Ok, I have NOT read this thread completely but I have a few things to say...
1.) I AM SICK AND TIRED of all this BS going around about 'Who is Michael Jackson's childrens daddy?' 'Who fathered Michael Jackson's children?' UMMM...I don't know...this is just a shot in the dart, but Michael Jackson? I want to know why is it so flippin' hard to believe that he fathered these kids? Take one look at Prince or Blanket and I dare you to tell me they don't have Michael's eyes. At the memorial service when Prince was on stage, there was an angle he was shown at where my breath was taken away because he looked so much like Michael. Biracial children come out in all different colors and from birth through adolescence they continuously change which you can see is the case with his kids. And the idea that Debbie is not the biological parent of the two eldest, take one look at Paris and you can clearly see that she has a LOT of Debbie in her, my mother has been like 'THANK GOD she has Jackson in her too.' LOL! My mother cannot stand Debbie Rowe. This has just been making me so mad, it NEEDS TO END! I understand completely that biology does not a father or mother make, it doesn't really matter, BUT I will not stand for something that isn't true to be spread like it has been as if it were FACT! Just because those children don't look "how biracial children are suppose to look" doesn't mean jack crap! I HAD NO IDEA THAT ALL BIRACIAL CHILDREN LOOKED ONE CERTAIN WAY! NO IDEA! THAT'S BEEN NEWS TO ME! **rolls eyes** The only reason the media can get away with this is because it involves Michael Jackson and the more outrageous the story, the more people will be willing to believe it. But try and say that he and a lady hooked up and out popped two babies...Oh that's OBVIOUSLY B.S. **rolls eyes** Screw the media! THE MEDIA NEEDS TO LEAVE THOSE CHILDREN ALONE! And they need to FINALLY LEAVE MICHAEL JACKSON ALONE!
2.) JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE BIRTH TO A CHILD DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MOTHER! Did Debbie give Michael two of his three beautiful children? Yes. However, she did it FOR MICHAEL('S CASH), in her own words, they were "Michael's Children" and she didn't want them. But she was the one who brought it up to Michael and Michael was apparently 'WTF?'. This came from Debbie's own mouth! She KNEW EXACTLY what she was doing. Trying to connect herself for life with Michael('s Cash). My mother said, "No wonder Michael used an anonymous surrogate with Blanket, because after the crap he dealt with with Debbie Rowe, I would have done the same thing!" It's the truth. She did it for the cash PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Also, my mother made the point of saying that Michael Jackson was kind to everyone, so for him to specifically name her in his will stating she gets nothing says that something BIG MUST HAVE happened in order to cause him to add that in his will. THAT SAYS A LOT!
3.) Which brings me to why she may or may not be fighting for custody. I bet she was decided on going for custody, why would she have given an interview indicating this to be the case if it was anything but the case? But then her attorny was probably talking to her and telling her she has a slim chance in hell at getting those children, ESPECIALLY after watching how they acted at the memorial. NO JUDGE IN HIS OR HER RIGHT MIND would give THAT WOMAN Prince and Paris. No judge would seperate the three for the "sake" of the biological mother who in her own words said she didn't want them to start with. She had them for Michael('s Cash), NOT HERSELF. And it's obvious who the children want to be with.
4.) And yeah, it'd be "Brilliant" for Debbie to pursue custody. Hmmm, they only just lost the ONLY PARENT THEY'VE EVER KNOWN AND LOVED, now let's just put them through an emotionally trying and upsetting custody battle and possibly rip them from the only family they have ever known and with whom they feel comfortable with and let's place them in a virtual stranger's home with a bunch of dogs and horses...YEAH! That makes PERFECT SENSE! **rolls eyes**
5.) And ANYONE WITH HALF A FUNCTIONING BRAIN CELL can see that the only reason she wants to have custody is because she was cut out of the will (why she would expect to receive anything more from Michael is beyond me) and because she knows those children have A BIG ASS TRUST/INHERITANCE lined up for them. This whole time she's only ever given a damn about the cash. I still haven't gotten over her "Entertainment Tonight" interview from 2004 or 2005 and it showed her getting a face lift and various other surgeries and it showed how emotionally distraught she was and how much she still wasn't over Michael. The woman was obsessed with Michael and wanted to get as close to him as she could and she knew the one way she could do that, while getting some cold hard cash out of it as well.
This is the same woman who along with appearing on ET and crying about Michael and insinuating how much she still loved him also had lunch or dinner at the Ivy with Mark Schaffel, who Michael cut ties with because of his "Gay porn" connections and Mark had not told Michael about this little tid bit, and one does not go to the Ivy unless one wants to be seen. Debbie KNEW this, she's not a stupid woman. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WHO'S BEEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE! She did it because she wanted Michael to see it!! I guess to "send him a message". **rolls eyes**
I FEEL ZERO sympathy for this woman and her "plight", and she stands a cold chance in hell at getting those kids. And it's a pretty low blow for her and/or her "associates" to EVEN BRING UP "issues" with Joseph Jackson being around those kids. Where was this "concern" while Michael was still here? If it was ever an issue why only bring it up NOW? It's all about one thing, and it's what anyone with open eyes can see what this thing is REALLY ALL ABOUT!
One word: MONEY!
Screw the media! And screw Debbie Rowe!
THOSE CHILDREN ARE WHERE THEY BELONG, WITH THEIR GRANDMOTHER AND THE JACKSONS!
I've said my bit...Peace Out!
unk: