Katherine to keep kids, Debbie gets visitation rights

[Experience the magic]

Sounds like a fair deal to me, and I really truly hope the children will be given the chance to grow up in peace.

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

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.

^^I agree with most of what you say here but one part.

You said: "There's a reason Michael didn't acknowledge Debbie in his will."

Actually Michael DID acknowledge her....TWICE. And for me that speaks volumes as short as the sentences are.

Once to say "I declare I am not married. My marriage to DJRJ has been dissolved"

And again to say "I intentionally have omitted to provide for my former wife DJRJ"

I don't know what was going on in MJ's personal life and I never went to law school so I don't know all that much about Will drafting.

I do know however that names are used in a will to point out EXPLICITLY who is to benefit from the assets being dealt with in the will.

Michael and Debbie were divorced for several years when this will was drawn up and with her being his last wife I can understand the first statement regarding her, but the second one makes it seem to me that it was clear in his mind he didn't want any lines blurred between Debbie being his former wife and her seeking any claims to his estate based on the fact that she's the mother of the two older kids.

It's expected for one to state who they want to benefit from their will but to also include who you do NOT want to benefit....especially years after you and them are not together?

It's something that makes me go hmmmmm.

Also, I totally agree with you again and don't get how Debbie is being referred to as the "real" mother when it's generally agreed on the board that Michael was indeed the "real" father whether those kids are his genetically or not.

I'm in no way bashing Debbie and I am truly grateful to her as a fan and fellow human being for making Michaels dream of being a father become a reality, but I also feel that DNA isn't everything and actions speak louder than words.

Anyway, regardless...I find comfort in knowing that those kids are very intelligent and will figure things out in time and find a way to work it out what's best for themselves.

God bless them.....and little Blanket too.

 

[olved]

If a mother at one point clearly states that she doesn't want her kids to call her mom

For me it was blatant that she said that to put the blame off Michael, that he took children away from her.

and i believe she has a lot oflove for them. proof? she let them go w/ their father. the ultimate act of love.

couldn't agree more!

As for "pay back" thing. Well, I don't think money was in her mind when she decided to be mother to his children. I'm sure that Michael offered that money to her as a gift for this pricless present. And maybe she told him that she will accept that money (after all, Michael just had to thank her one way ot another, i think) but he doesn't have to "pay" her anymore, she was selfless with her desire to make him father. And Michael respected that wish and didn't write her in will. And they both knew that she wouldn't be in his family life, they were not in love (I suppose), it was just friendship for life. And she moved away from his life.Well, it's just my guessing, but it very well could be true.

 

[myfavouritewintercoat]

Really guys its a very good deal! its saved the children from a huge custody battle and at least they will get some contact with a mother so that they dont feel like an orphan really be more sympathetic, this deal could have gone really really wrong but fortunately its seems very sensitive to the children's needs.

I'm glad for the children today that it won't be a big custody battle bless them. I'm glad its an amicable agreement. After all Debbie is the reason he had those beautiful children in his life and thank goodness he did

 

[olved]

It's expected for one to state who they want to benefit from their will but to also include who you do NOT want to benefit....especially years after you and them are not together?

It's something that makes me go hmmmmm.

What if he did that knowing that Debbie has relatives/friends who could force her to fight for his money and they both didn't want that?

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

You know....I just have to add here because I have a half sibling that has really been affected by it so I've seen it first hand.

I hope to God that if Debbie decides to enter the children's lives that she STAYS there. It's hurtful enough to have someone appearing out of the shadows and wanting to take part in your life overnight after years of not being there, but to have them duck in and out would be even worse.

Debbie has stated herself that she was not cut out to be a mother and if it wasn't for her desire to help Michael it wouldn't ever have happened.

I know my sibling still doesn't consider their "real" mother to be their mother, but has been working on forming a friendship for the past half of their life since she re-appeared after being gone for the first half.

Based on that I truly hope that apart from brandishing the "mother" badge...with a DNA test to back it up, that she desires to form a close friendship/relationship with these kids and become someone they can really count on separately and apart from the other things related to the whole situation.

