Jackson Fam -- Debbie Rowe Can See Her Kids

31. Amazing what a MESS MJ left for his kids!!! Can I say irresponsible????!!!!!!

Posted at 7:52PM on Jun 27th 2009 by BettyBoop

32. they are posturing. They know that in court, biological parents have the upper hand. They will throw her a bone and then cut her out of the kids' lives just like Michael. Michael ran out of the hospital with Paris with the placenta still attached without Debbie even seeing her. I'm watching the Bashear tapes right now and that came out of Michael's mouth. He also said that he actually had a relationship with Blanket's mother. He's searing fight now that he's never had plastic surgery.

Posted at 7:52PM on Jun 27th 2009 by No way!

33. They only know Jackson, his entourage, and his immediate family. Katharine should take them. Ms. Rowe is a stranger to them. At such a traumatic time, they need familiar faces and places.

Posted at 1:34PM on Jun 29th 2009 by Rider3

34. NO DEBBIE, DON'T LET THEM TAKE YOUR KIDS!!!!!!!!! THEY LEGALLY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO THEM!!!!!!!!!! GRANDPARENTS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS IN CA!!!!!!! FIGHT!!!! FIGHT!!!!!!!! FIGHT!!!!!! MICHAEL WOULD HAVE WANTTED IT THAT WAY!!!!!!!!!! NOT WITH JOE OR KATHERINE!!!!!!!!!!

Posted at 7:54PM on Jun 27th 2009 by stopthemaddness

35. @16: untrue. Kids in CA are not property that you can will away. You can appoint who you wish to be their guardian, but it isn't like leaving a favorite lamp to your sister in law.
Secondly... Jackson's parents did such a BANG UP great job with their own kids, I wouldn't let them raise my parakeet let alone my kids! come on!!!!!

Posted at 7:55PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Ball istic

36. Oh that is classic. The kids need the mother in the life but they and the money are staying with me. You can't have then but it would be unfair for them to not know there mother...


It's all about protecting the assets for the Jackson family and not what best for kids

Posted at 7:54PM on Jun 27th 2009 by to little

37. LOL Ball istic..you really should read up on the law before you make such ignorant, untrue statements...the woman does not hold 10% of the cards let alone 100%..the hag has been more than content being paid off to NOT be a mother and nothing changes that now..get a clue you idiot

Posted at 7:55PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Real istic

38. "We're told the family believes it would be "unfair" for the kids to grow up not knowing their biological mother. "

How generous of them. I do believe it will be the other way around.

Posted at 8:08PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Kim

39. Michael would not have left any chance that his kids would end up with Joe if he thought there was any chance he would abuse them. Michael had a relationship with his father. Joe Jackson has been by Michael's side at court appearances, etc.

Debbie Rowe gave up her children. Whether or not the judge handled it accordingly, she gave them up. Case closed. You don't get to abandon your children, then come back into their lives when they are at their most vulnerable, and oh by the way, worth billions of dollars.

For Debbie Rowe to call them her children now is just disgusting. Leave them alone. They are with their family where they belong.
For those of you who have never dealt with adoption, imagine if you were 10 or 12 years old and your father dies. All of a sudden a woman you don't know calls herself your mother and wants to take you away from the only family you've ever known.

Getting knocked up does not make you a mother. Giving your children away should be final, not temporary until they are worth billions.

Posted at 7:56PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Jason Reznik

40. Right thing to do and in the best interest of the kids. If the biological mother wants to be a part of their lives she should be allowed to, as long as it is not for financial gain.

Posted at 7:59PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Keith

41. Michael wanted kids without a wife. I think Debbie Rowe very unselfishly helped Michael achieve his dream of being a parent. Everyone is being way too hard on her. Selling her kids? Please. Women abort kids for free every day.

Posted at 8:09PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Smirks

42. #7 THAT WAS SUCH A STUPID ASS COMMENT.WHY PUT THEN IN A FOSTER HOME SO NO ONE WILL KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND FOR THEM TO HAVE A ''NORMAL LIFE''..THAT IS SO STUPID YOU DUMB BiTCH! BURN IN HELL! ANYWAY THE KIDS NEED TO CONTINUE TO STAY WITH THE JACKSON FAMILY AND HAVE LIMITED VISTATION TO SEE THEIR MOTHER INSTEAD OF LIVING WITH DEBBIE SINCE SHE DOESN'T WANT THEM ANYWAY......R.I.P. MJ.

Posted at 7:58PM on Jun 27th 2009 by R.I.P. MJ

43. The bottom line here is that their father is gone and their MOTHER is here... there is absolutely NO QUESTION that the children should be with thier natural MOTHER... she is the only one who knows how to nurture them and teach them about life after Michael... may Allah be with her...

Posted at 7:59PM on Jun 27th 2009 by River Phoenix

44. If Joe was everything that Michael said he was, why are the rest of his children and family still around him? Why did Michael have his father at his side walking into the molestation courtroom??? I have to wonder how much of what Michael thought was due to the drugs he was taking. I am not downing Michael, just trying to look at this reasonably. Was there not an article yesterday that came out and said his children did not know anyone in the family except his mother Catherine?

Posted at 8:00PM on Jun 27th 2009 by C. B.

45. I think it is crucial that the children won't be seperated. The most logical arrangement for the children as it seems now, is that they stay with their grandmother, all three of them together, with visitation rights for the mother of those two that she owns.

Posted at 7:59PM on Jun 27th 2009 by Viridana