Comments on: Debbie Rowe: Back to Court on Jackson Kids Visits

By: Annabel Pritchard

Annabel Pritchard — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:48:31 +0000

Still find it utterly AMAZING that ANYONE could have considered giving Debbie custody of the kids when remembering that they have never known her!!! Cannot believe that social services were having to consider whether to send them to her or not!!! How could ANYONE consider sending children to a stranger even if she is their birth mother? Debbie’s whole attitude all along (when she tried on three occasions to have custody of them in 2004, 2006 and 2008) smacks of unbelievable callousness, insensitivity and a “could not care less” attitude towards her children. Did/has it NEVER entered her mind how distressing it would have been for them to be snatched away from Michael merely because she had “changed her mind” about not wanting them. What a way to treat vulnerable children!!! Parents who have never been in their kids lives should NOT AT ALL have the right to apply for custody of them for obvious reasons. High time the law was changed in this respect. What the poor kids must have gone through when their beloved Pa died and they did not know whether or not they were to stay with the Jacksons or be sent to a totally unknown mother!!! What a terrible wait they were put through. Should NEVER have been put in that unacceptable situation. I understand that at the time when no decision had been made that Paris was clinging to Katherine and did not want to venture too far from her grandmother. Poor little mite. I think if I had been in the same situation I too would have been clutching at my grandma!!! God bless Prince, Paris and Blanket and the Jacksons who appear to be doing a splendid job of helping the kids adjust to the loss of their beloved daddy.

By: Annabel Pritchard

Annabel Pritchard — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:33:33 +0000

Have recently read that children who have never had a relationship with their mother/father are not obliged by law to have to have visitation with the long absent parent. That is the child’s legal right to refuse. Has this case involved trampling on the rights of Prince and Paris? Maybe Katherine did not realise at the time of the agreement with Debbie that the kids were exempt from having to visit Debbie?

By: Annabel Pritchard

Annabel Pritchard — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:56:29 +0000

Have in the last couple of weeks read that if Paris and Prince had been handed over to their mother just like that (or if she had won custody of them when Michael was alive – 2004,2006 and 2008) there would have been a very good chance of them developing severe clinical depression and far more likely to develop drug or alcohol problems! Food for thought. They say that kids always adjust. That is the excuse always given by mothers like Debbie Rowe. Why does’nt the grown up adjust!!!

By: Queene

Queene — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:28:59 +0000

What low life so called friend called you in the first place? That’s certainly not someone I would trust to give me advise about where the kids should be.

I don’t understand why Debbie Rowe is now in such a big rush to see the kids she sold to Michael. They are not going anywhere. She has made her position clear on why she had them. I do agree with her, she is not mother material she had them for Michael and the money he gave her. Explaining this to the children may be a bigger probelm than not seeing them. What about Blanket? who will explain to him where his mother is. What if the reason for not having visitation so far is that the kids don’t want to know her now. or…

Could it be that Debbie is still trying find a way to tap into their inheritance. After all what kid would refuse their biological mother.

I know Michael loved his kids and dedicated his life to them, but now that his life has been cut short, he may have done them a great diservice all around. I just pray the love he gave them will help them survive this circus!!

By: DEB M

DEB M — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:26:11 +0000

So, Roger – you wrote this almost a month ago and Debbie hasn’t been back to court yet that I know of. When did you say it would happen? Please update your readers on this story… Thank you.

By: Annabel Pritchard

Annabel Pritchard — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:27:53 +0000

“Agreed upon visitation rights”. Does this mean that Prince and Paris have no choice in the matter as regards seeing their birth mother and also were THEY in on the agreement or was it JUST between Katherine and Debbie? Could someone enlighten me on this please? Thought THEIR wishes were paramount.