 

[Emerald]

Thank God for this news. The children are where they should be with their family.

Is anyone else suddenly sad though? It's just so real. Poor Michael. He should be the one raising them.

 

[Missy.]

But here's what's interesting -- 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.

Rowe will maintain her parental rights.

Ok, two things... Meaningful basis and Parental rights.

What she wants is that she wants the children to call her Mum.

And parental rights... well... she never had any. She signed them away in return for money.

tsk...

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

What if he did that knowing that Debbie has relatives/friends who could force her to fight for his money and they both didn't want that?

Hey, anything is possible....only Michael and Debbie know the truth on this one. I can only got off of what I observe and reason (and that again is only my opinion).

Wouldn't it be curious to know also if those same friends and family forced her to fight to be in the children's lives for the past 11-12 years?

If they did it seems she was strong enough to stand up to them and keep herself quiet all this time....but then when he dies that would change?

Nobody can force Debbie to do what she does or doesn't want to do. Same goes for Michael.

I actually feel kind of sorry for Debbie in certain ways because I feel she held more of a personal romantic love for Michael than he had for her. How horrible must it feel to be totally into someone and have to watch them still loving someone else and after you give them two kids and can't have anymore (her words not mine), basically get "released" from the fold.

Must have been hard...

Once again, I state that whatever happens I hope it's done by all parties with the best interest of the kids because at this juncture that's all that really matters. Everybody else has gotten what there was to get....Michael got his kids and Debbie got the satisfaction of helping a friend.

 

[olved]

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.

Could it be the reason to not mention her in his will? She already has his support and will have as it seems.

 

[london]

um, i think it's most important what the kids want. we don't know what they want and we won't as we don't have to know. but they do. all in all, it's a family matter.

 

[olved]

I actually feel kind of sorry for Debbie in certain ways because I feel she held more of a personal romantic love for Michael than he had for her. How horrible must it feel to be totally into someone and have to watch them still loving someone else and after you give them two kids and can't have anymore (her words not mine), basically get "released" from the fold.

I feel you!

 

[MJJChichi]

err, it aint over if they did not agree on a specific amount of visitation. that is something the judge will take care of i hope. otherwise they will all be back in there bitching at one another real soon.

 

[emmah24]

For me it was blatant that she said that to put the blame off Michael, that he took children away from her.

I agree, I never did buy the whole claim that she never wanted the kids and she only wanted the money. Her feelings for Michael were deep, so much so that she'd give her children to him. Given half the chance, I think Debbie would've wanted to stay with Michael and the kids if that was an option, she often came across as in awe of him, certainly in love.

 

[Nixie1]

i dont really know what to say on this subject and im not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but

im worried for lil blanket, if Debbie see's Paris and Prince which obviously as she's there mom would be natural, but what if Blanket starts to wonder where his mom is? or why he is being left out in a way...
i only say this because i -think- i read she'll see her two children and not blanket (obv shes not his mom so they wouldnt say shes going to be part of all 3 of their lives) but i just feel kinda sad for him... the 3 children seem super close and man, this whole things so sad..

i apologise if i have any facts wrong... its just something i was thinking of.

I also worry that, if the kids havnt really ever seen her, its a bit of a strange situation... "Hi, im your mom" .. :| spesh if as they grow up they start to wonder where she was before and why she wasnt in their lives... but i suppose these are subjects that will be delt with in time.

but as long as everything is in favour of the children and their happiness then i spose its none of my business! lol but i do worry for the children, its such an awful situation

 

[xthunderx2]

Debbie will probably tell Blanket "I will be your mommy too" .

I agree with you SoSoDeaf on the point that they are now orphans basically which is OF COURSE very sad. And with 'ordinary' children I would say your are completely right.....but do you really think Prince and Paris are better off with Debbie in their lives?

Also......Debbie has worked for one of the doctors that prescribed Michael drugs that eventually may have killed him. Nice link.

I agree this does sound as though it is what is best for the children......Also if you remember Michael did say in his own words that the kids do know Debbie. That they had spent 2 weeks vacation with her not too long ago. But they knew her as Miss Debbie, not Mom. Or maybe they did know her as Mom that I believe ,was between Michael and those children, maybe they discussed this in private how are we to know. I am sure Michael always did what was in the best interest of his children.

