Latest on MJJC

Katherine to keep kids, Debbie gets visitation rights

Im glad they came to an agreement. :) So i wonder if Debbie gets visitations rights to the three children or just the two oldest since she is their mom?Im sure they wont leave Blanket out.. Thats great that Kat got full costudy though :) That's what Mj wanted anyways!
 
I'm glad they did it peacefully and reached an agreement. The media was watering at the mouth over the thought of there being a war, so I'm glad the media won't get that satisfaction.

Those kids belong with the Jacksons, so I'm glad they'll stick with them. But the kids also deserve to know their real mom. So everybody wins. :D (Well except for the media, they lose.)
 
Good agreement I think. As far as Debbie is concerned - it's not for us to decide on how much she does or doesn't care about those kids. All we kow about that woman is 10% facts and 90% gossip and tabloid junk. Great that Katherine gets to keep those kids though. What those kids need most of all is love, and they are going to get truckloads of it from Katherine and the rest of the family.
 
i dont have a bad word to say about Debbie she has always been there for Michael when she was needed and those children need as many people around them that love them as they get right now.
 
don't worry:'m sure the kids feel how much she "cared" about them...so they will treat her the way she deserves...now they lost the most important person in their life so you can't just force your presence there...
 
i'm so happy that Katherine has the kids :yes:

i'm so happy that Debbie doesn't get the kids :yes: cause i don't like her and i don't believe her and tuest her :yes:
 
Good agreement. Michaels wish got respected. And it's also good the kids have a chance to learn about their mom if they want.
 
As long as she does not get no money. Dang she been divorced Michael and MJ is not going to continue to take care of her.
 
mjjmsc said:
don't worry:'m sure the kids feel how much she "cared" about them...so they will treat her the way she deserves...now they lost the most important person in their life so you can't just force your presence there...
Click to expand...
Exactly. ANd plus, she was NOT what I call a REAL wife.
 
andyroser said:
Michael Jackson's mother will retain custody of his children
5:26 AM | July 30, 2009
The mother of Michael Jackson will retain custody of his children, and the biological mother of the two elder children will visit and maintain her legal parental rights under an agreement reached by both sides, The Times has learned.

Katherine Jackson, 79, the late pop icon’s mother, and Debbie Rowe, 50, who bore Jackson’s two older children, also agreed to mutually hire a child psychologist to advise them on how, when and where Rowe’s visits should take place, a knowledgeable source said.

The agreement will go before a Los Angeles judge Monday, and both sides expect the judge to approve it, the source said. Rowe did not ask for custody. “Debbie is really happy” about the arrangement, said the source, refusing to be identified because the agreement has yet to be announced.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/michael-jacksons-mother-will-retain-custody-of-his-children.html
Click to expand...

I am so happy they were able to come up with this arrangement. It is the best thing for the kids and that's what really matters. After everything they have went through and what still to come they really need a strong support system. This aggrement will make sure of that.
 
Last edited:
Hope she doesn't force herself on the two older ones and consider Blanket's feelings as well.

As long as they stay with the Jackson's....:)
 
I'm glad it's been resolved peacefully and that's one less hassle the Jackson family has to deal with now.

Thanks to all for the updates.
 
Fair deal, glad to hear they resolved this amicably. As fans who have NO real clue of what happened between her and MJ it's ridiculous for us to try to judge her.

As long as she's not asking for money then her heart seems to be in the right place by wanting to have at least some sort of relationship with the children, and I respect that.
 
This is great the media has one less bad news to report. Fans should stop bad mouthing Debbie she could of stirred the pot up and make allot of problems for the Jacksons. She is a good woman, some fans need to stop bashing her. Someone even mention that she may of worked for a doctor who MAY OF given MJ a drug that killed him.

First of all that is not TRUE and if she worked for a doctor who did that how is she to blame for that? Geeze you all come up with the dumbess things sometimes.

And as regards blanket not haveing a mother so what? Millions of kids go through that and survive . Even our very own president lost his mom and grew up to be president of USA.
 
