Anything about DEBBIE ROWE keep it in here

[Angel]

That's exactly what it looks like, the media WANTS a battle even though nobody even said anything.
This brings to mind that pap video where they were chasing Debbie screaming "Are you gonna fight for your kids?". Like she *has* to do something. They can't even fathom the fact that maybe she wantsthem to stay with the family.
The media makes me sick.

 

[classic]

it's true and that's y i was hella cringing each time they brought up deb and the family saying she had nothing to do w/ anything. i was like 'don't piss her off. she went off on her own lawyer on the stand!'

keep her placated and make her feel like she has a 'choice' in what's going on but don't push her away cuz she could make a big drastic move.

so i hope what I heard is true and there just finding a way around th efact that joe and katie are still married and that joe can't be near them or try to raise them. cuz damn...mj would nt want that

If she does any action based on being "pissed off" then that says very little about her focus on the children and a lot about her focus on herself.

MJ apparently didn;t want her raising the children either so her concern is also not on what MJ would have wanted. I will assume at this point she has made the decision that she wants her children because if she is still trying to figure it out, then that is a huge problem also. They don't need someone who has to figure out what role she wants to play in their lives and how much of a role. Debbie has been doing her own media campaign so she has very little room to be concerned about stories planted. Schaffel and Klein seem to be doing good about carrying forth stories for her as well. Schaffel, her best friend now, isn't he the one that was a "vulture" or something like that during her testimony. Wow! And now he would be so close to Michael's children; I don't think Michael would have wanted that either. So, while she can see what Michael would have wanted concerning his father I wonder if she can see what Michael would have wanted concerning her and Schaffe.

What is truly sad is that here is another major milestone in these children's lives that she hasn't been a part of yet she wants to claim rights to them. If you are a parent, is it really that easy to stay away from your children at one time and then be so ready to be involved at another? She has chosen not to be a mother to these children but merely that who gave birth. Her choice, no one else's, including Michael. He would have had no grounds to keep her away. Yet, time after time, something other than being a mother kept her away. At least she needs to be honest that there were other priorities and not now act as the doting mother.

And didn't her lawyer make some comment in his statement about her not wanting Michael's money but continued alimony? Does alimony continue in California after the death of the ex-spouse? If not, then yes, she is after money if she still expects alimony. She is capable of working to support her children if she so wants to be a mother; she can do as so many other mothers do; parenting is not something you do only when the conditions are just right.

And I'm sure that poor little Blanket will think the world of going off to live with someone that he has no relationship to whatsoever. Wow! Isn't that what he really needs now? How comforting that when he wakes up wanting his daddy, he can instead be tended to by daddy's "best friend."

 

[classic]

That's exactly what it looks like, the media WANTS a battle even though nobody even said anything.
This brings to mind that pap video where they were chasing Debbie screaming "Are you gonna fight for your kids?". Like she *has* to do something. They can't even fathom the fact that maybe she wantsthem to stay with the family.
The media makes me sick.

Well, Debbie has played into this game also with her comments and those of her friends/spokespeople. If her opinion was determined to have them stay with the family, she would have made that clear from the beginning. Her words and those of her friends have been intentionally chosen.

 

[classic]

Re: E-mails Reveal Debbie Rowe Never Wanted Custody

Some "friend" this Rebecca White is sharing something that was told to her in confidence (allegedly) with the press. :smilerolleyes:

I really wish people would pay attention when Deborah Jean Rowe speaks. She has always maintained that she had the children for Michael Jackson. She has never stated that she wishes to be a mother. Her position may have wavered for a fraction of a picosecond, but it hasn't changed.

THE WOMAN IS NOT MATERNAL. She has no attachment to the children she bore and she does not want them. I don't know why its so difficult for members of the press (and even some fans) to get that through their heads. Not every woman wants to be a mother.

That being said, the arrangement of Michael Joseph Jackson (God bless his ever-loving soul) and Debbie Rowe regarding this marriage of theirs and the eventual children from their union has got to be the most botched up deal ever. It seems to me that Debbie has these attorneys who come in and advise her to act as if she wants custody of the children. When she does, voila! There is some out of court settlement and she goes about her merry way. Did that not happen during/after the trial? Now that Michael is no longer here, we see this tactic again. BUT maybe I've got it all wrong. :mello:

As for her attorney putting out that statement saying that Debbie hasn't taken $4 mil in agreement to keep out of her....I mean, Michael's children's lives, what exactly did they mean regarding spousal support? She receives that even after he's deceased? :blink:

If those emails are varied as legit, then it is absolutely sad. I believe Debbie when she has said in the past that she is not maternal. She has backed that up in action. Yet, if she continuously allows others to manipulate her to use the children in any way for settlements or just for public relations "show," she is no better than the manipulators.