 

[Pitcorthie]

Is anyone else suddenly sad though? It's just so real. Poor Michael. He should be the one raising them.

I know how you feel.Michael should be here enjoying his childrens lives

At least they have the next best thing now, Michaels mum

The whole thing hasn't sunk in for me yet either, it is so heartbreaking

 

[A_Powerful_Mind]

I agree this does sound as though it is what is best for the children......Also if you remember Michael did say in his own words that the kids do know Debbie. That they had spent 2 weeks vacation with her not too long ago. But they knew her as Miss Debbie, not Mom. Or maybe they did know her as Mom that I believe ,was between Michael and those children, maybe they discussed this in private how are we to know. I am sure Michael always did what was in the best interest of his children.

Excellent point and it just crossed my mind before I read this.

Knowing the person Michael is and also the fact that the kids were older it wouldn't be crazy to think that he sat down and talked to them about their heritage and birth mother.

He was obviously very close to those kids and wanted to teach them as much as he could, so I think it really is unreasonable to think that he'd tell them he found them in the cabbage patch...lol.

In 11-12 years I'm sure they would have wondered where their mother is having come into contact with other kids who have mothers.

If they did, I'm sure Michael was honest with them and explained it in a way they could understand and accept.

 

[ruchie]

I'm glad that this has turned out to be a Win Win for all.Mama Jackson would be a great mentor to the children and I know Rebbie and Janet and Latoya and the Uncles will helpout all they can through this time. As far as MS. Rowe,If They wanted the agreement to be for her to get visitation rights,then so be it. Nothing else.I'm very happy for The Jackson Family.

 

[Missy.]

Debbie will probably tell Blanket "I will be your mommy too" .
.

I dont think Katherine will have that for one minute.

Anyway, wasn't it said if Katherine got full custody that Rebbie will bring them up?

 

[VanX]

^^I agree with most of what you say here but one part.

You said: "There's a reason Michael didn't acknowledge Debbie in his will."

Actually Michael DID acknowledge her....TWICE. And for me that speaks volumes as short as the sentences are.

Yeah, he acknowledged her twice... only to emphasize that he is not providing for her. Intentionally. I think that speaks volumes as well.

I actually feel kind of sorry for Debbie in certain ways because I feel she held more of a personal romantic love for Michael than he had for her. How horrible must it feel to be totally into someone and have to watch them still loving someone else and after you give them two kids and can't have anymore (her words not mine), basically get "released" from the fold.

I would feel worse for her, but she knew exactly what she was getting into. She said herself that she wanted to give Michael children as a gift, she wanted to do something nice for him, so she had to have known that that was all she was ever going to be. I do believe she had romantic feelings toward him, but she had to have known from the very beginning that those feelings were not reciprocated, and that Michael was using her for exactly what she offered. It's always seemed from the very beginning that they had some sort of mutual agreement regarding the care for these children, and its always seemed like it was just about the children - not about their personal relationship. Therefore while unrequited love definitely bites, you can't tell me she didn't see it all along.

 

[Soso Deaf]

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.

oh i don't mean it in a snippy way, love. honest!:cheers:

i have bad memories from when they divorced, what was said, and when she 'gave' him the kids, how happy fans were . and when she was on the state witness list how bad it was but then how good it was after her testimony.

a lot of shifts in mood and it's so heartbreaking. hindsight is 20/20 and a lot of people posted w/ their emotions of that day. and then later came back and said something contradictory. it's just confusing

especially when this is going the best way it can go.


VAN X that's y there's gonna be a counselor to help them adjust and i don't think it's right to leave blanket out of this. they all lost a father but how fair is it that only two gain a mother FIGURE?

 

[VanX]

VAN X that's y there's gonna be a counselor to help them adjust and i don't think it's right to leave blanket out of this. they all lost a father but how fair is it that only two gain a mother FIGURE?

