Debbie Rowe wants her kids back.

Topics

*BB*

BBC NEWS / ENTERTAINMENT

19:05 GMT, Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:05 UK
Jackson's ex-wife in custody vow

Debbie Rowe, the ex-wife of Michael Jackson, says she will fight for custody of the two children she had with the late pop icon.

"I want my children," Ms Rowe said in an interview on Thursday with the NBC TV network in Los Angeles.

Ms Rowe is the mother of Prince Michael, 12, and Paris Michael Katherine, 11. A third child, Prince Michael II, 7, has a surrogate mother.

Jackson's mother has been given temporary custody pending a hearing.

The star, who was 50, died after suffering heart failure at his Los Angeles home last Thursday.

In the telephone interview, Ms Rowe said she was prepared to undergo DNA testing to prove she was the children's biological mother.

She said she would also seek a restraining order to keep Jackson's father, Joe, away from them.

"I am stepping up, I have to," she said.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

carotinoMember

7/2/0912:28 PM

PussMember

That's disgusting, she was only interested in the bliddy money anyway. Now she wants to split the children up, beyond belief

7/2/0912:29 PM

Former Member

This was always gonna happen.. Where there's a Will......

7/2/0912:29 PM

*BB*Member

This saga looks like it's destined to run for years in the US courts.

7/2/0912:30 PM

Blizz'ardMember 10 years

quote:
Originally posted by pussycatj:
That's disgusting, she was only interested in the bliddy money anyway. Now she wants to split the children up, beyond belief

Maybe she'll take the blanket as well?

7/2/0912:30 PM

fabienneMember

It seems sad to split up the children.

7/2/0912:30 PM

MathematicsMember

She should leave well alone.

Did she not agree on a cash settlement for Michael Jackson taking full custody of the children?

7/2/0912:31 PM

MargueritaMember

They should all be kept together with the family they are used to which is the Jackson family,she was never a mother to them she put money first before them that just about sums her up

7/2/0912:33 PM

PussMember

quote:
Originally posted by Mathematics:
She should leave well alone.

Did she not agree on a cash settlement for Michael Jackson taking full custody of the children?

of course she did, but I guess the cash is running low, hence the publicity.

7/2/0912:33 PM

mandalaMember

she had a baster inserted for money and gave them away
diana ross would look after the poor unfortunates

7/2/0912:33 PM

Former Member

I thought the children were conceived through IVF with donor eggs and sperm? Who the hell knows though? If she is willing to have the DNA test, maybe the father is a turkey baster!

Under California law though, it doesn't matter. MJ is the father on record and Debbie is the mother. Has she had contact with them while they were growing up?

There are so many unanswered questions that we will never know the answers to.

7/2/0912:33 PM

RoxiMember

She cant have them

. She didnt want them when they were born and she gave up all rights to them through the divorce. So the court shouldnt give them to her. She didnt care about those kids only Michael cared and loved them and he brought them up on his own. This woman has a bloody cheek to want them back now

7/2/0912:35 PM

cologne 1Member Memoriam

There is an outside chance that she doesn't want them to get the same treatment as their father did when he was young. Allegedly.

7/2/0912:36 PM

pigeonpieMember

This simply can't happen.

7/2/0912:37 PM

mandalaMember

quote:
Originally posted by cologne1:
There is an outside chance that she doesn't want them to get the same treatment as their father did when he was young. Allegedly.

there is an inside chance she wants cash

7/2/0912:37 PM

BethniMember 10 years

quote:
Originally posted by Mathematics:
She should leave well alone.

Did she not agree on a cash settlement for Michael Jackson taking full custody of the children?

No... she started court proceeding's in 2003 for custody...Michael then gave her more access and visiting right's so she withdrew from a custody fight.

7/2/0912:37 PM

Former Member

quote:
Originally posted by Suzi-Q:
....There are so many unanswered questions that we will never know the answers to.

Ask Roxi. She's bound to know

7/2/0912:39 PM

BethniMember 10 years

quote:
Originally posted by Roxi:
She cant have them . She didnt want them when they were born and she gave up all rights to them through the divorce. So the court shouldnt give them to her. She didnt care about those kids only Michael cared and loved them and he brought them up on his own. This woman has a bloody cheek to want them back now

Going on what your saying are you suggesting they be buried with Michael ? His parent's didn't do a very good job with him and his sibling's, i hardly think the court's will let them have children when they are so old now.
As for Diana Ross having them, you can't just leave children to someone in your will, they aren't property.

7/2/0912:41 PM

kattymieowwMember 10 years

Poor children,reduced to mere commodities by them all.

7/2/0912:42 PM

cologne 1Member Memoriam

quote:
Originally posted by mandala:
quote:
Originally posted by cologne1:
There is an outside chance that she doesn't want them to get the same treatment as their father did when he was young. Allegedly.
there is an inside chance she wants cash

It's good that we can all have our own thoughts.

7/2/0912:43 PM

LiverpoollassMember

quote:
Originally posted by Marguerita:
They should all be kept together with the family they are used to which is the Jackson family,she was never a mother to them she put money first before them that just about sums her up

Having said that though, the grandmother is 79. What happens when she dies? Perhaps the children would be better off with one of Michael's brothers and sisters?

7/2/0912:44 PM

*BB*Member

I hope that the desision makers think to ask the children who they would like to care for them. Their wishes should be taken into account.