Also, if these are legitimate emails, then she can probably forget it. That is way too much flip flopping when it comes to the children; they don't need someone who is unsure of being a parent at this time in their lives.

 

[Soso Deaf]

y can we believe a supposed email from a fake friend b ut we can't believe what her lawyer is saying?

mj was paying her, per their divorce agreement, and it stipulated she must NOT go on tv and talk about her FAMILY. she went on et and spoke about her damn dogs! lol IMO that was an excuse by mez and geragos to stop paying her so that it wouldn't be a motive for her testimony.

note that after teh trial, she began getting paid again and got to see thekids. she didn't during the trial. hence, they had no reason to accuse her of changing her story b/c she wasn't getting money nor was she seeing the kids.

she still hasn't been paid the amount they agreed to and all she's asking is that continue. she's not gonna mess w/ the kids but sorry, joe's disposition right now doesn't show grieiving father.

talking about record label? jackson 3? honestly?

mj gave his MOTHER 40% but she's still married to joe so he's entitled to half of that....who knows, they could befiguring something out.

all i know is deb plays this shit all the time and the oppositie is what always happens. she always comes in w/ a mean face, and then does something good in the end.

 

[Calaquendi]

I guess Paris Prince and Blanket has a word in this too? They're old enough to speak for themselves too, about where they wanna stay.

 

[AllForMJ]

The children are all that the Jackson family have left of Michael.

Michael's family is all that the children have left of him.

Debbie Rowe walked away from all of them, meaning Michael, the children and the whole entire Jackson family, and replaced them all with horses and dogs. She needs to stay with her horses and dogs.

Katherine Jackson has experience raising people. Debbie only has experience raising animals that walk on four legs. Her children that walk on two legs don't even know how to relate to her for more reasons than one and this is how Debbie laid it out. It is not her children's fault if they do not know her, cannot relate to her or do not understand what she is around for.

Futhermore, these children were raised like royalty. They have been all over the world. Michael's wealthy lifestyle is one that his family is totally accustomed to as the Jackson family rose up to fame with him. Michael's children will do much better adjusting with the world famous Jackson family than to or with Debbie Rowe. Having the children go from living a life of fame to living with Debbie and her horses and dogs will be like culture shock in addition to the children not knowing her.

The Jackson family has many children in it and like Prince MJ I, Prince MJ II and Paris, they are all used to having famous parents. The children of the most famous entertainer in the world need to be right where they are...with the most famous pop music family in the world. It would not make sense to have them anywhere else.

 

[Soso Deaf]

u can't go to court and say 'this is royalty, we need them w/ us"

both sides have issues. jacksons got joe and then tehre's katherine's age. deb's side has the fact she's left and they don't know her. but biology is stronger than that. so she'd better concede and just get visitation cuz i would hate for it to get messy.

or scrap visitation, give her a plate and she'll leave. don't make it messy.

 

[classic]

u can't go to court and say 'this is royalty, we need them w/ us"

both sides have issues. jacksons got joe and then tehre's katherine's age. deb's side has the fact she's left and they don't know her. but biology is stronger than that. so she'd better concede and just get visitation cuz i would hate for it to get messy.

or scrap visitation, give her a plate and she'll leave. don't make it messy.

Biology is stronger than what?

Debbie would not be just taking 3 children. She would be taking three children dealing with lots of emotions who will be having lots of ups and downs probably just in the course of a day. I hope that she is aware of the time that it will take on her and that she will have to adjust her life to them and their needs, not the other way around. Their emotions and demands will come before hers, her animals, and whatever else.

 

[000cozzie000]

Biology isn't stronger than what the children want.

She can't just take them because they share the same DNA if they say that they want to stay with the Jacksons.

She won't get full custody.. and I don't think she's even looking for full custody.

 

[Soso Deaf]

biology is stronger than a claim that royalty needs to bekept together. it's stronger than a will. she has claim to them and can take the baby cuz they won't want to split them up.

now the question is...WILL SHE?

apparently mj never finished the alimony thing, it was in installments instead of a lump sum. all she wants is that and looks like maybe visitation. maybe they're working on keeping joe away. especially after his comments.

but it doesn't look like she'll up and snatch them. she'll just be miss debbie like she was before.

 

[Obiechena]

biology is stronger than a claim that royalty needs to bekept together. it's stronger than a will. she has claim to them and can take the baby cuz they won't want to split them up.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Looking at this from the perspective of "regular people," what is in the best interest of the children will be stronger than any genetic link.

