LOS ANGELES — There is a new report that says Michael Jackson is not the biological father of his two older children. This comes from the children's mother Debbie Rowe who apparently now wants temporary exclusive custody.
Jacko is not their father according to the British tabloid the News of the World.
It quotes legal papers by Debbie Rowe that claim she became pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor. Rowe says she and Jackson entered into a surrogacy agreement in 1996. According to the paper their marriage ceremony was only for securing his parental rights.
Now a source close to the Jackson family claims that child welfare officials came to Jackson's Beverly Hills Mansion on Friday. The source tells ABC News that Jackson's three children were interviewed, as well as their nannies and nurses. Jackson was apparently home at the time.
California child welfare officials wouldn't comment saying al investigations are confidential. Some attorneys say this could be the first step to see if the children should stay with Jackson.
Jackson's critics have long suggested he may be an unfit father. After seeing this British documentary last February, child welfare advocate Gloria Gruber sent a formal complaint herself to the Santa Barbara DA saying "Jackson has raised enough red flags to be concerned about protecting the welfare of children with whom he comes in contact, including his own."
According to the British Tabloid Debbie Rowe says Jackson has shown "poor judgment by saying it is acceptable for him to sleep in the same bed with children.""
In previous interviews Jackson has vowed to fight to keep his children.
Well....I have to say that this should not be shocking to anyone....
Neither one of the two kids that Debbie Rowe gave birth to had any sign of being interracial....
None of this even remotely surprises me at all...I figured that out long ago...
I find it surprising that she came forward now...has she even had contact with these kids? I hope so...or I might feel she is also unfit...if she chose to take money and leave never seeing those kids...that would make me really mad....how could a mother do that?
But I am ahead of myself since I dont know if that is the case....
Does anyone know if she has had contact with them all this time?
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Well that interview after the one with that pommy indian guy, she said that she had not seen them, or hardly saw them. Michael has told the children they don't have a mother because Debbie said she had the children as a "gift" for Michael and wanted them to be his.
Like Mystic says, it is SOOOO obvious those children don't have a drop of black blood in them.
I think she has come forward now because she is Jewish and wants the children brought up as Jew's. She is worried about the effect the Nation of Islam is having on the children now that Michael has shacked up with them.
schmiggens said this in post #5 : Well that interview after the one with that pommy indian guy, she said that she had not seen them, or hardly saw them. Michael has told the children they don't have a mother because Debbie said she had the children as a "gift" for Michael and wanted them to be his.
Like Mystic says, it is SOOOO obvious those children don't have a drop of black blood in them.
I think she has come forward now because she is Jewish and wants the children brought up as Jew's. She is worried about the effect the Nation of Islam is having on the children now that Michael has shacked up with them.
This whole deal is screwed up....
I CANNOT believe he told them that they didnt have a mother and she gave them to him as a gift!
AND I CANNOT believe that she would just take the money and never see them...
At this point I dont think either one of them is fit to be a parent...
One has immoral behavior around his kids, straight out lies to them about them not having a mother, and parades them around in masks like they dont deserve to be seen by anyone but people of his choosing....and the other sells them off..
And people wonder why some kids are screwed up in this world....
Amazing!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Neither one of the two kids that Debbie Rowe gave birth to had any sign of being interracial....
Interesting story: one of my wife's coworkers is married to an English man with very very dark brown hair and dark eyes (she's Taiwanese, or maybe Chinese, but anyway... Asian), anyway, their first kid ended up with blonde hair and blue eyes. Go figure You can dispute the father in a case like this, but there's no way you can say the mother of the baby wasn't Asian
As for Michael Jackson, well, he may or may not be the father of the kids, I'm not sure, but I do think it's possible that she may just say that to get custody...
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
schmiggens said this in post #5 :
Like Mystic says, it is SOOOO obvious those children don't have a drop of black blood in them. I think she has come forward now because she is Jewish and wants the children brought up as Jew's. She is worried about the effect the Nation of Islam is having on the children now that Michael has shacked up with them.
Be careful, this issue really has no bearing whether he molested kids are not. It's more a lifestyle issue, very similar to adoption and surrogacy.
Some people are allowing the race card being played to divide the races. Just another example that will distort the statistical results when measuring results. It has no business but his.
