Latest on MJJC

Katherine to keep kids, Debbie gets visitation rights

I'm sure they will have a specialist to take care of Blanket and help him adjust to this change. He's still quite young and he might be able to adjust even faster. And of course who's to say that Debbie won't be involved as a motherly figure with him too? She most probably will.
 
Soso Deaf said:
well that's not deb's fault, don't u think?

she can be his mother or a mother figure ins life. so long as he has one. u got kids who are adopted and u wouldn't know, looking at them, that their parents aren't really biologically there.

genetics at this point don't matter for shit. these kids are orphans and now they have a woman coming into their lives who is a mother and wants to mother them.
Click to expand...

Err.. I didn't even mention Debbie. I'm talking about Blanket, not Debbie.

What I'm saying is that Blanket will probably never find out who his real mother is, so it'll probably be painful for him in the future when he knows that Prince and Paris know theirs. Even if Debbie treats Blanket as her son (which I'm sure she will), at the end of the day she's not his real mother.

Genetics might not mean shit to you, but it does to a lot of people. Why do a lot of people who are adopted end up trying to find their real parents when they're older then?

As for Debbie, her intentions seem good, so I'm sure it's for the best to let her have a relationship with them.
 
I am relieved to hear this news if it is correct. She absolutely should have visitation rights to the children, she is their mother for goodness sake! I know she foregoed that while Michael was alive, for the sake of his relationship with them I feel, but now he is no longer here it is vital these children know that their mother cares for them.
 
Last edited:
sunnyday81 said:
I don't think she didn't care for her kids. But I'm wondering if she loved Michael more than her kids so that she eventually agreed to give up her rights to Michael only. I think that's what Michael wanted according to family and some friends, to be a single father. Anyway, it does sound like a very good agreement.
Click to expand...

That's what I have always thought, that maybe she just loves/loved him so much that she just agreed to give birth to his kids and give away her parents rights knowing that she and Michael never would be family. and maybe she said those things (that she didn't want kids, she gave them to him), because she wanted to protect Michael, so that nobody question him why he took children from her. The same goes to her story with bed sleeping/scarfs - for me it was protecting Michael. Why she took her rights back - well, afterall she is mother to Paris and Prince, maybe her heart couldn't take it anymore, i dunno. Maybe with the right heart and help she could find way to their hearts and it will be good for all of them?
 
This is NOT A BAD NEWS. I never hated her because she stood by Michael during his trial to say how a good father he is and all. On many occasions, she seemed to have expressed sentiments proving she indeed LOVED Michael. I will be more than happy if she soon decides to return the money she once accepted to stay away of the kids' lives.
 
oh cozzie i was just saying! Loland they have the unredacted birth cert on file. so if he wants to find her, he can but note that she was a surrogate. meaning no emotion was put into this. it was a business transaction. prolly a student or someone who needed money, already has a family etc...but im sure he'll be brought up w/ love just like his older siblingsand yes, we're all entitled to our own opinions. it's just when deb discussions happen, fans act so odd. hate on her, make fun of her appearance but fail to remember she's themother of his first two so if she's not too good looking...um? c'monjust keep it respectful and no attacks
 
FOR THE RECORD: No top trusted News Network such as CNN mentioned, "Rowe wants and will get a psychologist who will visit the children and help them adjust to her being in their lives on a meaningful basis." White it may be the truth, it has nat been made available YET to my knowledge.

'McMillan said "details of the tentative agreement would be announced soon.'"
 
Ok help me get this. I know she gave up her parental rights at one time. but did she take them back. I keep asking how can one legally give up rights yet katherine may have had a custody battle with her when she gave up her right. So after reading olved post. I'm assuming to regained her rights back? Is that what happened?

Also how can one terminate something legally and then come back later and get them back. I don't get that. Once something is terminated isn't that the end to it all. Like once you give your kid up for adoption you can't comeback later asking for them back! right?

anywho. I don't see why debbie need so visit now. what is she gonna do now that she shouldn't have been doing before. She could have made it her business to be in the kids life and visit them monthly so they at least would KNOW her. Children need both a mother and father regardless to if they are married or not. And if she loved michael that much then she should have just not had he's kids and let other woman do it the way blanket's mother did. It was no reason for her not to get to know her children if she cared about them and had concerns for them. I just don't get it. Now on top of all of this she thinks it good for them to have to deal with learning who she is. when she should have been there from the get go. No amount of money is gonna make me just not go and see my kids if I love and am concerned for them.

Also these kids are not orphans at all. They have a whole bunch of jacksons, who love and care for them, that they don't need a psychologist to help them adjust to seeing. Also michael put diana R OVER her having the kids so what does that say.:doh: So thats my peace!
 
