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
46.

Cammie    

"The kids need to stay in the Jackson Family"...what? You mean the same dysfunctional family that raised MJ and the others? Stop disparaging the two mothers who carried the children in their wombs for nine months and, especially, Debbie Rowe as she was physically with those of her womb for a period of time and, also, legally married to MJ for two years before she was forced out and paid to keep her mouth shut and likely threatened throughout the years. Most of those negatively commenting about the biological mothers have either far too many children of their own to savor and appreciate the experience of the forever soul-bonding that takes place between a mother and fetus during a full-term pregnancy/birth or have not experienced a full-term pregnancy yourself, i.e. the very reason the greater percentage of humans seek-out the other or absent parent when they have the legal rights to do so.

This death and the many evolving legal issues involved will make the ANS case look like child's play. After the funeral everyone needs to get back to the serious issues at hand in the State of California and the United States of America and curtail the hero worship of people who are pharmaceutical- and illicit-drug addicts who hypnotize fans with their music/acting and take your hardearned monies to waste on obscene and lavish lifestyles and end-up with a multiple-bankrupt life? Nobody is so important that they need to surround themselves with thug bodyguards most of whom have criminal backgrounds.

1759 days ago
47.

KSD    

She would sell her kids off if she had another chance, and I dont think it would be best for her to get the kids, sure she is the mother and I almost always believe the kids belong with their mother, even in divorces.

So I voted a big fat NO.

1759 days ago
48.

Pixie    

(((NO!!!)))
THAT B!TCH SHOULD NOT GET THE KIDS!
SHE USED THOSE KIDS TO GET MONEY.
SHE SOLD THEM !!( .! )

1759 days ago
49.

blues fan    

Angel, those everyday custody situations you refer to involve two bio-parents who were married or living together and then decided to split -- they were both involved in the daily lives of their children and will continue to be, except that one has primary physical custody and receives financial support from the other. BIG difference between that, and what Debbie Rowe did; she was an incubator for hire, and she made it very clear that she did not feel any emotional attachment to those kids. It was a business arrangement, she was paid very well for her services, and once her part of the bargain was completed she was out of the picture -- and perfectly OK with that. That is NOT a mother! If she is expressing interest in having custody of those kids after all these years, it's because it will be financially beneficial for her: NOT a good reason to give her custody. Aren't the two older kids 11 or 12? If so, the court will listen to their wishes and take them into consideration. I too feel that it would definitely be best to keep all 3 siblings together, and it should be one of Michael's more stable siblings.

1759 days ago
50.

SallyZ.    

Serious,what mother?She may be their biological mother,but sold them to him,reason enough not to let her have their custodies.She never wanted them.And they don't know her,she never visited them or talked with them.Now she wants them,of course,the child support will be good for her,but only for her.If there is money to be received.He died leaving debts of millions of dollars,if she receives 1 dollar of child support,will be a lot.Nobody can force them to live with a stranger,even if she is the biological mother.They must live with someone they know,respect and love.
People,she sold them,never liked them,they aren't babies anymore and will reject her,she sold them.I think they must know she sold them,she abandoned them for money and she knew what she was doing.She is hungry for money,and these kids worth money,if they receive something.
I hope she doesn't get their custodies,she is a gold-digger,a horrible mother(and a good mother doesn't sell her kids for money) and will use them to get money too.They don't know her and let them live with her would be a huge,big mistake.These kids will be unhappy.For their well-being,they should stay with Michael's mother,she knows them better than Debbie never knew.Debbie is a total stranger to them.It's wrong,she will sell the kids again,for money.They will suffer,and a lot,they will be used by her to get more money for her bank acount.
She is the mother,but a mother that really loves her children NEVER sells her own kids,for money,NEVER.She's pathetic and a bad example for others mothers and future mothers.
One more thing:Real father or not,Michael Jackson was the only father they knew.And they love him,they are suffering for his loss.In the paper,he is still the father.

1759 days ago
51.

toinetoine    

what a shame so many views, and most of them coming out of the end or your %^&*. because he lost his dark skin color i would think he didnt want his kids to look different them him. how would you feel if you had his disease and was almost white and you had children who were dark. most of it is in his mind but as a black man myself i wouldnt want my kids to feel out of place with my skin color. i see and understand his reason for, chooseing a white lady to bare his kids. so he can get a lighter version of himself.