7/2/0912:44 PM

cologne 1Member Memoriam

quote:
Originally posted by *BB*:
I hope that the desision makers think to ask the children who they would like to care for them. Their wishes should be taken into account.

I agree.

7/2/0912:46 PM

mandalaMember

quote:
Originally posted by cologne1:
quote:
Originally posted by *BB*:
I hope that the desision makers think to ask the children who they would like to care for them. Their wishes should be taken into account.

I agree.

does anyone know the ages of the kids

7/2/0912:47 PM

BethniMember 10 years

quote:
Originally posted by *BB*:
I hope that the desision makers think to ask the children who they would like to care for them. Their wishes should be taken into account.

I just think it's a shame the authorities that make dicision's didn't step in and stop the whole set up of how these children came to be in the first place.
SOMEONE should have made ALL parties aware that children are not accessories to be bought and sold or left in a Will to someone too old to look after them.

7/2/0912:49 PM

squiggleMember 10 years

I thought the most significant bit of the news item was that she wanted to make sure the children weren't allowed near Michael's father, which is what I worry about too.

7/2/0912:50 PM

Former Member

quote:
Originally posted by mandala:
quote:
Originally posted by cologne1:
quote:
Originally posted by *BB*:
I hope that the desision makers think to ask the children who they would like to care for them. Their wishes should be taken into account.

I agree.

does anyone know the ages of the kids

I think they are around 12 and 10, so old enough to be consulted.

7/2/0912:50 PM

BethniMember 10 years

quote:
Originally posted by mandala:
quote:
Originally posted by cologne1:
quote:
Originally posted by *BB*:
I hope that the desision makers think to ask the children who they would like to care for them. Their wishes should be taken into account.

I agree.

does anyone know the ages of the kids

12, 11 and 7 yrs

7/2/0912:51 PM

*BB*Member

quote:
Originally posted by squiggle:
I thought the most significant bit of the news item was that she wanted to make sure the children weren't allowed near Michael's father, which is what I worry about too.

Yes, I thought that was very telling.

7/2/0912:51 PM

MentalistMember

Give them to Jermaine he has kids all over the place, he won't notice three more.

7/2/0912:53 PM

RoxiMember

quote:
Originally posted by Bethni:
Going on what your saying are you suggesting they be buried with Michael ? His parent's didn't do a very good job with him and his sibling's, i hardly think the court's will let them have children when they are so old now.
As for Diana Ross having them, you can't just leave children to someone in your will, they aren't property.

No im not saying that. His parents may of brought Michael and his siblings up in a strict way but they wouldnt be like that to Michael's children. From what has been said the children love their grandparents alot. The courts will probably give the children to the grandparents and if that fails Diana Ross gets them. Michael knew Diana Ross very well and so he chose her to be the second choice of guardian if Katherine Jackson couldnt look after the children

7/2/091:00 PM

Former Member

quote:
Originally posted by Mentalist:
Give them to Jermaine he has kids all over the place, he won't notice three more.

No DISRISPECK intended here, but this whole hoopla being publicly played out is getting more surreal by the day. Pretty much the whole family is Twilight Zone.

And did you see that evil hatchet-face old slimeball, Pa Joe? All gussied up in his natty suit & his hat & his bling, peddling his latest business venture - just a few days after the death of his son

7/2/091:00 PM

carotinoMember

Diana Ross gets the kids

7/2/091:02 PM

cologne 1Member Memoriam

quote:
Originally posted by squiggle:
I thought the most significant bit of the news item was that she wanted to make sure the children weren't allowed near Michael's father, which is what I worry about too.

That was my point to squiggle.

7/2/091:03 PM

*BB*Member

quote:
Originally posted by carotino:
Diana Ross gets the kids

I hope not. She's no spring chicken either.

7/2/091:03 PM

cologne 1Member Memoriam

quote:
Originally posted by Deegs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mentalist:
Give them to Jermaine he has kids all over the place, he won't notice three more.

No DISRISPECK intended here, but this whole hoopla being publicly played out is getting more surreal by the day. Pretty much the whole family is Twilight Zone.

And did you see that evil hatchet-face old slimeball, Pa Joe? All gussied up in his natty suit & his hat & his bling, peddling his latest business venture - just a few days after the death of his son

Yep, horrendous bloke.

7/2/091:05 PM

Former Member

Mark Lester is the Godfather of his kids. I thought that was the whole point of having Godparents? They would bring the kids up?

7/2/091:05 PM

JoyronMember

quote:
Originally posted by squiggle:
I thought the most significant bit of the news item was that she wanted to make sure the children weren't allowed near Michael's father, which is what I worry about too.

Best comment in this whole thread.

7/2/091:05 PM

LiverpoollassMember

quote:
Originally posted by squiggle:
I thought the most significant bit of the news item was that she wanted to make sure the children weren't allowed near Michael's father, which is what I worry about too.

Perhaps giving custody to the grandmother is not a very wise decision, in light of how Michael was brought up and the alleged abuse suffered at the hands of his father. I know they are elderly now, but who can take that chance?

7/2/091:05 PM

Ad-Free	Search Site	Start Dialogs
Upload Photos	Upload Videos	Upload Audio
Upload Documents	Use Signature	Block Members
View Member Directory	Mark All Topics As Read	Edit Posts Anytime
Post To Walls

Skip to main content

Topics

Add Reply

Membership Required

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

Premium Membership Required

VIP

Please wait...