28 PM.

Everyones asking what kid of Mum does this? What kind of Dad pays millions of dollars to someone accusing him of molestation? Anyone truly innocent would use the cash to fight tooth and nail to prove their innocence. Everyone's condeming her for taking the money, what about MJ for "buying them"! The weren't even his biological children. Also MJ has made accusations against his own parents poor treatment of him, why would he then want to inflict it on his children? Yet another mess in his Wacky life!

By Sammy. Posted July 5 2009 at 4:19 PM.

these children are not parsals to be handed around to diffrent people they have feelings, they have just lost there dad and havent had chance to come to terms with the fact they wont see there daddy ever again,debbie should be in the lives of the children they are hers as well at the end of the day do what is right for both boys and there sister let micheal be put to rest first then start the custerdy battle starts even though debbie sold her children for a lot of money and that a shame she will have to live with un till then let mj's children stay with the jacksons xx

By sally oliver. Posted July 5 2009 at 4:11 PM.

Regardless of whether they were his natural children or not, these children knew Michael as their devoted father and they loved him as that. Debbie Rowe knew what she was getting into when she agreed to it all at the start, she sold her children at the end of the day, and although she may still have contact with them, she doesn't deserve their total love and devotion. They have grown up only knowing the Jackson family, their father has already been taken from them, leave them where they are happy and content, don't disrupt their lives anymore. RIP Michael and may your children find peace and love where they belong. xx

By Jo. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:39 PM.

I dunno - maybe offer her he kids with NO $$$$ & see if she takes them? I'll bet she would! I'm not convinced it's "all about the $$$" with her. Why would Michael not want her to have anything to do with the children? She was "good enough" to bare them, but not good enough to be a part of their lives? Something doesn't smell right here - and I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

By Danny. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:37 PM.

Amazing how now poor Michaels dead and gone Debbie is now interested in the children, only thing she is interested in is how much money the children are going to get, and as guardian she will make sure she gets her hands on it.
Michael, it grieves me to say this, but you are far better out of this 'circus' they are making of your death.
You will be missed, but i hope you are at peace.

By Rachael. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:30 PM.

Rowe is the children's mother. She probably felt threatened by the Jackson mob and by Michael's constituents, and that is why she backed off, but she did not give up custody of her children. Also, Michael never legally adopted the children, and they are not his biological children, so they are not even related to the Jackson's. The Jackson Family make false accusations that Rowe wants money when THEY are the ones who lived off Michael Jackson, and Mrs. Jackson never protected her own children from abuse by her husband. There should be no question that Debbie Rowe should get custody of her own children, and she would provide a good and loving home for all of them, including poor little Blanket who was dangled over a balcony and who it is said was a black market baby.

By Elizabeth. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:23 PM.

Was Diana Ross MJ's secret soulmate? Is she the mother of any of his kids? Is that where the song "dirty Diana came from?

By Hazza. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:12 PM.

I'm a Michael Jackson fan, but even I found a few of these photo's a bit creepy. They dont look like happy family photo's - unless Debbie is in the shot. She looks more natural than he does. Michael looks quite scary in some of the shots.

Let's be honest, biologically they are not his kids. The chances of two kids (now 3) showing no traits of half an African gene are very slim. I know it can happen in rare cases, but not in 3 seperate children. Not that this has anything to do with him being their father.

I think personally that Debbie should be at least given the chance to get to know them better. Maybe custody is a bit much for them, having only known the Jackson family. Whoever gets them though they're going to have a circus of a life.

By Emma. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:06 PM.

rest in peace Michael, you've gone to better place

By Joy. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:04 PM.

so tragic for any kids to lose a parent. their well-being must always be at the obvious core of any custody decision, and surely will be.
michael rest in heavenly peace.

By maricarlos reyes. Posted July 5 2009 at 3:00 PM.

People get real, the Jackson family is interested in one thing MONEY.

Already they are talking about thier performences with his hollogram.

Those poor little kids deserve better than they have had all thier lives. Debbie Rowe should not get them. Lets hope Diannah Ross is appointed guardian.

By Wayne. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:42 PM.