By: Annabel Pritchard

Annabel Pritchard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:45:26 +0000

SeptSpirit says it all. Michael’s wishes SHOULD be honoured. I hear the kids are very fond of Janet (as was their late dad) and are keen to have her as their “mom” if Katherine dies. Could not think of a better person for them. I would not let Debbie Rowe near them for five minutes. Michael’s lawyers should make it very clear to Debbie that she will NOT get anything from the estate if that is what her motive is.

By: SeptSpirit

SeptSpirit — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:52:33 +0000

Watch the Povich rebuttal documentary. Rowe didn’t just have the children for MJ. She “begged” him to let her do that for him, as a “gift”. I don’t know what reality she lives in, but in my reality people don’t pay for gifts. A victim of unrequited love, I think she did it hoping it would change the way MJ felt about her. It didn’t. So, now it’s all about money and revenge.

There was definitely something fishy going on in Klein’s office. His nurse birthed the children, Klein “may” be the father, and if that weren’t enough; Jason- a male nurse, claimed just after MJs death that he was MJs homosexual lover. Give me a break. They’re all a bunch of Kook Leeches. Why wouldn’t the Jacksons do everything in their power to protect and keep MJs estate from vermin like this? They are far more deserving.

Who was advising MJ when he allowed Rowe to have the children? Why do the “agreements” keep changing? She never even changed a diaper. He apparently did get good advice before hiring Blanket’s mother. Or will we see her come out and demand money and visitation at some point. Will a judge be as favorable to her as they’ve been with Rowe?

Social services shouldn’t even be involved. Honor the Will. But like with everything else MJ- the rules are bent and the assumption is that he doesn’t deserve the rights and considerations given the average citizen. Exploited in life, now in death.

By: SeptSpirit

SeptSpirit — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:31:07 +0000

Who did MJ leave his children to? HIS MOTHER. Does anyone in their right mind not think he knew they’d have contact with Joe? It’s none of Rowe’s business.

Who did MJ leave his estate to? His children, his mother, and charity.

MJ had few people he could trust. Clearly he felt Katerine to be the most trustworthy to make decisions about his estate and his children.

It angers me to the core that MJs wishes are not being honored. Honor the damn Will. And that a judge is allowing Rowe back into their lives. When someone gives their kids up for adoption or hands them over the CPS because they don’t want them; they aren’t allowed just to waltz back in when they choose, or dictate to the new caretakers from the sidelines. They’re still grieving the loss of their father, the only parent they ever knew. And now she wants to drop a bombshell on them, that Aunt Debbie is really Mommy? What is she thinking? What is the judge thinking?

The kids can seek her out when they desire to know who their bio mother is. Until then, she should keep her agreement and stop plotting on how she might leech more money FROM THE CHILDREN’S ESTATE. Would she even be in the picture if there wasn’t a large sum of money attached to these kids? She and Schaffel probably meet on a regular basis to plan the next extortion scheme. Disgusting. Anything, anything, anything for money.

By: Annabel Pritchard

Annabel Pritchard — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:24:24 +0000

A Darton – you are so right about THEIR welfare being put before anyone else. Also feel that if the visitations go ahead little Blanket must be included even if he is not Debbie’s. Would be terrible to leave the poor little lad out. Maybe Prince and Paris are against the visits for this very reason. Social services and the courts must be so careful in this case. Another correspondent suggests that Blanket’s biological mum might have an interest in him. Should be about whether the child has an interest in the parent and NOT vice versa. Debbie states that she changed her mind about not wanting the youngsters several years back. This is only fair if it is okay with the children. Women who have had their kids adopted are not allowed to change their minds later on. Not fair on the youngster who has so often got a close bond with the new parent. Should be exactly the same here. Not for nothing are surrogates and mothers who give kids up for adoption advised to think very very carefully at the TIME and accept consequences of their actions including the possible outcome that the child given up might not want to know them. See it from the child’s view. If the child wants nothing to do with the birth mother then the woman should be told tough! and advised to get on with their life. After all they made an original decision. Decisions have consequences!