Exactly. That's why there should not be a mother figure at all. There never was one anyway. To them, there was only daddy. Daddy is gone, but that does not mean they specifically need a mommy. You know? A loving family all around is more than enough. How confusing it will be for Paris and Prince to gain a mommy and Blanket not... it just adds more confusion which is why I don't see how Debbie suddenly in their lives as a parental figure is in their best interests. I'm seriously surprised the courts made such a decision.

 

[IrishFaery]

I thought this would be the case. I found it disturbing that the media wanted a custody battle--as if the Baldwin/Bassinger fight wasn't hard enough to watch.

These are all reasonable people who loved Michael and love his children. He would not have wanted them to fight and they didn't.

 

[Soso Deaf]

so wow....u don't thik they'll benefit? b/cshe can take them and make it even worse. she's keeping them w/ the jacksons and visiting. what's wrong w/ that?

note that being married to the biggest celeb cannot be easy. and custody? how would u think mj would do thta? oh i can schedule my tours around seeing my kids. lemme fly from bucharest and go see them for the weekend. this was the best alternative BECAUSE

if she kept them, he'd have to financially support her and them more than what he ended up doing. she couldn't work after they divorced. her 'settlement' has yet to be paid now so imagine how much he'd have to shell out.

the reason y deb was not given money in the will is b/c in 05 they began the alimony payments that they wrongfully stopped in 04. so instead of putting her in teh will or amending it to show that, she just said she wanted that agreement to continue to happen until she is paid.

that is separate of the kids.

this could've gotten messy and instead they worked FOR the kids. she didn't need to request a counselor. she could'vegotten real damn spiteful but it's funny to me

the ONE person EVERYONE expected to screw mj over and take the kids and cause havoc was the ONE person who DID NOT do that. remember after he passed? omg thekids?

it was everyone else. deepak, uri, klien, etc.... how pathetic and sad is that? she's biding by mj's wishes. can't say the same for others

 

[IrishFaery]

i have bad memories from when they divorced, what was said, and when she 'gave' him the kids, how happy fans were . and when she was on the state witness list how bad it was but then how good it was after her testimony.

a lot of shifts in mood and it's so heartbreaking. hindsight is 20/20 and a lot of people posted w/ their emotions of that day. and then later came back and said something contradictory. it's just confusing

I remember that...

 

[Soso Deaf]

Exactly. That's why there should not be a mother figure at all. There never was one anyway. To them, there was only daddy. Daddy is gone, but that does not mean they specifically need a mommy. You know? A loving family all around is more than enough. How confusing it will be for Paris and Prince to gain a mommy and Blanket not... it just adds more confusion which is why I don't see how Debbie suddenly in their lives as a parental figure is in their best interests. I'm seriously surprised the courts made such a decision.

ahhhh i c ur point and i said i don't think it'll be that way. hence the counselor.

and the courts have yet to make a decision. the parties kept postponing so that they could reach a mutual agreement so that they can present it to the judge and say that free and clear both sides are happy w/ this arrangement and it's still up to thejudge to say ok.

that's y I BELIVE that blanket's not included in the paperwork cuz legally she has no claim to him. as bad as that sounds. buti don't think they'll keep him out.

 

[MJJChichi]

where is this going yall...

 

[Soso Deaf]

I remember that...

and how much chaos and how random people would be. so hurtful for n oreason and when they were proven wrong, like w/ her testimony...no one said sorry or they were shocked. it was biz as usual.

smh

 

[VanX]

this could've gotten messy and instead they worked FOR the kids. she didn't need to request a counselor. she could'vegotten real damn spiteful but it's funny to me

the ONE person EVERYONE expected to screw mj over and take the kids and cause havoc was the ONE person who DID NOT do that. remember after he passed? omg thekids?

it was everyone else. deepak, uri, klien, etc.... how pathetic and sad is that? she's biding by mj's wishes. can't say the same for others

Let's not forget. She loved Michael. She has no reason to wreak havoc. If she did, it'd only make her look worse and she'd have nothing to gain by stirring the shit. She's doing the beneficial thing in her situation, by keeping fairly quiet and playing by the rules. They're more likely to give her what she wants.

and the courts have yet to make a decision.

Ahh.