Mikejoefan said:
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!
Click to expand...

i believe i told u once before that they never finalized the process. she still had her rights. if u remember when mj went to bahrain, debbie said he needed her permission to take them out of the country and mj obliged and then sent the kids to go see her.this could've become messy as hell. she could've taken so much from him when they split. she could've made it acrimonious. ur married to the biggest celeb in the world. custody battle royale! but it didn't happen. they were meant to go w/ their father.now he's dead. she wants to b in their lives now that their sole parent has passed. makes sense but so many refuse to look outside of what common sense is to see that.they wanted a custody battle so katherine and deb gave the media a lil mystery for a few wks. props to them for making it as painless as possible.and yes, JB JB SHAUN STRANGA IN MUSCOW she did say that. and i believe she has a lot oflove for them. proof? she let them go w/ their father. the ultimate act of love. it was damn she did, damn she didn't w/ the fans. if she took them, n mj had custody, y'all wouldhate her. she let mj have them, y'all hate her.i love debbie threads. it's always amusing to see what fans use as justification for anything. i'll step out and let SHAMIKA take it from here
 
I'm glad Michael's wish has been respected & carried out, and I wish them all well.
 
the bottom line is the kids will remain with katherine just like michael wanted, if they had to make a concession (debbie getting visitation) to allow that to happen then so be it.

we're outsiders looking in, for all we know paris and prince may want to get to know their mother and maybe they don't, whatever happens i'm sure their opinions will be taken into consideration.
 
music65 said:
This is great the media has one less bad news to report. Fans should stop bad mouthing Debbie she could of stirred the pot up and make allot of problems for the Jacksons. She is a good woman, some fans need to stop bashing her. Someone even mention that she may of worked for a doctor who MAY OF given MJ a drug that killed him.

First of all that is not TRUE and if she worked for a doctor who did that how is she to blame for that? Geeze you all come up with the dumbess things sometimes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately some people judge her based on crap that the tabloids try to force down our throats, which is ironically what fans always complained about when it came to Michael.

You are right - Debbie could have caused problems here if she wished too, but she didn't. and she didn't ask for any extra money in return either. If anything, she showed a lot of class here and deserves some respect for it.
 
Soso Deaf said:
i believe i told u once before that they never finalized the process. she still had her rights. if u remember when mj went to bahrain, debbie said he needed her permission to take them out of the country and mj obliged and then sent the kids to go see her.this could've become messy as hell. she could've taken so much from him when they split. she could've made it acrimonious. ur married to the biggest celeb in the world. custody battle royale! but it didn't happen. they were meant to go w/ their father.now he's dead. she wants to b in their lives now that their sole parent has passed. makes sense but so many refuse to look outside of what common sense is to see that.they wanted a custody battle so katherine and deb gave the media a lil mystery for a few wks. props to them for making it as painless as possible.and yes, JB JB SHAUN STRANGA IN MUSCOW she did say that. and i believe she has a lot oflove for them. proof? she let them go w/ their father. the ultimate act of love. it was damn she did, damn she didn't w/ the fans. if she took them, n mj had custody, y'all wouldhate her. she let mj have them, y'all hate her.i love debbie threads. it's always amusing to see what fans use as justification for anything. i'll step out and let SHAMIKA take it from here
Click to expand...

I hear you loud and clear, and don't agree. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a fan, I would think this way for ANY situation similar to this one. If a mother at one point clearly states that she doesn't want her kids to call her mom, if they don't recognize her as a parent, then what rights does she really have? Sure legally, she may still have rights, but isn't there more to being a parent than just sharing that biological connection? She didn't raise the children. According to them, they don't have a mother. So how does it make sense for her to have visitation rights? Moreover, she isn't even Blanket's mother. Having her suddenly in the kids life is extremely confusing for all of them at this point. When they reach the age of majority, if they want to get to know her, that's their choice. But personally, I don't see how she can currently have rights to see them. Michael was their dad and their mom. Children are nurtured, they are loved by their parent(s). The people they see on a regular basis. The people that teach them, and help them grow. Debbie was not part of that. To be out of their lives significantly since they were babies, and then to suddenly want in, isn't healthy for the childrens lifestyles. If their parent died, their ONLY parent, it is up to other family that they've seen on a regular basis and know well, to take over. There's a reason Michael didn't acknowledge Debbie in his will. That marriage was simply an attempt at a 'normal' family setting. So really, it was a case of surrogacy. Unfortunately since surrogacy is not really written in the books and is a personal agreement between two people, you cant really argue that the person who gave birth has no rights, unless you can prove that they should have no rights. I think in this case, you can most definitely prove it. Which is why I'm pretty surprised that she's allowed visitation rights. Usually they always do what's in the best interest of the children, and is having her in their life so suddenly really in their best interest? I guess they think so. I also do not think it's fair for a 'parent' to think it's alright and normal to leave their child with one parent (YES, I call it abandoning, I don't care if Debbie doesn't think so) for pretty much their entire lives thus far, and then all of a sudden wants to get back in. If she TRULY cared for the children, she would have fought to have more presence in their lives all these years. It was VERY clear that she had these children as a "gift" for Michael, and not much more. Then how could the court grant her rights? She didn't care for those rights very much up until now. I took a Family Law class last semester, and so having discussed this, it upsets me greatly.
 
