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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment