* 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.

"At one point she was gently rocking Paris in her arms and humming a lullaby to her. It was a very special mother-and-baby moment. Paris was asleep in her mother's arms and looked very contented.

"It was obvious that Debbie loved her children and there was a strong connection between them. It looked like she was treasuring every second, laughing, kissing and playing with them for about two hours.

"Michael didn't spend much time talking to Debbie during the meeting - but he was happy to watch her with the children.

"It was his idea to do the photos. He was already thinking ahead. He wanted the pictures so he could show the children when they were older, so they'd know who their mother is."

A second similar set of photographs was taken a few weeks later when Debbie, who married Jacko in 1996, visited her children at his Neverland ranch. The photographer added: "Debbie was just as happy and relaxed at the second photoshoot. People may think she was an emotionally cold and uncaring woman to be able to walk away from her children. But if you saw her with them you'd realise there was much more to it than that."

In a five-page will written by Jackson in 2002 he specifically EXCLUDED Rowe from his estate, naming former Supremes singer Diana Ross as second choice to be the children's guardian if their gran couldn't do it.

Ploy

Now the family hope that will be enough to settle the issue. Privately they say they suspect any legal challenge from Rowe might just be a ploy to extract more cash.

And grieving star Diana - who first met Michael when he was just nine and singing with the Jackson 5 at Harlem's legendary Apollo theatre - has revealed details of the amazing deal she struck with him to keep his children away from Rowe.

Diana, 65, told a close pal: "I promised Michael I'd never allow that woman - we didn't mention her name - to get to his babies.

"Michael was terrified she'd end up with their children should anything happen to him. He begged me not to let her get them. That was his worst nightmare.

"We discussed him putting me as the children's guardian in his will but I didn't know he'd actually gone through with it. I was shocked he'd made it official.

Click here to see Michael Jackson's intimate family photos

"It's a huge responsibility but I'll keep my word if I have to. That woman doesn't deserve them. With Michael passing I've lost my best friend, we were loyal to one another and I don't know what I'll do without him.

"But he told me caring for the children would be his dying wish so of course I'm going to respect that."

Rowe initially signed away her parental rights to Jackson in 2001, folllowing a 1999 divorce, agreeing he was the "best father ever". But in December 2003, after 14-year-old Gavin Arvizo claimed Jackson had sexually abused him, Debbie made a legal application to regain temporary custody of her children.

In a legal declaration as part of that move she reveals that she kept up her visiting rights to the children for about a year, but relinquished them because she couldn't handle publicity surrounding the relationship and thought it would be "in the children's best interests".

However, she continues: "During the past few years I maintained contact with persons close to Michael so that I could keep updates on the children.

"I have their pictures throughout my home and often reflected on the fabulous life they must have enjoyed with their father.

"I was always told that our children were treated like royalty and were very happy children. I wanted to speak with Michael over the past few years to talk about our children but he did not want to speak with me.

"Michael never returned any phone calls nor initiated any conversation with me, so I unfortunately continued to rely on observations of others that had personal knowledge of the children and their welfare."

She then declares that the child abuse charges against Jackson had forced her to rethink, adding: "I believe that I will provide a more stable environment for our children at this particular time.

"I believe that I have a responsibility to protect and be involved with my children's life and well- being until such time as a full investigation can be conducted to determine really what is in the children's best interests.

"If I did not intercede now to help our children I would not be fulfilling my responsibility as a parent."

Fearing that Jackson was about to flee the country with her children before his trial, she requested that the children's passports be immediately surrendered.

She wrote: "Michael has close, influential and rich friends all over the world. He has the ability to rent a private jet at a moment's notice, have the children taken from the United States and never returned."

Other legal documents seen by the News of the World confirm Rowe as the natural mother to Prince and Paris. She entered a surrogacy agreement with Jackson on January 23, 1996, before artificial insemination by Dr Hal C Danzer with anonymously donated semen from a semen bank. They used what is popularly known as the 'turkey baster' method. They repeated the procedure in June 1997.

Following Rowe's initial 2003 application for custody, and Jackson's acquittal in 2005, Debbie reached a secret deal with the star a year later to give up all parental rights in exchange for a £4.5 million staggered ten-year deal.

She received a lump sum of £606,000 late in 2006 and then her first instalment of £390,000 on September 1, 2007. Last night doubts were growing that that any future payments would be made.

With granny Katherine now in charge of the children's care, a custody hearing scheduled for tomorrow has been postponed until next Monday July 13 at the request of Rowe's attorney.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE MICHAEL JACKSON STORIES, PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

AddThis

By Carole Aye Maung, Matthew Drake & Sara Nuwar, 05/07/2009
THESE are the astonishing 'happy family' pictures that could swing the custody battle for tragic Michael Jackson's children.

They show Jacko and ex-wife Debbie Rowe affectionately playing Mummy and Daddy, hugging and cuddling their two kids Prince and baby Paris.

VIDEO: WATCH UNSEEN VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL JACKSON SQUIRMING OVER SEX ALLEGATIONS

And the photos could prove a powerful weapon in former nurse Rowe's fight to win her children back - challenging stories depicting her as the detached surrogate with no maternal bond or attachment.

Following last week's shock death of 50-year-old oddball pop king Jacko in Los Angeles, Rowe threw down the gauntlet to the Jackson clan in the battle for her kids - now aged 12 and 11, declaring: "They are my flesh and blood. I'm going after my children!"

According to reports she also announced she'd consider raising Jackson's third child, seven-year-old Blanket. His surrogate mother has never been named.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE MICHAEL JACKSON STORIES, PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

Rowe - who controversially once accepted an $8.5 million (£5.2 million) pay-off from Jacko and GAVE UP any claims to the children - is spending the weekend deliberating with lawyers on her next move.

Clutches

But today the News of the World can also reveal:

* THE PACT Jackson made with superstar Diana Ross to keep his kids out of Rowe's clutches.
* ROWE'S FEARS that Michael would flee the US with the youngsters before his child molestation trial.
* CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Rowe was their natural mother impregnated with donor bank sperm.
* DOCUMENTS that show she first tried to get custody SIX YEARS ago and wanted to maintain contact.

Click here to see Michael Jackson's intimate family photos

Sources close to Rowe, 50, say she is spending this weekend locked in talks with legal advisers.

Meanwhile the Jackson family moved swiftly this week to install Michael's mother Katherine, 79, as legal guardian to all three children.

But our portraits, which have never been seen before, of apparently proud and loving mum Debbie with her babies will rattle the Jackson clan, who have often claimed she never even visited the children.

The photos - taken in a suite at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills about two weeks after Paris was born in April, 1998 - capture the first moment Rowe held her daughter for the very first time.

Jackson had whisked the baby away from the hospital moments after Rowe gave birth. The photographer told us: "Debbie couldn't wait to cradle Paris in her arms and Michael was happy to let her.

Click here to see Michael Jackson's intimate family photos

"It wasn't like he was giving her instructions and a list of what she could and couldn't do. Debbie was a natural mum from the off. She was talking to the baby saying stuff like, 'Hello Paris. I'm your mom!'

"In fact, she didn't want to put the little thing down, holding her as she was walking around the room and sitting down with her on a sofa. She wasn't just holding her for the photographs.

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- U.S. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev concluded a series of agreements Monday -- including one on nuclear arms reduction -- as part of a broader effort to strengthen ties between the one-time Cold War rivals.
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met in Moscow on Monday.

President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met in Moscow on Monday.
Click to view previous image
1 of 3
Click to view next image

The summit in Moscow was needed to help "reset" a relationship that, according to Obama, "has suffered from a sense of drift" in recent years.

"Too often, the United States and Russia only communicate on a narrow range of issues or let old habits within our bureaucracy stand in the way of our progress," Obama said.

"President Medvedev and I are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past, so that we can advance the interests that we hold in common."

Relations between Russia and the United States do not currently "correspond to their potential," Medvedev said, which is problematic given the two countries' "special responsibility for everything that is happening on our planet."

On the most immediate challenge, working out an arms control agreement to replace the START I treaty which expires December 5, the two presidents signed a joint understanding for a follow-on agreement to START that commits both parties to a legally binding treaty that will reduce nuclear weapons. Video Watch Obama discuss arms control pact »

The joint understanding commits the United States and Russia to reduce their strategic warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675, and their strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500 to 1,100. Under the expiring START and the Moscow treaties the maximum allowable levels of warheads is 2,200 and the maximum allowable level of launch vehicles is 1,600.

Russia has insisted on linking the arms control agreement to the controversial issue of a proposed U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The presidents dealt separately with that issue, instructing their experts to work together to carry out a joint threat assessment, analyze ballistic missile threats in the world and prepare appropriate recommendations.

They also announced plans to conduct a joint review on possible cooperation to monitor the development of missile programs around the world. Obama said the two leaders are discussing holding a global nuclear summit next year. Video Watch Obama's full opening statement in Russia »
Don't Miss

* Analysis: Who's in charge in Russia?
* Analysis: Can Obama, Medvedev reset relations?
* Medvedev optimistic on relations

Obama and Medvedev also pledged to strengthen cooperation to curb nuclear proliferation and prevent acts of nuclear terrorism.

In a joint statement on cooperation in Afghanistan, Russia agreed to allow up to 4,500 flights carrying U.S. military equipment and personnel through Russia for supplying U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The two leaders also agreed on a work plan for resuming military-to-military cooperation, and agreed on a framework for the U.S.-Russia joint commission on prisoners of war and missing in action.

The United States and Russia also will create a bilateral presidential commission, headed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, to provide better structure to the bilateral relationship. It will have a number of working groups on subjects as diverse as nuclear energy, drug trafficking, health and education.

The presidents also agreed to cooperate in the field of public health and medical science.

At their joint news conference, Obama said the two leaders had "frank discussion" on Georgia, with Obama telling the Russian president the territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected.

Obama said he trusts Medvedev to listen, negotiate and follow through on agreements.
advertisement

Asked by an American correspondent "who is in charge in Russia?" Obama said "his understanding" is that Medvedev is the president and Vladimir Putin is the prime minister.

He said his interest is in dealing with his counterpart, Medvedev, but also to reach out to all parts of Russian society. He said he has a strong impression that Putin and Medvedev and are working closely together.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg del.icio.us reddit MySpace StumbleUpon
| Mixx it | Share

CNN's Jill Dougherty contributed to this report

All About Russia • Dmitry Medvedev • Nuclear Weapons

(CNN) -- Iran's supreme leader blamed enemies and outsiders on Monday for the turmoil that followed last month's presidential elections, according to an Iranian news agency.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the West on Monday of meddling in Iran's affairs.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the West on Monday of meddling in Iran's affairs.

To a gathering in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Western governments of having "clearly meddled in the internal affairs of Iran" and the American and European media of depicting Iranians "as rioters," according to Fars News Agency.

He warned that meddling from presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers would hurt those nations' relations with Iran, according to Fars.

He said Iranians would see through the "lies" of Western governments and "know that your objective is to create doubt amongst them and propagate hate against the system of the Islamic Republic."

While "disappointment and sorrow" from voters when their candidate lost the June 12 election was "natural," Khamenei said, he condemned involvement by "outsiders" in the civil unrest that gripped the country after the balloting.

Government results showed that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad won in a landslide over his nearest rival, Mir Hossein Moussavi.
Don't Miss

* Iran frees embassy worker, 1 still jailed
* Clerics dispute election results
* Moussavi said to be planning new party
* Report: Iran to prosecute TV contributors

Widespread street protests followed, during which at least 20 demonstrators died and more than 1,000 were arrested, according to Iranian state-run media.

The numbers of casualties and arrests could not be independently verified by CNN because the Iranian government has banned international journalists.

The crackdown on the media followed widespread dissemination of video of the mass protests. Khamenei described American and European media coverage of the protests as "disrespectful to the people of Iran."

Despite any internal differences, Iranians would come together against their "enemy," he said, referring to outsiders.

"When it comes to confronting the enemy, even with various differences and viewpoints, [Iranians] will become united and be as one punch against them," he said.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg del.icio.us reddit MySpace StumbleUpon
| Mixx it | Share

All About Iran • Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

URUMQI, China — Police have arrested 1,434 suspects in connection with the worst ethnic violence in decades in China's western Xinjiang region, which killed at least 156 people, state media reported Tuesday.

The arrests come amid a security clampdown on the region, with hundreds of paramilitary police with shields, rifles and clubs taking control of the streets of the capital, Urumqi, where the riots took place on Sunday.

The violence does not bode well for China's efforts to mollify long-simmering ethnic tensions between the minority Uighur people 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.

Mobile phone service and the social networking site Twitter have been blocked, and Internet links also were cut or slowed down.

A nonviolent protest by 200 people 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 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.

Many Uighurs haven't been wooed by the rapid economic development. Some want independence, while others feel they're being marginalized in their homeland. The Han — China's ethnic majority — have been flooding into Xinjiang as the region becomes more developed.

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.