Who knows the real truth behind this. Its easy to say Rowe was a golddigger and abandoned her kids but to be an ordinary woman and have kids with MJ who was so powerful enough to stop you from being part of their lives... who knows what happened? I cant imagine ever being apart from my kids and I know money would never stop me but we dont know what legal contract MJ constructed to keep Rowe away?

By Shannon. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:43 PM.

Michael has 3 children, not 2. No court will separate Prince & Paris from Blanket, they're grieving children & do not know Debbie Rowe. They may have met her as babies, but she's a stranger to them. So would she really take these hurt children & split them up from each other, start a media fuelled custody battle and heap even more hurt onto them? Does she actually think that prince & paris will thank her for that?

Hopefully Katherine will keep custody and Debbie can be introduced and build up a friendship/relationship with them, at some point in their lives they'll become aware of her anyway. But in the meantime these kids need to be with people they know and love & who love them, not someone they don't know who shares DNA. Debbie Rowe made her choices regarding them. Some common sense is needed here.
The most important thing is the emotional well being of these children, regardless of your opinion on MJ or his family. They are with the family they know and love & they are devastated at losing their dad, how would it help them being taken away from that support & security & placed with Debbie, a stranger to them?

By steph. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:49 PM.

I would never give any child to Jackson's family... All they need is a money.... Look at Michael, he never was happy, he was lonely... his family never was there for him. How can they care about human, if never care about their family member.?
Never never I would give any child to that family....

By Gita. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:46 PM.

if debbie rowe is the mother of mjs children,, then now amount of money can change that,,she has the rite to bring them up,, diana ross was only a friend ,, not the kids mother,,, and if she was so close to him,, like so many other of his friends,, then why did they not know what was happening to him,, ?

By janet green. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:30 PM.

I do get that shes the mother but what mother would receive a pay out to be out of her own childrens lives??? No amount of money should ever have to replace your children. why choose the money over her flesh and blood? It makes me angry when i see or hear situations like this because my own father wasnt in my life. What has changed now and what claim can she make now? IS IT BECAUSE MONEY IS INVOLVED? We are selfish as human beings and i feel she betrayed her own children

By Liz. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:31 PM.

Kids look terrified of Jackson and totally happy and normal when with their Mum.Take your kids home Debbie for Gods sake.

By Steve. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:31 PM.

Just leave Michael alone, he has expressed his last will regarding his children, what more can he do? Rest in peace you loving human being, King of pop!

By Robin. Posted July 5 2009 at 2:10 PM.

we all know micheal jackson was a legand the king of pop...along the way micheal had a few bumps he was also accused of bad things which i never believed he was guilty of..i believe he was a sitting duck for treasure seekers,but when it comes to his own kids i believe he was a great father, now that he is gone a battle for his children will start, i also think money will play a big part in who wants custody, as the kids will be very rich this is so sad .i dont see why debbie wants the kids now as she SOLD them off to micheal for a big sum of money,i can only believe this is her motive now MONEY.i also dont believe micheals father should have anything to do with the kids upbringing, as he wasnt a great role model for his kids.the kids should stay with some one who is not in it to be rich.ie micheals mother should have the them, kids should never be treated as an asset, they are a joy and need to be loved and cared for not treated soley for an income...

By l hamilton. Posted July 5 2009 at 12:18 PM.

Sure, the kids should go to the grandparents. Look at how great a job they did raising Michael.

By JD. Posted July 5 2009 at 1:43 PM.

She gave up her kids for a few million and now M.J has died he left most of his money to his kids and she only wants them for much more cash not because she wants to be mummy,she got paid to have a baby for him and gave up her parental rights from them so it shows how much she really cares about them,not for themselves but for they're money.R.I.P M.J

By nathan. Posted July 5 2009 at 1:37 PM.

Paris is the double of her mum and Prince has michaels eyes you can definately tell he is Michaels child. No matter what people think of MJ those children lost their dad and i feel sorry for them that they are probably gonna be dragged into a custody battle. and as for people saying they dont look happy how are we to know what kind of life they had??

By leanne. Posted July 5 2009 at 1:12 PM.

Debbie is a money grabber, she only wants the children because the fortune that they are set to gain. Give them to their grandmother or better yet whom ever they wish to live with, within the jackson family.