1759 days ago
52.

Rascaldaisy    

Hey peeps...Michael is NOT, and I repeat..NOT dead. This is just a publicuty stunt.

1759 days ago
53.

very sad day    

They are his kids...come on..I have a bi-ratical grandbaby and she looks more white than black...as for custody, I'm torn. Katherine is older and not in the best of health (so they say) I just hope they have a good life. It's a tradegy to lose a parent, no matter what the public thinks of him.

1759 days ago
54.

Merin    

1. Michael's mother helped to mess up the lives of him and his siblings - hopefully she doesn't get these children.
2. This is their first chance for a normal parent - and she did have visitation rights with them, at least up to '05.
3. She has NO LEGAL RIGHT to Blanket. She can't just "take him in" because it's the right thing to do people! She has no biological or legal ties to his third child so unless the child's mother steps forward he will more than likely go to Michael's mother.
4. WHAT MONEY? He's been leveraged to the hilt for years, there are several lawsuits pending against him + the $40 million advance for the London concerts will have to be reimbursed + he doesn't have the title to Neverland and signed a legal contract putting all of his things from that house up for auction.

1759 days ago
55.

freeaprilgriffin    

NOT TRUE-APRIL GRIFFIN IS FACING 12 YEARS_NO CRIMINAL RECORD OR ANYTHING_FOR REFUSING TO AGREE WITH THE CORRUPT JUDGE WHO LITERALLY SOLD HER BABY TO THE UGANDAN WHO RAPED HER_NOT EVER MARRIED TO THIS DOUCHE BAG_THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE BABY IS UNKNOWN< THE POLICE BEAT HER_PEPPER_SPRAYED HER AND THE BABY< BROKE THE BABY BONES_AND NOW THE BABY IS IN EXTREME DANGER_AMERICA IS CORRUPT_NO JUSTICE_NO PEACE

1759 days ago
56.

cheidel    

The most important thing to remember is: "WHAT EVER IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN" granted MJ is the only father they (all 3 children) have ever know. They have also been a part of the Jackson Family all of their lives (the grandmother adores them), as well as the rest of the family. Spliting them up is not a very good idea for them emotionally at this time, espeically after the sudden death of their father. Besides the kids don't even know her (Debbie Rowe), they have also spent their lives with the Nanny present, not their biological mother. Therefore, it is my opinion that the children should not be split up. Does Debbie Rowe really want them or just the monetary funds that would come with them? She gave them up already and settled for the monetary settlement instead. How much do we know about her and the type of life she is living right now. It's not just enough to say "she should get custody because she is the mother."

1759 days ago
57.

vixis    

Poster #7, I wonder the exact same thing. The problem is, those kids will HAVE NOTHING! Whoever takes them in will literally be supporting them, whatever assets/property/rights MJ had will most likely be relinquished to the $400 million debt he owed. NO ONE will be able to continue supporting the kids the way MJ did, this will be a rude awakening.

1759 days ago
58.

Belizean    

Speaking from experience, you would want to ask where in the world, Mrs Rowe was all this time, it will not a good idea to seperate those kids, I grew up in the same situation with me and my three sisters, we were kept together, the kids should stay with the Jackson family, it does not matter whether the kids are white, Michael was a very good father, despite what people has to say about him. I do not care about any negative thing folks may have to say about how weird or phyco Micheal Jackson and his family are or were, Michael him self has done so much for people in this world, and has touch many hearts and soul. I will always remember and admire him as being a great humanitarian, he will finally get some peace, my condoleneces gooes to him family. ((((( NOW AS HE SIAD OF SONG LEAVE HIM ALONE)))))

1759 days ago
59.

THese sternies are mean people who have no feelings    



Debbie should go talk to Larry Birkhead, you know, Anna Nicole's sperm daddy, he proudly said, after getting Dannielynn: 'I feel like i just won the lottery ! "

Debbie you gave away your kids to him once... how tragic for the kids to go to you.

1759 days ago
60.

freeaprilgriffin    

Take 3 kids, one of the kids has nothing to do with Debbie Rowe, please, read the law, as it relates.

1759 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web