A similar situation exists in Tibet, where a violent protest last year left many Tibetan communities living under clamped-down security ever since.
Related Stories

* China Muslims Target of Deadly Riots

"The Han Chinese say we all belong to the same country. We're all part of one big family," said Memet, a restaurant worker who like other Uighurs declined to give his full name because he feared the police. "But the Han always treat us separately."

A Han Chinese shopkeeper, who only gave his surname Wang because the ethnic issue is so sensitive, disagreed. "Those who cause such trouble are criminals," he said. "They're never happy with what they have."

Sunday's violence was notable because it happened in Urumqi, which has been relatively peaceful and hasn't been a hotbed of religious or political agitation. In other restive Xinjiang cities, red propaganda banners are filled with slogans encouraging ethnic harmony. But most of the banners in Urumqi touted anti-drug and fire prevention campaigns.

The population of 2.3 million is also overwhelmingly Han Chinese in the city, a mixture of drab concrete apartment blocks and gleaming new office towers.

* See Next Story in World


* Print
* ShareThis

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ

*
China: At Least 140 Killed During Riots in West 26218310
*
China: 129 Killed, Scores Hurt in Riots in West 26216540
*
U.N. Chief Calls For Extreme Care in China, Elsewhere 26218668
*
Prolonged Sunspot Drought Ends as New Spots Appear 26222228
*
RAW DATA: Unedited Back-and-Forth at Monday's Hearing About Jackson Will 26221136

Recommendations by Loomia

Dmitry Medvedev is "straightforward, professional" and trustworthy, President Obama said Monday, as he and the Russian president engaged in confidence-building measures aimed at "resetting" the relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

"Throughout our interactions I've found him to be straightforward, professional. He is clear about the interests of the Russian people, but he's also interested in finding out what the interests of the United States are," Obama said in Moscow, while sharing a stage with Medvedev at their first joint news conference.

Asked by a reporter whether he has full trust in Medvedev, widely perceived to be a puppet for his predecessor, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Obama said he and Medvedev "have found, I think, an ability to work together extremely effectively."

For his part, Medvedev demonstrated that he and Obama share more than just a title. Just as Obama said he seeks judiciary nominees with the empathy that will enable them to adjudicate more fairly, Medvedev said personal relationships can improve attitudes and build trust.

"Personal relationships are very important, especially when you speak about the building of inter-state relationships. The best relationship between the countries are the more empathy people have towards each other in different countries," Medvedev said through a translator.

"A lot depends on our relationship and success in delivering on all those expectations on different fronts," he continued. "A lot depends on our efforts, bearing in mind that our people have always had sympathy towards -- empathy towards each other."

This week's Moscow summit is being characterized by the Obama administration as a chance to usher in a new era of friendship after the damage it says was done during the Bush administration.

Monday's press conference, however, conjured memories of the early respect that devolved into recriminations between former Presidents George W. Bush and Putin. In 2001, Bush and Putin appeared the best of friends when Bush hosted the Russian president at Camp David.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue," Bush said. "I was able to get a sense of his soul."

However, that relationship foundered over disputes about missile defense, the war in Iraq, support for Iran and most recently Russia's attack on Georgia, its neighbor and U.S. ally.

Obama and Medvedev appeared headed down a different path.

During this trip, Obama and Medvedev offered up eight agreements -- dealing with policies from health and agriculture to nuclear arms reduction and the fight in Afghanistan -- to demonstrate a new era of cooperation.

Obama said he's appreciative of the manner in which the Russian president has dealt with him and the cooperation between their respective teams.

"I trust President Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow -- follow through on the agreements that are contained here today," he said.

But the U.S. president is scheduled to meet Tuesday for breakfast with Putin even though his counterpart, Medvedev, is nominally of higher authority. In a parliamentary democracy like Russia's the prime minister is technically the head of government while the president is the head of state.

Obama said he wanted to meet with Putin as well as other influential leaders in Russia so that he can get "a full picture" of the needs and concerns of the Russian people. When asked, he did not address whether Medvedev is the true leader of that country.

"My strong impression is that President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are working very effectively together. And our interest is dealing with the Russian government as a whole in order to achieve the improved bilateral relationship that I think can be accomplished," Obama said.

Obama is working off a script that he has successfully read before, appealing directly to the Russian people with a speech at the New Economic School. Obama previously has spoken to audiences in Germany and Cairo.

