If the latest report is true, Debbie Rowe is entering the rink to battle for custody of the kids, about she once said:
"These are his children . . . ," she testified during his sexual abuse trial. "I had the children for him. They wouldn't be on this planet if it wasn't for my love for him. I did it for him to become a father, not for me to become a mother. You earn the title 'parent.' I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title."
After getting a reported $8.5 million in a divorce from Jackson, she agreed to no visitation.
She also allegedly said:
"I was just the vessel. It wasn't Michael's sperm. Just like I stick the sperm up my horse, this is what they did to me. I was his thoroughbred."...."I know I will never see them again. I was never cut out to be a mother - I was no good. I don't want these children in my life. My children are my animals now."
So, if the rumors are now true that she plans to fight to custody, and face more media and public hatred than the OctoMom and OJ Simpson combined...what do YOU think?
Public opinion does not count in court and legal pundits agree, Michael's Last Will not withstanding, custody will be judged based on the children's best interest. The will requests his mother, now 79, have custody and Diana Ross after her death. But the wishes of a dying person are considered just a suggestion.Is is best for them to be with Debbie Rowe, if she can now, as she allegedly claims, prove she is their biological mother?
In disputed divorce custody, children over 12 have some say in who they want to live with. Who would the kids chose - the grandmother they have known somewhat, or a mother they've never met since infancy? Wonder if they ever asked and what they might have been told by Michael about their mother(s)? My guess is he told them they were abandoned by their mother...which they in fact were.
Is there any way this tale can have a happy ending of these misbegotten
parentless orphans?
1 comment:
That's a tough one. On one hand, she's the kids' natural mother. On the other hand, she only had her kids for the sole purpose of selling them.
My opinion: Considering that she sold her children, I don't think she should have any rights over them whatsoever. On the flip side, I think that the children SHOULD have every right to see her if THEY decide to, and that she owes them any information and/or explanations that they ask of her.
I think that the question of who the children live with now should definitely take into account, their wishes, as well as their best interests - particularly ensuring that all 3 of them are kept together and not separated from each other. They've already lost too much.
Post a Comment