Why would anyone place Blanket with Debbie, when her public actions over the years have never shown her to even want the two children that she did bear? Blanket isn't going to her. He has no link to her outside of his siblings.

As for Prince and Paris, their situation is slightly more complicated. However, as you've already eluded to, no judge would separate these siblings from each other. It would be more detrimental to take them from the family and sibling (Blanket) that they do know and place them with a biological mother that they do not simply because she gave birth to them. The well-being of the children takes precedence over all else. Biology be damned.

And if you think the Jacksons are going to just let these children slip from them to Debbie Rowe, you'd be greatly mistaken. To them (and to many of the fans from what I can see), Prince, Paris and Blanket are Michael, and they will fight to keep and protect whomever they consider to be theirs.

 

[000cozzie000]

I don't think she's even looking for full custody, but if she was there's no way she'll get them.

No one's just going to hand over the kids just because she's the biological mother. They'll look deeper than that... where was she their whole lives? Why did she give up parental rights? Why (even after she got them back) did she accept cheques over her children? Do the kids even want to live with her?

Is she willing to be a proper mother to them? That doesn't mean just having them living with you.. she needs to feed them, bathe them, take them to school (or home school), help with their homework, show them love etc etc.

 

[MoonGlider]

mj gave his MOTHER 40% but she's still married to joe so he's entitled to half of that....who knows, they could befiguring something out.

I don't know about California law specifically, but in some states gifts left to one specific spouse is treated by law as that spouse's property, not the couple's property.

 

[Rasta Pasta]

I dont think Debbie is looking for custody eithe... but notoriety.....but if there is a custody battle ... I wouldn't be surprise of Diana Ross makes sure that Debbie does not get those kids...

I thinkMark Lester would get himself involved too..... I think he really cared about Michael and his kids

 

[Naturelle]

y can we believe a supposed email from a fake friend b ut we can't believe what her lawyer is saying?

mj was paying her, per their divorce agreement, and it stipulated she must NOT go on tv and talk about her FAMILY. she went on et and spoke about her damn dogs! lol IMO that was an excuse by mez and geragos to stop paying her so that it wouldn't be a motive for her testimony.

note that after teh trial, she began getting paid again and got to see thekids. she didn't during the trial. hence, they had no reason to accuse her of changing her story b/c she wasn't getting money nor was she seeing the kids.

she still hasn't been paid the amount they agreed to and all she's asking is that continue. she's not gonna mess w/ the kids but sorry, joe's disposition right now doesn't show grieiving father.

talking about record label? jackson 3? honestly?

mj gave his MOTHER 40% but she's still married to joe so he's entitled to half of that....who knows, they could befiguring something out.

all i know is deb plays this shit all the time and the oppositie is what always happens. she always comes in w/ a mean face, and then does something good in the end.

lol she always looks mean.

 

[LilBigRocks]

The kids are old enough to decide. They don't even know who he heck debbie rowe is. And I honestly don't care about all this custody battle thing, I think the media is exaggerating.

 

[Soso Deaf]

california is a community property state. theminute katie gets that money, joe can get half.

as for deb looking mean, the media is never in her grill for something positive so can u blame her?

here's the latest


Debbie Rowe Sues over Alleged White Lies

Posted Jul 16th 2009 7:50PM by TMZ Staff

Debbie Rowe is waging legal war against Rebecca White -- a woman who claims to be a close friend of Rowe's who went on TV last night.

In a defamation lawsuit filed today, Rowe claims White defamed her when she went on EXTRA and said she has an email from Debbie saying, "Do I want the kids? Hell no. Does it look good for me to ask for them? Absolutely."

Rowe claims the emails are bogus.

 

[LisaB]

So much for close friends.

 

[Soso Deaf]

she ain't a friend. lol she's gonna sue her ass or at least make her retract what she said and admit the emails were fake.see, can't believe everyone u hear

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

I've just come across and finished reading this thread so I'll add my 2 cents (and some change) about Debbie.

1. I don't think she is or was ever after the children.

I mean, what would she do with them anyway? She doesn't know them, she said herself several times she didn't want to have any of her own, she's not the motherly type, she had them because she wanted Michael to be a father and the most telling, she gave up all of her parental rights.

YES, I know that the court overturned those documents and her rights were re-instated, BUT that says nothing about the INTENT of her actions, which was to give them up. If those filings had gone through she would not have any input to present in a court of law.

She should thank her lucky stars for whoever fudged the paperwork.