In covering his bases, he may turn around a July 2 poll of Russians taken by the University of Maryland's WorldPublicOpinion.org that found 49 percent of Russians think the U.S. plays a negative role in the world. Only 23 percent said they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in international affairs.
0
x

in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
111 Comments | Add Comment

With fuel prices topping four dollars per gallon in some states, many Americans want to keep their paychecks in their pockets and out of their gas tanks. Thanks to cheap Internet access and fast computers, some workers can perform their jobs just as well from home as they can in the office. Government analysts recently identified ten fast-growing jobs that combine higher-than-average hourly wages with the benefits of working from home.
#1: Administrative Services Manager

Traditionally, administrative services managers oversee large support staffs in offices such as hospitals and law firms. As larger employers consolidate responsibilities for multiple locations into a handful of positions, more administrative services managers have earned the option to work some or all of their hours from a home office. Earning an associate's or bachelor's degree in business can help you gain the skills necessary for this managerial telecommuting job that often pays more than $30 per hour.
#2: Computer Systems Analyst

These information technology professionals help companies design state-of-the-art systems to run businesses. As employers use telecommuting jobs as a key strategy in their recruitment efforts, computer systems analysts often test new ideas at their own home offices. Learning about tools like virtual private network (VPN), video chat, and virtual desktops during a computer science degree program can help qualify graduates for home-based jobs that pay over $30 per hour.
#3: Database Manager

All kinds of companies rely on databases, from mom-and-pop service organizations to global retailers. Because most databases can be maintained from any live Internet connection, a growing number of database managers work remotely over secure, private networks. Though some database managers earn salaries from large employers, specialists with business degrees and computer training can earn over $30 an hour working from home as freelance database specialists.
#4: Public Relations Specialist

Because most public relations tasks involve phone or email, many PR specialists enjoy working from home at least a few days per week. With a bachelor's degree in communications, an office veteran can transition to a home-based job writing press releases and responding to media requests. Experienced PR professionals can complete online business training programs to launch their own practices as freelancers in home offices. In both cases, public relations specialists frequently earn more than $22 per hour.
#5: Paralegal

As more Americans seek quality legal representation, many law firms rely more heavily on paralegals for research assignments and routine tasks. Unlike lawyers, who must complete law school and pass a state bar exam, paralegals can start assisting on cases after completing an associate's degree program. Some law firms prefer to hire telecommuting paralegals to avoid adding office space. Other employers like the flexibility of bringing on temporary paralegals to cover sudden spikes in their caseloads. In both cases, many home-based paralegals earn over $20 an hour.
#6: Probation Officer

With many state governments trying to balance crowded jails with increased prosecution, many local agencies seek home-based probation officers.While the job often includes making site visits, many probation officers spend a significant portion of time on the phone or on email from home offices. With a bachelor's degree in social work, an experienced security professional can transition to this home-based career that offers a typical salary of $20 per hour plus government benefits.
#7: Web Design Professional

Early Web designers often received criticism for being teenagers working from home in their parents' attics. However, today's most successful Web design professionals enjoy home offices that boast high-speed Internet connections and fast workstations. Earning over $20 per hour as a home-based Web designer requires design skill, programming prowess, and a solid career portfolio. Most novice designers pick up all three of these success ingredients during Web design degree programs, many of which are available online.
#8: Desktop Publisher

Just as small businesses rely on public relations professionals to tell their stories, company owners look to desktop publishing professionals to make their stories look good in print. Advanced publishing tools now make it possible for desktop publishers to work from home, often earning over $20 as freelancers or in staff positions. Advanced training courses in graphic design and desktop publishing help these specialists retain the cutting-edge skills that help build strong client rosters.
#9: Medical Transcriptionist

As many doctors' offices and health care facilities struggle to meet the demands of increased patient loads, home-based medical transcriptionists ride to the rescue. By leveraging skills gained in campus-based or online medical transcription training programs, these specialists can earn $14 or more per hour without leaving home. In many cases, agencies or employers also cover the costs of computers and Internet connections for efficient transcriptionists.
#10: Virtual Assistant

Bootstrapping a business in today's economy often requires creative thinking. Some of the most creative and successful professionals in consulting, real estate, and health care have realized that they can reap the benefits of having full-time administrative assistance without the costs of expanding their own offices. Virtual assistants provide high-end secretarial tasks on demand for clients, usually from home offices. Completing an online training course is often the first step toward an essential work-from-home job that pays $13 or more per hour.
Lincoln College of Technology
This article is sponsored by Lincoln College of Technology

Lincoln gives you the academic reputation and personalized attention of a traditional college along with the convenience, flexibility, and value you need and expect from an online college... That's the