Last edited:
Remember BLANKET

Deal reached

The statement reads:

Katherine Jackson shall be the guardian for the minor children.

Deborah Rowe shall exercise visitation rights with the two oldest children. The timing, frequency and manner of visits shall be implemented according to the best interests of the children, as determined by a child psychologist selected jointly, and paid jointly, by Katherine Jackson and Deborah Rowe.

The parties have neither sought nor agreed to any compensation to be exchanged, apart from the continuation of spousal support payments that had previously been personally agreed to between Michael Jackson and Deborah Rowe.

L. Londell McMillan and Diane Goodman, attorneys for Mrs. Jackson in this matter, stated, "Mrs Jackson and the family are pleased this matter is resolved and was handled in a caring, thoughtful and courteous manner by the parties and their representatives. We were all united in our goals to do what is best for Michael's wonderful children, and both Mrs Jackson and Debbie Rowe were on the exact same page. Accordingly, although important issues had to be resolved, this was no legal contest but rather simply a process doing the right thing for the right reasons."

Eric George, counsel for Deborah Rowe, stated as follows: "The parties engaged in a dignified discussion that resulted in a dignified outcome. The sole consideration between the parties was the best interests of the children. I’m proud to have worked with such professionals who represented Ms. Jackson, and I am particularly proud of Deborah for her integrity and selflessness."

http://www.theinsider.com/news/2621...on_s_Lawyers_Reveal_Custody_Agreement_Details
 
I am so happy that the happiness and the well-being of the children were put on the top of the list. Prince, Paris and Blanket have grown up surrounded by their father's family, their family and it is the correct decision that they are raised by Katherine because she is a wonderful mother. This is also Michael's greatest wish that his mother raise his children if he cannot.

I do think it is important for Prince and Paris to know that they do have a mother and that she cares about them. I think it will be comforting for them as they grow older. I also think that her re-introduction into their lives will be gradual and monitored until they feel comfortable with her.

As for little Blanket, I don't think he would be left out at all. But I don't agree that Debbie Rowe should assume the role of mother to him. I bet she will be more of an Aunt to him. Blanket will have Janet, Rebbie, Latoya and Grandma to mother him and I am sure they all will smother him will all the love in the world. Lots of children are raised by grandmothers in lieu of a mother and have grown up well-adjusted.

So does this mean that Katherine will be the sole guardian of the children? Yet Debbie maintains parental rights, meaning that she has a say in their upbringing until they are of age, right? So I guess if the Jacksons want to take the children on vacation abroad, they'd have to inform Debbie also? Also, wondering if there is going to be co-guardianship btw Katherine, Rebbie and Janet. I hate saying and thinking this, but being that Mrs. Jackson is 79 years old, if she passes away before the children turn 18 yo, I'd hate for there to be another custody case or confusion of who is going to be the guardian of the children. Praying that won't happen though.

Just wishing Prince, Paris, and Blanket love, peace and stability at this time. :)

*ETA*- Just read Insider article above. Thanks. :)
 
This is what I expected and I think its the best outcome. The children have lost their natural father, I think it could be good for them to know their natural mother now and not feel so alone in the world. (Not that Im saying she'll be a replacement to Michael, no way).
 
Soso Deaf said:
i believe i told u once before that they never finalized the process. she still had her rights. if u remember when mj went to bahrain, debbie said he needed her permission to take them out of the country and mj obliged and then sent the kids to go see her.this could've become messy as hell. she could've taken so much from him when they split. she could've made it acrimonious. ur married to the biggest celeb in the world. custody battle royale! but it didn't happen. they were meant to go w/ their father.now he's dead. she wants to b in their lives now that their sole parent has passed. makes sense but so many refuse to look outside of what common sense is to see that.they wanted a custody battle so katherine and deb gave the media a lil mystery for a few wks. props to them for making it as painless as possible.and yes, JB JB SHAUN STRANGA IN MUSCOW she did say that. and i believe she has a lot oflove for them. proof? she let them go w/ their father. the ultimate act of love. it was damn she did, damn she didn't w/ the fans. if she took them, n mj had custody, y'all wouldhate her. she let mj have them, y'all hate her.i love debbie threads. it's always amusing to see what fans use as justification for anything. i'll step out and let SHAMIKA take it from here
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying but sometimes people just don't agree. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack anyone who don't share your opinion. Fans have raised some interesting points in this thread actually, pro- Debbie and anti- Debbie.

