Rowe to fight for Jackson kids

by Daily Gossip Jun 27th 2009 2:52AM

Debbie Rowe, ex-wife of Michael Jackson and mother of two of his children

Following the sudden death of King of Pop Michael Jackson, a bitter fight for the children he adored is already set to begin, according to The Sun.

Jacko's mother Katherine had been looking after Prince Michael Jnr, 12, Paris, 11 and seven-year-old Prince Michael II in Los Angeles and is keen to take custody of the children.

However, ex-wife and mother of Prince Jnr and Paris, reportedly told a friend just two days before Jackson's death that she wanted full custody of the kids.

The source said: "Debbie threw a fit, saying she was sick of the way Michael was bringing the children up.

"She said she was going to go for full custody of them. She said she was quite prepared to go all the way and fight him in court for it."

But those close to the Jackson family claim that Katherine is prepared to "fight tooth and nail" to prevent their mother taking the children.

Rowe's friend added: "She understands there will be a vicious legal battle and she knows Michael's mother will not readily hand the kids over to her.

"But she is their natural mother and will do whatever it takes to get them back."
However, Rowe, who was married to Jackson for three years, famously signed custody of their children to Jackson in 1999 in return for $1 million a year for nine years along with a Beverly Hills pad and luxury car.

Let's hope that the children themselves will be protected against feuding until they have had time to grieve for their father.

Comments (46)

divider

Comments:

Add your comment

Jun 27th 2009 8:28AM

Kaitlin commented:

User rating: Two thumbs down

IS Michael Jackson the father of those children? Common sense says nope. Michaels mother might love the children but they are not her blood grandchildren.

Jun 27th 2009 5:32PM

Dennis Ponti commented:

User rating: Thumbs down

Right!!!
Even if it's proved!! they're related by blood.
After the total mess she made of bringing-up? her OWN children (Especialy Michael)she shouldn't even be allowed near them............

Jun 27th 2009 11:31AM

peter hayes commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

TODAY THERE IS A GREAT HOLE IN THE MUSIC WORLD ONE OF THE GREAT ICONS ON A PAR WITH ELVIS HAS DIED, NOW PERHAPS HE WILL BE LEFT IN PEACE,HIS DANCE ROUTINES WERE LEGEND JUST LIKE FRED ASTAIRE, HIS MUSIC LEGENDRY, ESPICALY EARTH SONG HE BROUGHT HOME THE REALITY THAT MAN KIND IS DESTROYING THIS BEAUTIFUL PLANET THAT WE TAKE SO MUCH FOR GRANTED WE HAVE A GREAT LOSS, NOW THERE ARE TWO LEGENDS IN HEAVEN MICHAEL & ELVIS. R.I.P. MICHAEL.

Jun 27th 2009 11:07PM

brikol commented:

User rating: Neutral

Don't ever mention him in the same sentence as Elvis: fool.

Jun 27th 2009 11:39AM

claire commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

Why does she think she should have them..she gave up rights to them poor kids years ago for a bloody house and money every year..they should stay with their maternal grandmother katherine..all michael ever tried to do was protect them from the media glare that ruined his life x xR.I.P m j.

Jun 27th 2009 12:11PM

Allyson Vidgen commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

I agree, those poor kids have just lost thier dad, now she wants them to live with a stranger, any true mother would put thier feelings first and not her own. I say just leave them be.
Micheal you will be truely missed.

Jun 27th 2009 6:36PM

Mandy commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

It may be true that she gave them up. But do we know the real stroy behind why? and I mean the real story not what got publishe din the newspapers and on the telly. and dont forget that Michaels parents weren't the best parents to him. His father repeatedly physically abused him. Would you wish that on them? My heart goes out to anybody loosing a family member, and my biggest hope is that those 3 kids get a life filled with love and happiness may god watch over them and protect them. Rest In Piece Michael, God Bless you xx

Jun 28th 2009 4:42AM

ANN dEMARET commented:

User rating: Neutral

yEAH, CLAIRE , QUITE AGREE- SHE SOLD HER RIGHTS TO THOSE KIDS FOR MONEY- WHAT MOTHER COULD DOTHAT, AND NOW THERES A CHANCE OF MAYBE MAKING MORE BUCKS, SHE ARRIVES AGAIN- WHAT LOW -LIFE. kICK HER IN TOUCH RIGHT AWAY- THE KIDS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO SHE IS.

Jul 7th 2009 11:22AM

me commented:

User rating: Neutral

she should get the kids back they are hers as well,if you read it right,she had to give them kids up,she didn't do it for the money she had know choise,with what has happened god rest his sole kids should be with there rightful parent

Jun 27th 2009 11:42AM

kelly commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

she lost her right as a mother the moment she walked away. I m sure the children will be loved and cherished with the family that has done so for many years !

Jun 27th 2009 12:41PM

Marty commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

I AGREE, SHE IS A TOTAL STRANGER TO THOSE CHILDREN, SHE FAVOURED MATERIAL THINGS OVER THEM. WHY TAKE THEM FROM THE PEOPLE THEY KNOW AND LOVE AND WHO LOVE THEM.

Jun 28th 2009 4:42AM

dennis commented:

User rating: Neutral

So you realy think the kids would be better with the fruit cake responsible for bringing up Michael??????? Oh I forgot what a great job she did with him!!!! She already HAS them taking singing lessons..........
GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jun 27th 2009 1:54PM

cj commented:

User rating: Two thumbs down

go girl, this is by far the right place for these kids with their mother. in any other situation the father would have been forced to provide a home etc for the kids to live in with their mother. as for mj's mother, well she didnt exactly do such a fantastic job with her own kids. good luck debbie.

Jun 27th 2009 3:37PM

sal commented:

User rating: Neutral

It just shows that no matter how much money,fame or plastic sergary you got, you cant run away from death!! it will always catch up with you, and when you do finally leave u dont take nothing with u, you have to leave every thing behind! how sad coz people try so hard in life to get all the metiral things fame,money ect.... and on the other hand no one really knows whats on the other side? good or bad?????! god knows best.

Jun 27th 2009 3:37PM

sarah commented:

User rating: Neutral

he complained that he was abused as a child at the hands of his own parents so why does anyone think they'll be safe in that enviroment again. None of their kids turned out normal anyway. He wasnt their biological dad anyway thats plain to see but she is their natural mother

Jun 27th 2009 3:46PM

susie commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

i wasn't a fan of michael jackson but these kids have just lost the only parent they have ever really known.they are greiving and need to be with people that love them and have cared for them.dont give them to someone who wants to be a "mother"
anyone can be a parent but it takes someone special to be a parent............my support goes to michaels family

Jun 27th 2009 4:04PM

Anne Moon commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

Michael Jackson, was NOT a paedophile.He was a loving father to his children,and unless you can prove that the allegations against him were true,bearing in mind he was AQUITTED on ALL charges,you should keep your vile and disgusting comments to yourself.Under American Law,which is MUCH MORE RIGOROUS than our weak system,a person would NOT be aquitted unless there was overwhelming evidence to make any other verdict possible.In this case there wasnt therefore as he was found innocent of ALL charges he had no case to answer.Why then should his memory now be tarnished by sick small minded people who will never be in posession of all the facts.The only fact people should be aware of is that MICHAEL JACKSON WAS AQUITTED, THEREFORE HE WAS CLEARED.

Jun 27th 2009 5:26PM

Vivianna Marc commented:

User rating: Two thumbs up

It is a pity that Debbie only wanted to be a mother now after practically selling her kids for money,house and a car..she only wants them because of whatever money that will be attached to them...Go away Debbi, these kids needs stability and you were never around...you are a stranger to them...leave them alone...

Let them mourn their dad....maybe when they are 18, they might contact you but leave them be

Jun 28th 2009 4:51AM

ktherine commented:

User rating: Thumbs up

I agree with you why should she have them she gave up her right when the money changed hands
she knows her million a year has gone now and every thing will go to the children she is no mother she is going to live off her children she is one big LEACH
i will miss you michael
you will always be in here,my heart

Jun 28th 2009 12:54PM

kelly commented:

User rating: Neutral

Iagree totally !!!!! I think that she should leave them well alone and when they are adults and want to get in touch with her then fine !! but until then no they ve got too much to deal with at the moment !!