Debbie Rowe -- She Gets Custody if She Wants

46. DEBBIE SHOULD get all the children. They should not be separated. Michael's mother raised a very unhappy boy in Michael. She doesn't need to screw up that job all over again.

Posted at 12:17PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Annette

47. They should go back to the mother after all look at the Jackson family as a whole talk about dysfunction give the kids back to their Mom and the Beatle Book back to Paul

Posted at 12:23PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Say it like it is

48. PAID

Posted at 12:18PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Toad

49. HOW CAN PEOPLE SAY THEY WILL HAVE A NORMAL LIFE WITH HER. IS NORMAL TO HAVE KIDS WITH MICHEAL?? IS IT NORMAL TRYING GIVING CUSTODY RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN?? IS IT NORMAL SELLING YOUR KIDS?? PLEASEEE SHE IS NOT NORMAL.. THE ONLY NORMAL THING SHE WILL DO IS BE GREETY AND TRY TO TAKE HIS FORTUNE..AND WILL NOT BE FOR THE KIDS..

Posted at 12:19PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Ele..

50. Deepak Chopra wrote a blog in tribute to Michael. In it, he says that Grace Rwaramba has been the children's nanny and surrogate mother. Debbie Rowe should get two of the three kids rather than the woman the children have always known?! What about Blanket? To think Debbie Rowe might separate these children from one another and take them solely for the money makes my heart hurt. I pray that she is a better person than that.

Posted at 12:19PM on Jun 26th 2009 by KN

51. Does Jackson's estate have any money? Won't it be tied up?

Posted at 12:20PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Tim

52. One of the best videos that highlights Michael Jackson's best dance moves and videos....check it out!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pveL3tM9ejw

I'm not sure if I think this women could be a better mother to those kids than his own family members. She seems to have just been a egg doner like some men are just sperm doner and what about the baby "blanket" who would take care of him?

Posted at 1:22PM on Jun 26th 2009 by JC

53. What about the third little boy, I hope they don't split these kids up.

Posted at 12:20PM on Jun 26th 2009 by shelly

54. The only chance those kids have NOT to be exploited by the Jacksons is for Row to get custody. God help those kids if the Jacksons get them.

Posted at 12:20PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Al

55. Annette-Don't you realize that the third kid is not Debbie's? So, if she gets custody of the first to kids, the will be separated from their baby brother. I think that would be so sad. The kids should stay together and MJ's mother should get them.

Posted at 12:20PM on Jun 26th 2009 by SAD

56. She never wanted the kids in the first place, why should she get them now? And there is the third child to consider. All three children should remain together. What a mess.

Posted at 12:21PM on Jun 26th 2009 by There is no such thing as reality tv

57. Please, have a jackson raise those kids? They are all messed up! The parents ould not raise their own kids right, why let them mess up more.

Also, besides these kids I am done with hearing about MJ. He was a child molester and I could give one rat behind how popular his music was. HE HURT CHILDREN and we want to go and ignore this for who he is? PLEASE

Unless Mj changed and admitted some how what he did was wrong he is rotting in Hell!

Posted at 12:22PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Gail

58. The custody comment, above, is technically correct. However, California follows the "best interest of the child" standard. One thing Family Courts very carefully look at is the bond between siblings. I believe that a rational Family Court judge would realize that taking the 11 and 12 year olds away from their 7 year old brother would cause profound emotional harm to the 11 and 12 year olds....let alone cause horrific harm to the 7 year old, who Debbie Rowe has no relation to.

My expectation is that the Jackson Family can muster more legal fire power than Rowe, and that a serious effort will be made by them to keep the 3 kids together, albeit with normal part time custody on Debbie Rowe's part.

If Debbie Rowe is smart, from a legal strategy point of view, she will not make a move to grab the kids from Grandma Jackson until after the Funeral, and after the dust settles post funeral. If she doesn't, the Family Court judge will ultimately see her as a money grubber more interested in lining her pocket than in protecting the emotional welfare of her children, and that private conclusion by the judge will affect his/her rulings.

Posted at 12:36PM on Jun 26th 2009 by Santa Claritan

59. Why should the children go to Debbie? Do the kids even know her?
And lets not forget, she is not the mother of Michael's youngest kid, i don't remember his name, but he got called Blanket i think.

So where would he go? I seriously hope they do not seperate the kids. It's tragic enough that they've lost their father, they shouldn't have to loose each other too.

The kids should go to someone they know and love.

Posted at 12:21PM on Jun 26th 2009 by lene

60. u guys r faster than cnn in breaking the news.....good job

Posted at 12:21PM on Jun 26th 2009 by kjnkj