I am confused by you saying : "it's always amusing to see what fans use as justification for anything." ....you're a fan too.
 
good news and as expected considering they have been talking and delaying hearings.
 
elmari said:
Also, wondering if there is going to be co-guardianship btw Katherine, Rebbie and Janet. I hate saying and thinking this, but being that Mrs. Jackson is 79 years old, if she passes away before the children turn 18 yo, I'd hate for there to be another custody case or confusion of who is going to be the guardian of the children. Praying that won't happen though.

Just wishing Prince, Paris, and Blanket love, peace and stability at this time. :)

*ETA*- Just read Insider article above. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

I was wondering about this too, I pray that this won't be an issue but what would happen to them should Katherine pass away before any of them turn 18?
 
i dont get what it is the fans say she has done wrong, she gave Michael children and let him be a father, and she stood up for him when the prosecution brought her in to the trial when the media thought she was going to stab him in the back, she was there for him, and has always been when he called on her. What is so bad that we have to dislike her? i really dont get it.
 
big DB said:
i dont get what it is the fans say she has done wrong, she gave Michael children and let him be a father, and she stood up for him when the prosecution brought her in to the trial when the media thought she was going to stab him in the back, she was there for him, and has always been when he called on her. What is so bad that we have to dislike her? i really dont get it.
Click to expand...

did you read th court docs from when she tried to get custody during the trial? i always liked debbie tried to give her the benifit of the doubt but that case documents showed her in another light it was a case of using the kids for $
 
VanX said:
I hear you loud and clear, and don't agree. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a fan, I would think this way for ANY situation similar to this one. If a mother at one point clearly states that she doesn't want her kids to call her mom, if they don't recognize her as a parent, then what rights does she really have? Sure legally, she may still have rights, but isn't there more to being a parent than just sharing that biological connection? She didn't raise the children. According to them, they don't have a mother. So how does it make sense for her to have visitation rights? Moreover, she isn't even Blanket's mother. Having her suddenly in the kids life is extremely confusing for all of them at this point. When they reach the age of majority, if they want to get to know her, that's their choice. But personally, I don't see how she can currently have rights to see them. Michael was their dad and their mom. Children are nurtured, they are loved by their parent(s). The people they see on a regular basis. The people that teach them, and help them grow. Debbie was not part of that. To be out of their lives significantly since they were babies, and then to suddenly want in, isn't healthy for the childrens lifestyles. If their parent died, their ONLY parent, it is up to other family that they've seen on a regular basis and know well, to take over. There's a reason Michael didn't acknowledge Debbie in his will. That marriage was simply an attempt at a 'normal' family setting. So really, it was a case of surrogacy. Unfortunately since surrogacy is not really written in the books and is a personal agreement between two people, you cant really argue that the person who gave birth has no rights, unless you can prove that they should have no rights. I think in this case, you can most definitely prove it. Which is why I'm pretty surprised that she's allowed visitation rights. Usually they always do what's in the best interest of the children, and is having her in their life so suddenly really in their best interest? I guess they think so. I also do not think it's fair for a 'parent' to think it's alright and normal to leave their child with one parent (YES, I call it abandoning, I don't care if Debbie doesn't think so) for pretty much their entire lives thus far, and then all of a sudden wants to get back in. If she TRULY cared for the children, she would have fought to have more presence in their lives all these years. It was VERY clear that she had these children as a "gift" for Michael, and not much more. Then how could the court grant her rights? She didn't care for those rights very much up until now. I took a Family Law class last semester, and so having discussed this, it upsets me greatly.
Click to expand...

I think this agreement seems like a thoughtful one that will help the children to adjust. I'm glad it didn't turn into something nasty.
But, I do agree with the above statements. If Michael was still alive, Debbie would still care less about being in their lives. How does him passing, suddenly mean she has to be there? The children need support, this for certain, but from a Mother that really didn't exist and didn't want to have any part in their lives until now...seems to me would only cause them more confusion and suffering than needed. The biological connection doesn't make someone a worthy Mother/Father figure...especially in cases such as this. I feel like the children should be aware that they do indeed have a "Mother", but that she shouldn't be forced into their lives...especially at such a difficult time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top