The Looming Jackson Custody Battle

July 3, 2009 | Star Justice
The battle for custody of Michael Jackson's kids

TV judge and former prosecutor Jeanine Pirro is breaking down what the court will have to consider in the custody battle over Michael Jackson's eldest children, Prince Michael and Paris.

Judge Pirro tells "Extra," "If there's going to be a battle, it will be between the grandma Katherine and Debbie Rowe." Michael Jackson's will named his mother Katherine as the guardian of all three children.

Debbie Rowe surrendered her parental rights in 2001 and received a secret settlement believed to be around $750,000 a year. Rowe late rfought to have her rights restored but they never were. Pirro says, "She tried to give up parental rights," adding, "That plays very big in a judge's eyes." On Thursday, Rowe told NBC4, "I want my children."

Questions remain as to whether Rowe is actually the biological mother of Prince and Paris, or if she was just a surrogate. The 50-year-old is reportedly willing to take a DNA test and if she's the biological mom, Rowe has legal claim in the state of California.

Pirro explains, "Jackson was married to Debbie when she had the children. That gives him superior rights even though he might not be the biological father."

Earlier this week, Los Angeles dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein was brought into the equation. Us Weekly claims the doc is the biological father of 12-year-old Prince and 11-year-old Paris, not Jackson. Pirro tells "Extra" if Michael wasn't the biological father, "he has some rights" because he was married to Rowe when she had the children. She states the court will rule "in the best interest of the children."

"Extra" wants to know: Who do you think should get custody?

comments

In my opinion, they should respect Michael’s will and leave the children with Michael Jacksons Mother Katherine.
Debbie Rowe had her chance and gave it up for a few bucks, she has no pride or dignity to claim nothing! A parent consists of giving love and care to your children and she traded this opportunity for money, so she has nothing to say or claim.

Estella
July 8, 2009

What kind of consistency could Debbie Rowe give Michael Jackson’s children? She offered none while he was alive, why is asking for a chance now? First she wanted them, and then she voluntarily gave up her rights. She even went so far as to say, “They’re not my kids, they’re his [Michael’s] kids.” Didn’t she also say that she had done nothing to earn the title of “parent?” Debbie Rowe has walked away from Michael’s children more than once - what guarantee is there that she won’t abandon them again? Could it be the money that is sure to follow them? Do these children even know Debbie Rowe? It is my hope that no judge would ever give those children “back” to Debbie Rowe. And as for the youngest child, there should be no fear that the surrogate mother should surface. In that case, if the Jackson’s have reason to fear, then every parent of a child born through a surrogate should also have reason to fear.
Leave those children with the grandmother and extended family that they have known and loved all their lives - don’t rip their lives apart - they have lost enough.

Anonymous
July 6, 2009

Debbie Rowe shouldn’t have custody of MJ’s kids — she signed papers relinguishing all parental rights so it should be handled like any other adoption (guardianship follows the adoptive parent(s), when they die, their will determines who’s next in line.

kay
July 6, 2009

I believe Debbie should get the kids and she said that she would take Michael’s other son, Blankie. debbie had the kisa for Michael and now that he is gone she should have rights to her children. The process of her taking the kids should be gradual,e.g. their spending more and more time with Debbie until they are comfortable with her. Also, the children should have liberal visiting rights to their grandparents and the rest of the Jackson family.

Gerri
July 4, 2009

I would be afraid that if Michael’s Mom Katherine has the kids that Dad Joe will be involved with the kids and I think Michael would not want that. He did not like his Dad. I would hope that one of his siblings would raise the kids. At 79, you don’t raise small children. Most likely she will not be here when they turn 18 and then they will have to be moved again and adjust to new parents. Debbie Rowe is not the answer either. The 3 kids need to stay together and have one of his siblings raise them.

Sandy
July 3, 2009

Debbie Rowe should not get custody of the children. From the beginning, she has only cared about the money and not the children. Because Michael left Debbie out of the Will, she then decided that she wanted the children because they would come with the family trust.

Becca
July 3, 2009

I feel Debbie Rowe should not get Michael Kids. she only want them for the money. She has already been paid for her role. She should go back in hidding.

Vickie
July 3, 2009

I say that the three kids is/also should go to Michael Jacksons Mother Katherine.Shes great with them.Thats in the will.I Agree with the will.

Samantha
July 3, 2009

For what i see that Debbie is only interested in the money. Since Michael cut her out of the will, so the only way for to have some is to get custody of the kids. I hope that the judge will see that and leave the kids with the Jackson family.

Anne Marie
July 3, 2009

i think the michael’s mother cuz the the mother of the kid just want money….

Jalik Burton
July 3, 2009

MJ HAS LEFT A WILL AND HE WANTS HIS CHILDREN W/HIS MOTHER THEN THATS WHOM THEY SHELL STAY WITH, WHY MAKE A WILL IF YOU NOT GOING TO KEEP THAT PERSON’S WISH TELL DEBBIE TO GO BACK TO WHERE SHE BEEN ALL THESE YRS.

priscilla
July 3, 2009

Debbie Rowe has had NO part in the Jackson children’s life and even though she is the mother THEY DON’T KNOW HER. They should remain with their grandmother who they have spent many times with. For Rowe to seek custody would be financially motivated.

ThreeTeeTrio
July 3, 2009

i think that katherine should take care of the kids cuz all of a sudden whhen mj dies she wants the kids….no way

Naomi
July 3, 2009

Why should Debbie get them when she gave away her rights? As a mother myself, I would never give my rights away to my children, despite the amount of money involved.

She didn’t raise these children and wasn’t in the house while they were growing up. She is practically a stranger. The only thing they have, is her DNA. DNA doesn’t make you a mother..loving the children and being there for them does.

These three children were around Michael’s family and that is where they need to be as they are mourning the loss of their father. They need to be with familiarity.

Anonymous
July 3, 2009
post comment


(not displayed)


Back to Top »