I never expected anything else in this case, people were attacking Debbie for no reason just to cause controversy. yes she had the children for Michael she didn't want herself to be a mother but they had an agreement she didn't steal his money she never denied being a surrogate mother. but Michael was not suppose to die, Debbie expected the kids to be well taken care of and this took everyone by surprise, now that these poor kids are left alone in this world she wants to be present one way or another, she will never be a real mother but she will be present in their lives. people also take cheap shots and make fun of her looks but she'll be a good influence in the kids lives because she's a smart lady, she has more brain cells than any of MJ's other "glamour" girlfriends
as for Blanket he's not being left out so what if she's not his mother that doesn't mean he's going to be outcasted what a stupid logic that is
 
I couldn't be happier with this decision and the deal seems fair.

Prince, Paris and Blanket are Jacksons after all and with Katherine and the Family is where they belong. :)
 
snowhite said:
now that these poor kids are left alone in this world...
Click to expand...


WRONG! The kids are not left alone. They are still MUCH better now than any of US who have been very FORTUNATE to have been in great loving family tender care growing up.
 
As long as these childern have someone in their lives to help guide thm and love them, that's all that we as fans/supporters should be concerned with. I do haev to say, it'll be confussing as hell to have Debbie reintroduce herself as their mother, yet I'm sure she and others will do the best they can to explain the reason's why.
 
Well I am happy that the kids won't have to go through this big custody hearing. It's great that they get to "meet" their other parent, I just hope the media is not sneaking onto Debbie's property trying to get that "shot" of her with her kids. Debbie will be able to tell them stories about their dad and how he acted around them when they were babies... Good luck to all of them..

P.S.- i am glad they got professional help, so that this won't be such a big shock to the kids when their mom comes to see them and vice versa..
 
I'm sure the meeting won't happen very suddenly. Maybe they will start getting cards and letters, then phone messages and finally a personal meeting with their mom. I know people say these kids are Jacksons (and they are) but they're also Rowes, hard to believe... lol So, I'm happy they will have their mom entering their life now. It was unavoidable. The experts will make sure this transition will happen smoothly, I'm sure. :)
 
gentlecharm said:
This is NOT A BAD NEWS. I never hated her because she stood by Michael during his trial to say how a good father he is and all. On many occasions, she seemed to have expressed sentiments proving she indeed LOVED Michael. I will be more than happy if she soon decides to return the money she once accepted to stay away of the kids' lives.
Click to expand...

^^ I for one am thanking God that the children will be with Katherine which is what their father wanted. I don't doubt that Debbie really cared for Michael and I am actually very grateful to her for having Prince and Paris because I truly believe that if Michael had not had kids when he did he might have left us long ago because he wouldn't have had anything to live for.

That said, I completely agree with the last part of your comment. I still find it VERY odd that Debbie took money in exchange for the "gifts" she gave Michael. I don't think that she's the devils spawn or anything but her motives seem more than questionable in certain respects.

*~MJ Loves MJ~* said:
As long as these childern have someone in their lives to help guide thm and love them, that's all that we as fans/supporters should be concerned with. I do haev to say, it'll be confussing as hell to have Debbie reintroduce herself as their mother, yet I'm sure she and others will do the best they can to explain the reason's why.
Click to expand...

^^ I agree with you on this and I believe Michael chose two people who were in his life who he thinks were fit for the job. Katherine and Diana.

I honestly believe that if Debbie gets back into the kids lives it should be in the capacity of an "aunty" type thing than an "I'm your MOTHER" kind of thing.

It has been said so many times when it comes to MJ possibly not being the biological father of these kids that DNA doesn't make a parent. I totally agree with that and think that goes both ways.

I don't think that just because Debbie shares genes with these kids that it makes her fit to all of a sudden become the "mother" she was not for the past 11-12 years.

It's going to be a very trying time for these kids trying to come to terms with the fact that the rock in their life isn't physically here any more and I just pray that everybody involved with these kids keep the focus of all their actions on the KIDS and their BEST INTEREST.

Nobody has said it yet and I really hate to bring it up but it's a sad fact of this life we live in and especially in Michael's case, that a large amount of MONEY is involved here.

I can see why people outside of the immediate family would want to be attaching or re-attaching themselves to these kids in some way or the other for potentially selfish reasons that may or may not become apparent until in the future.

And I'll leave it there...for now.
 
gentlecharm said:

WRONG! The kids are not left alone. They are still MUCH better now than any of US who have been very FORTUNATE to have been in great loving family tender care growing up.
Click to expand...
I meant "alone" as in they lost their only real parent, I lost a parent at an young age too and it's very confusing it doesn't matter how many aunts or uncles you have
 
kd3h4z.gif



:happy:
 
I don't think she has any right to the children. She was never a part of their lives, they don't even know her. I don't see how the judge can allow visitation rights. I mean apart from a biological connection, she really isn't their mother.
 
Debbie wants to approach the children... now? Debbie was trying to get close enough to the children. I hope Debbie is not with any interest in wanting these visitations children. Debbie is a stranger to Prince and Paris. Very strange. It seems that everything has been resolved before the hearing. Sincerely believe that you have money involved here that I have read is that Debbie wanted the custody of the children and now suddenly this agreement. For me there is money in the middle so that Debbie does not come up in court to stay with the children. But may be I am wrong, but I can not change my thoughts on that.​

I am very happy that they will be with Katie. She is the only person with whom the children should stay. :)​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top