2. I don't think she's after the money.

Michael paid and continues to pay Debbie well for doing what she did for him, which was be a supportive good friend over the years and birth two children for him. That said, I don't think she went into the whole thing with money on her mind. Of course everyone needs money to live, but it's not like Debbie was living on the street when Michael met her.

She was an independent woman who was working and supporting herself in her profession. Add to that that she didn't come from too shabby beginnings herself, and also, you can take one look at Debbie and know that she's not a high maintenance "glamazon" by any stretch of the imagination...especially, not by Hollywood standards.



3. So what do I think Debbie really wants/wanted?


In my eyes, Debbie didn't have those kids to have kids and she didn't make the offer to have kids to "get paid" as so many seem to want to think.

I think she did it because she genuinely wanted to make the object of her love (MJ) happy. In that light I see what she did for Michael as extremely SELFLESS....She gave up the use of her body, meaning she could have DIED in child birth. How many people can say they would do that for a friend?

At the same time though, I see what she did as extremely SELFISH because SHE never wanted those kids at all, it was 150% for Michael, and I don't care how good of a friend someone considers them self, "gifting" children in the way that this was done is just not normal behaviour.


What I honestly believe...

is that Debbie did this for Michael knowing in the back of her mind that it would forever connect HER in some way to HIM. I think that to this day she gets a lot of satisfaction in knowing that SHE helped create those two kids and no one else.

She has said several times on camera that if "the marriage" ever came in between Michael and her "friendship", she would give up said "marriage" in favor of the friendship immediately. And this is exactly what I surmise happened.

They were indeed very good friends before the kids and marriage and I think after that situation changed something between them also changed.

I DO know that the "marriage" was dissolved, Michael kept both kids, Debbie's subsequent visitation was kept short and supervised AND she was eventually asked to give up her rights to the kids she helped produce, which she obliged.



And I said all of THAT to say THIS...

To me, her goal was/is not the kids....any money....or fame....but simply Michael himself.

It's clear to me that Debbie was IN love with Michael at some point (most likely still is). And for whatever reason, that love doesn't seem to have been returned over the long run as it appears that by the end their relationship it was exactly opposite from what it was at the beginning. They started out as very close friends and ended up MILES apart both literally and figuratively.

I don't, and will never vilify Debbie because I've said it before and I'll say it again, she gave birth to two of the three TRUE loves of Michael's life and NO matter what the background story is how they were brought into this world (and for the record I believe these are Michael's children), there is no question in my mind that they were the complete and utter joy of his life.

For that I thank her profusely and forever from the bottom of my heart as a humble fan.

In the end though I believe Debbie ended up both winning and losing in her decision to provide Michael with her "gifts".

She won because she will through those kids have a connection with Michael forever that no one else outside of his family can EVER claim.

She lost because I think if she knew that her close friendship with HIM would have gone south as a result of what she did (with him eventually barely/never speaking to her and her not seeing him or the kids for years at a time) I don't think she'd have ever "gone there"....She loved him way too much.

 

[Soso Deaf]

way to bump up a dead ass thread! lol

the court didn't overturn anything, it ws never finalized. and that was the fault of all parties.

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

way to bump up a dead ass thread! lol

the court didn't overturn anything, it ws never finalized. and that was the fault of all parties.

Overturned means "thrown out" in the way I used it, but if it makes you feel better I can edit that micro section of everything I wrote.

P.S. I joined the site 10 days AFTER this thread was started....I missed it. Sue me

 

[Soso Deaf]

u'll get my summons in the mail! lol

well it was never filed properly. neither party went thru w/ all the necessary requirements. an dthe judge didn't approve it on top of all that. so eh

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

u'll get my summons in the mail! lol

well it was never filed properly. neither party went thru w/ all the necessary requirements. an dthe judge didn't approve it on top of all that. so eh

I'll keep an eye out for it! hahaha

Whatever the details may be, the important point in that sentence for me is that she "intended" to go through with it (but somehow I think you already know that....troublemaker ).

Anyhoooooo....that was my VERY late contribution to this topic, and that's all I have to say about it.

 

[Soso Deaf]

and so did HE. so if she was so wiling to let go of her rights, lets be prudent and also say he was also in favour of allowing his children's mother to just walk away in the same breath.

it was error on both sides. something fell through. i think it was the judge and one side not agreeing at the last minute. hell, i don't think deb knew it wasn't finalized until mj's arrest. then she was 'told' she could make a 'bid' for the kids. ugh

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

and so did HE. so if she was so wiling to let go of her rights, lets be prudent and also say he was also in favour of allowing his children's mother to just walk away in the same breath.

