Debbie Rowe- Is she entitled to MJ's children? (life, Family, 2003)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hell no. Not in my opinion!!! My heart goes out to those poor, innocent children!! Debbie Rowe was paid off and didn't give a hoot about them...Money talks........
She will be on 20/20 with Barbara Walters tonite 9pm EST! Don't miss it!
Hell no. Not in my opinion!!! My heart goes out to those poor, innocent children!! Debbie Rowe was paid off and didn't give a hoot about them...Money talks........
She will be on 20/20 with Barbara Walters tonite 9pm EST! Don't miss it!
No, a real parent would never have left her children in the first place! I doubt she has any maternal feelings toward the children. And if she is the mother to only two and only has rights to two of the children, where would Blanket (Prince II) go?
When my son died, a part of my life died too. I doubt she has deep feelings for those children. The children belong with who knows them best. Thank goodness they are old enough to speak for themselves!
My heart goes out to Michael's mom. When my 17 year old died, well... I'll let his site do the speaking for me instead. A son's tragic death.
The children belong with the Jackson's.
I do not think Debbie Rowe is equipped to raise her children, although she could afford the lifestyle they've been used to. But the nurturing just wasn't there. I watched a 2003 interview with her last night and she admitted to never changing diapers or tending to them in the middle of the night ~ Michael did all that.
Michael had his reasons to select her as the biological mother, but I wish he had picked someone interested in the caring of those children. I'm sure his mother is a loving granny but at 79 years of age she could very well kick the bucket before the children become adults. And I don't know about Joe being too prominent in their lives.
I can't help wondering if there isn't a good candidate among his siblings who could have stepped up to the plate.
Once the ruling is made that Katherine gains permanent custody and Rowe is paid off again....the kids will probably be passed off, at least part time, to another family member a little younger and more spry. JMO.
Debbie Rowe should not get custody of the kids because she doesn't seem to have had any REAL interest in them. She took Michael's money and that's all she cared about...........what a loser. I feel for the kids because there lives are so complicated and to have to go throught all the upcoming trials and other things it's just not fair. JMO
No she shouldnt, they dont even know her. I am sure they dont want to live with her anyway. She is all about the money. No money in the world can make me part with my son.
I think "entitled" in an odd word to use here. No one should be "entitled" to these kids. Hopefully, their best interest will be the main concern. FWIW - I can't see that having Debbie Rowe as a mom would be in those kids best interest. They don't even know her.
I just thought of something. Michael "bought" them from Debbie. I guess 2 sides of the coin lol..but I do think the Jacksons should raise them.... Janet was wonderful with them!
To me. this is a situation that is the same as an absentee father or mother that was never in a child's life, then the parent who raised them die and all of a sudden they want custody. I think MJ's family should raise the children as they are comfortable with them. It is about the children not Debbie Rowe
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.