I think any woman who sells her children and then disappears from thier lives should not be able to get temporary custody. That's like a woman giving up a baby for adoption and then 6 years later, filing for custody. It's happened before, but it's not healthy for the kids.
As for MJ, I don't know that his kids should be taken away, but I can't deny that they will be emotionally warped in their perception of self image because their father is constantly mutilating his own image, and forces the children to cover their faces whenever they go out. I'm telling you now, they're going to be screwed up when they become adults!
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
Ken NJ said this in post #8 : Be careful, this issue really has no bearing whether he molested kids are not. It's more a lifestyle issue, very similar to adoption and surrogacy.
Some people are allowing the race card being played to divide the races. Just another example that will distort the statistical results when measuring results. It has no business but his.
Well..not that its right...but I believe MJ is used to this card being played, after all he has played it before with Motolla, and his mother is playing it now with the"they are charging him because he is black."
I see no difference.
Personally I dont feel either one of them are "fit" parents.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
gaboman said this in post #7 : Interesting story: one of my wife's coworkers is married to an English man with very very dark brown hair and dark eyes (she's Taiwanese, or maybe Chinese, but anyway... Asian), anyway, their first kid ended up with blonde hair and blue eyes. Go figure You can dispute the father in a case like this, but there's no way you can say the mother of the baby wasn't Asian
As for Michael Jackson, well, he may or may not be the father of the kids, I'm not sure, but I do think it's possible that she may just say that to get custody...
Absolutely its possible...but two kids?
Anyhow Im certain that the records will reflect that she was inseminated, and not by him....I guarantee she wouldnt say that unless she had positive proof that it happened the way she says...and Im sure she has the paperwork to prove it.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Ken NJ said this in post #8 : Be careful, this issue really has no bearing whether he molested kids are not. It's more a lifestyle issue, very similar to adoption and surrogacy.
Some people are allowing the race card being played to divide the races. Just another example that will distort the statistical results when measuring results. It has no business but his.
I never said this had anything to do with whether he molested kids or not. I agree with you, whether or not he fathered his children or not is irrelevant to the trial.
Not everything that we post here Ken NJ is relating to the molestation trial. It is articles about Michael Jackson in general as well.
chelktty said this in post #9 : I think any woman who sells her children and then disappears from thier lives should not be able to get temporary custody. That's like a woman giving up a baby for adoption and then 6 years later, filing for custody. It's happened before, but it's not healthy for the kids.
As for MJ, I don't know that his kids should be taken away, but I can't deny that they will be emotionally warped in their perception of self image because their father is constantly mutilating his own image, and forces the children to cover their faces whenever they go out. I'm telling you now, they're going to be screwed up when they become adults!
Did she actually SELL them? I didn't think she had taken money from MJ, she said it was a "gift", which I assume means she did it "out of the kindness of her heart". But then you never know with celebrities, espacially Michael Jackson.
I don't know if she should get custody if she "sold" them, that is wrong, but between that and a child molester, I think I'd rather my kids were with a baby seller than a baby molester. Or is that just chossing the lesser of two evils?
"A British tabloid says that Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, has filed legal papers to seek legal custody of Jackson's children. According to the tabloid, Michael Jackson is not the biological father of two of his three kids and Rowe was artificially inseminated with anonymously donated sperm.
In response, Rowe told KNBC Monday that these claims are "a malicious, pathetic pack of lies." In previous interviews, Jackson has claimed that he's the one who fathered two of his three children. "
So I don't know if it's even true that she has filed for custody. So many lies to get through before you get the truth, and even then you don't know if it is the truth or just more lies. Who knows?
Did she actually SELL them? I didn't think she had taken money from MJ, she said it was a "gift", which I assume means she did it "out of the kindness of her heart". But then you never know with celebrities, espacially Michael Jackson.
I don't know if she should get custody if she "sold" them, that is wrong, but between that and a child molester, I think I'd rather my kids were with a baby seller than a baby molester. Or is that just chossing the lesser of two evils?
I dont think that Chel or I meant selling in the technical sense...what I mean, and I think her also, is that when she left the marriage...she didnt walk away without monetary gain....and seeing that she was willing to let her children go so easily...I consider that a form of sale....loosely termed.
Does that make sense?
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
01-27-2004 05:09 AM
You can dispute the father in a case like this, but there's no way you can say the mother of the baby wasn't Asian 