Call me silly, but I'd assume that is the reason he would go along with filing the papers in the first place...?

The point I was making that I think you're totally missing is that them FILING the papers wasn't a mistake (on either of their parts).

They both INTENDED (i.e. meant) for it to happen. The fact that it didn't go through is irrelevant in the context of what I said.....

If those filings had gone through she would not have any input to present in a court of law.

It is quite obvious to me that he wanted her to give up her rights so she'd go away and he would have the kids to himself....which mind you is what basically ended up happening anyway.

The only person who benefited from the fact that it was not completed correctly was Debbie. If it had gone through the way it was supposed to she'd have had no rights from many years ago and would have no say in the matter today.

That's why I also said SHE was "lucky" it didn't.

But for real now...this is getting dragged out on such a minute point in my epistle of a post. Let's just fuggedaboudit and move on.

Much more interesting things to focus on on the board like the hunt for 'Dr. Murry and friends'.

 

[Chanya]

I've just come across and finished reading this thread so I'll add my 2 cents (and some change) about Debbie.

1. I don't think she is or was ever after the children.

I mean, what would she do with them anyway? She doesn't know them, she said herself several times she didn't want to have any of her own, she's not the motherly type, she had them because she wanted Michael to be a father and the most telling, she gave up all of her parental rights.

YES, I know that the court overturned those documents and her rights were re-instated, BUT that says nothing about the INTENT of her actions, which was to give them up. If those filings had gone through she would not have any input to present in a court of law.

She should thank her lucky stars for whoever fudged the paperwork.


2. I don't think she's after the money.

Michael paid and continues to pay Debbie well for doing what she did for him, which was be a supportive good friend over the years and birth two children for him. That said, I don't think she went into the whole thing with money on her mind. Of course everyone needs money to live, but it's not like Debbie was living on the street when Michael met her.

She was an independent woman who was working and supporting herself in her profession. Add to that that she didn't come from too shabby beginnings herself, and also, you can take one look at Debbie and know that she's not a high maintenance "glamazon" by any stretch of the imagination...especially, not by Hollywood standards.



3. So what do I think Debbie really wants/wanted?


In my eyes, Debbie didn't have those kids to have kids and she didn't make the offer to have kids to "get paid" as so many seem to want to think.

I think she did it because she genuinely wanted to make the object of her love (MJ) happy. In that light I see what she did for Michael as extremely SELFLESS....She gave up the use of her body, meaning she could have DIED in child birth. How many people can say they would do that for a friend?

At the same time though, I see what she did as extremely SELFISH because SHE never wanted those kids at all, it was 150% for Michael, and I don't care how good of a friend someone considers them self, "gifting" children in the way that this was done is just not normal behaviour.


What I honestly believe...

is that Debbie did this for Michael knowing in the back of her mind that it would forever connect HER in some way to HIM. I think that to this day she gets a lot of satisfaction in knowing that SHE helped create those two kids and no one else.

She has said several times on camera that if "the marriage" ever came in between Michael and her "friendship", she would give up said "marriage" in favor of the friendship immediately. And this is exactly what I surmise happened.

They were indeed very good friends before the kids and marriage and I think after that situation changed something between them also changed.

I DO know that the "marriage" was dissolved, Michael kept both kids, Debbie's subsequent visitation was kept short and supervised AND she was eventually asked to give up her rights to the kids she helped produce, which she obliged.



And I said all of THAT to say THIS...

To me, her goal was/is not the kids....any money....or fame....but simply Michael himself.

It's clear to me that Debbie was IN love with Michael at some point (most likely still is). And for whatever reason, that love doesn't seem to have been returned over the long run as it appears that by the end their relationship it was exactly opposite from what it was at the beginning. They started out as very close friends and ended up MILES apart both literally and figuratively.

I don't, and will never vilify Debbie because I've said it before and I'll say it again, she gave birth to two of the three TRUE loves of Michael's life and NO matter what the background story is how they were brought into this world (and for the record I believe these are Michael's children), there is no question in my mind that they were the complete and utter joy of his life.

For that I thank her profusely and forever from the bottom of my heart as a humble fan.

In the end though I believe Debbie ended up both winning and losing in her decision to provide Michael with her "gifts".

She won because she will through those kids have a connection with Michael forever that no one else outside of his family can EVER claim.

She lost because I think if she knew that her close friendship with HIM would have gone south as a result of what she did (with him eventually barely/never speaking to her and her not seeing him or the kids for years at a time) I don't think she'd have ever "gone there"....She loved him way too much.

Girl you are a genius. I think this post really nailed it. Brilliant stuff.