TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Debbie Rowe --

She Gets Custody if She Wants

6/26/2009 12:52 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Debbie RoweDebbie Rowe is poised to take full custody of the two children she bore for Michael Jackson.

It has been widely reported Debbie Rowe gave up her parental rights to Paris and Michael Jr. That is not true.

During the custody fight that Rowe had with Jackson in 2005, she attempted to give up her parental rights, saying Michael was the greatest father ever. Retired Judge Stephen Lachs, who presided over the hearing, initially ruled her rights were terminated ... but then Lachs reversed his decision.

Here's what happened. We spoke with Lance Spiegel, the lawyer who repped Jackson at the time. Spiegel says under the law, the Department of Children and Family Services must conduct a parental fitness investigation before parental rights are terminated and that didn't happen with Rowe.

So Rowe has never given up any of her parental rights. As a result, under California law, Rowe is now presumed to be the person who will get custody. The only way Rowe can be denied custody is if a court determines it would be "detrimental to the children."


As for whether Rowe will ask for custody .... our sources say you can bet on it. We're told if Rowe gets custody she will get "a huge amount of child support from Jackson's estate."




Michael Jackson Children Photos

427 COMMENTS

No Avatar
331.

Sasha    

Don't know what's going to happen, but Deb may take them. That's a HUGE possibility, especially with the media and public thinking you are big-time weird for not AT LEAST wanting some sort of visitation with them. Clearly she was just a surrogate, a friend he trusted to carry his children, not mom who divorced dad. But the 2 got married causing people to wonder why a mom would want ZERO visitation. You're not supposed to marry the damn surrogate!! You pay for their exspenses and move on. She said "they are HIS kids" which are the clear words of a surrogate, not a mother who broke up with the father. Why they got married is beyond me.

With all the hoopla around their dad and family, I think it best they not be separated. With the fact that they are siblings who've known no mom and now dad is gone, I think it best they not be separated. It's not too hard to keep them together since there will be money to help support them all. Sometimes one household can't afford to take all kids in sad situations lik this and kid's get separated. Not in this case. Money is not an issue.

Whether Deb mans up and takes all three, I don't know. But I do think these kids need each other, not 2 with Deb and the littlest one God knows where barely seeing their sibling. Even if the 3rd stays in Cali and Deb does too, they should still REMAIN TOGETHER UNDER ONE ROOF. This will be hard on them.

KEEP THE 3 TOGETHER!! PLEASE!!

1883 days ago
332.

Patti    

11. NOOOO she definitely should not get the kids, I hink Katherine should have them and all of michael's assets

Posted at 12:07PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Avid TMZ reader

In answer to that, Katherine is too old, and will probably die before the kids are grown. I don't know how old she is, but probably at least 80. The kids should go to Debbie if she wants them, and the Jacksons get visitation. It would be best for hte kids if Debbie took Blamnket too, so the kids aren't separated.I don't know how old she is, but probably at least 80.

1883 days ago
333.

ash    

http://twitpic.com/8et2f

^^PEREZ'S ORIGINAL POST. HE COVERED IT UP AND HAS YET TO APOLOGIZE OR ACKNOWLEDGE HIS MISTAKE. EMAIL HIM @ PEREZ@PEREZHILTON.COM OR COMMENT HIS SITE!

1883 days ago
334.

Michael Madsen    

Rowe, Rowe, Rowe your boat gently to the Bank....
Merrily, Merrily, Merrily, Merrily I am now a Queen...

1883 days ago
335.

gracey    

These beautiful children of his need to stay with his family,who they,ve grown up with all their lives and feel safe in familiar surroundings.-which they need at this very tragic time.It would be so cruel to rip them away from this huge loving seccure family that have always been constant in their lives.And to seperate them.So evil and unforgivable if someone lets this happen.R.I.P M.J.Sending much love to the jackson family.

1883 days ago
336.

Katie    

I knew a bi-racial girl in high school who was just as light as them.

1883 days ago
337.

jlove    

All I have to say is she's only in it for the money. Always has and always will, that is why she was willing to give them up..because she doesn't care about anyone or anything except Michael's money. She was just one of MANY who took advantage of that wonderful man's generous nature. Shame on you Debbie, she better let the kids stay with the Jackson family.

1883 days ago
338.

demis bicycle seat    

i think she should get together with larry birkhead


by the way how much money did he have???? he was in BIGTIME debt

1883 days ago
339.

MADRADDER    

Debbie sold the kids basically to Michael. Anybody who would do that does not deserve to have the kids. She has aways been in it for the money, Michael wrote her checks and she went away. She does not deserve the kids or the money. But neither does Kevin Federline, but I guess that doesn't matter. She'll get the kids and the money in the end I'm sure. Very sad. I'm sure this is not what Michael would have wanted.

1883 days ago
340.

jocuri    

of course she wants

1883 days ago
341.

Loserville    

That money hungry witch never gave a damn about the kids before...but now she sees a huge payday in her future.

Those kids don't know her from a stranger on the street, and she never wanted to know them! Let them be with their grandmother, who they know and who they love, not some weird woman who gave birth but is not their MOTHER in the truest sense of the word.

1883 days ago
342.

Ed    

What about his third child? Who is their mother, and are there any arrangements for custody?

1883 days ago
343.

BO Johnson    

I dont see how anyone will get any money from taking the kids, considering Michael Jackson was in debt up the wazoo.

1883 days ago
344.

pam    

For one thing all she was is a surrogate and she hasn't had any contact with those kids, therefore she has already recieved payment for the birth of those kids and that should be the end of it for her, all she wants is more money and the publicity. She wil whore those poor kids out for fame and like I said the money, instead of protecting them. I really don't think that she is even concerened or has the ability mentally to be concerened of what it will do to separate those poor kids.

1883 days ago
345.

Zoe    

I don't know if this is the best thing. She was never around them growing up and now they have to live with a complete stranger, regardless of whether or not she is their mother. The Jackson family raised them (not just Michael but his parents and extended family) as well as their nanny. I came from a family that raised me and a family that didn't, and I would be double traumatized if I had to be raised by the side that had never been there when it counted. This is going to be a difficult time of transition for everyone. By all accounts, MJ was a great dad, as evidenced by him putting his life on hold the day they were born. The masks were strange, but served to protect them and it worked. The media didn't know what they looked like most of their lives and were thus unable to hound them when they went out in public with other people or without masks. That shows a tremendous amount of foresight and care, whether you think it's weird or not. RIP, MJ. And bless Katherine, those kids, and the entire family.

1883 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web