twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Debbie Rowe: Unfit Mother?

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This
Ms. Rowe was simply a surrogate, not a "Mommy"!

Dr. Michelle Golland: I was astonished when I heard that Debbie Rowe, biological surrogate mother of two of the Jackson children, is even considering fighting for custody. I truly wonder what she wants at this point in time. For all intents and purposes, she has not been in these children's lives for many years. Let's just say what she really was ... she was the surrogate for Michael Jackson and has never been their mother! She reports they have never called her Mommy, and after the divorce with Michael Jackson, she was given over 8 million dollars to go away for good.

Debie Rowe

After her foul-mouthed public outbursts toward a cameraman the other day, I truly question her judgment. It is very suspicious that she is now concerned about the kids -- if she had truly been concerned about the welfare of the children prior to MJ's death, you think she would have intervened earlier. My advice to Ms. Rowe is that she bow out with as much grace as she can muster or we will continue to see her being bleeped on all the talk shows.

As a surrogate mother, Debbie Rowe should have no legal rights to these children. I have many friends who have used surrogates due to fertility issues. I know they would be horrified if the woman who carried their children came back with some claims of parental rights. MJ obviously did not want anything more to do with Debbie Rowe because he made explicit instructions in his will against giving her any money. He clearly stated he wanted first, his mother, and second, Diana Ross to be the guardians of his three children.

As a clinical psychologist, I must say the issue of guardianship should not be an issue of biology or age, but whether or not the person truly has the best interests of these three innocent children at heart. It is also extremely important that we see Michael Jackson's directives in his will are followed, both in regard to custody of his children and in regard to executorship of his will. If his wishes are not carried out, it will be as much of an injustice as his death.

Do you think Debbie Rowe should get the kids? Comment below.


next: Second-Time Baby Showers?
48 comments so far | Post a comment now
Anonymous July 7, 2009, 12:03 PM

The kids interests are of the most importance but unless you PERSONALLY have dealt with the psychological ramifications of being separated from your biological family, don’t judge just how important that bond is to both parent and child. It’s a lifetime of anguish that most people will never understand.

Jennifer July 7, 2009, 12:48 PM

Debbie Rowe isn’t just a surrogate, she’s the children’s biological mother. Unless there is proof that she has been and will continue to be an unfit mother, no one, including Michael’s mom and Diana Ross, other than Rowe should have custody of the children.

Anyone but Joe July 7, 2009, 12:48 PM

Debbie Rowe’s intentions now are to keep Michael Jackson’s kids away from his abusive father. It’s a stand up move from someone who is in a position but not obligated to give a crap.

Amy July 7, 2009, 1:00 PM

Not that I have an opinion either way of her being a parent to these kids, but, how can anyone say that she is unfit because she is telling off the paparazzi. They are awful and she is tired of it and pissed. I would be too. It’s not like she’s walking around talking that way for no reason. Lay off and cut her some slack.

nell July 7, 2009, 1:48 PM

This stuff about his father being abusive was simpy media hype. His father was with him all the way. Until the other siblings say so, I refuse to believe it. Family is who nutures you. Not amother that accepts money to stay away from her kids. It is all about the money.

Mom2two July 7, 2009, 2:49 PM

Don’t judge this woman because of the clip for goodness sake. I think most of us would be pissed off by being bombarded by this mob. And WHY is this on CNN, it’s insane that this passes for “news”.

melodyschneider July 7, 2009, 3:47 PM

In regards to Debbie Rowe suddenly having interest in custody of Mr Jacksons children doesn’t come from love or concern over her childrens welfare, nor is it due to the fact that she wants to better their lives, this is all about greed & control. I am a mom myself, and I am just appauled by Debbie Rowes character, she is so full of hate and bitterness, and if she truly wanted what was best for these children she would just go away.

Denise July 7, 2009, 4:05 PM

Absolutely not!!!!

Sara July 7, 2009, 4:59 PM

She is dealing with the death of someone that was very close to her. Add that stress to the stress of people screaming in her face like these reporters/photographers are and it’s enough to make anyone yell! That clip certainly does not show me that she should not get custody of her kids. BUT, it does not sound like she has been a close part of the kids lives, therefore, I think the kids should be kept TOGETHER (all THREE) and with the person they know best, which sounds like it is the grandma.

sharon July 7, 2009, 6:20 PM

Debbie Rowe…..YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!

Mica July 7, 2009, 7:49 PM

The bi*ch is not the biological mother.

Mom in Iowa July 8, 2009, 12:03 AM

There is obviously no “bond” between Debbie Rowe and Micheal Jackson’s children. She is SCARY,totally out for herself and definately does NOT have the children’s best interest in mind. This is a “no brianer”. Would you want to live with her? She is just another one of those people who latch onto wealthy individuals to use them. She has got a lot of guts to go public with her diluted thought process. Does she really think we belive she wants those children? She publically stated she didn’t want the responsibility. And she never spent a moment with Micheal Jackson as a couple…she has got some major psychological issues herself!

Monica July 8, 2009, 2:01 AM

Anyone but Joe, Joe Jackson does not live with Katherine Jackson. They are married but not necessarily legally separated. She lives in Encino, CA and he lives in Vegas. So it safe to say that he will not be raising these children. Beside that even if he was I really don’t think these children have anything to fear from Joe. He doesn’t want to make them stars. So he has no reason to be hard on them like he was on Michael.

Second, if Debbie Rowe didn’t want to have anything to do with the children then then she should have nothing to do with them now. She chose to give up her parental rights for 8 million. If she was really worried about it then she would have made sure that she had a continuous relationship with them so that if or when Jackson died that she would not be a stranger to them and it would be plausible for her to be given custody. They obviously have a relationship with Jackson’s family, so let it be.

Sarah July 8, 2009, 9:14 AM

No way should she get the kids.
First of all the kids don’t even know her, and they already lost their father and now to take them away from the only other family they’ve ever known would be sooo cruel.
Plus Debbie Roe is only the mother of 2 of the children and the 3 should stay together with the Jackson’s!

mawmawg July 8, 2009, 7:15 PM

OH HELL NO !!!

Anonymous July 8, 2009, 7:34 PM

Dr. Golland, clinical psychologist, says in regards to Michael Jackson and who should get custody of the kids:

” It is also extremely important that we see Michael Jackson’s directives in his will are followed, both in regard to custody of his children and in regard to executorship of his will. If his wishes are not carried out, it will be as much of an injustice as his death. “

That statement is curiously passionate for a licensed professional. Why, exactly, is it so “extremely important” that what MJ wants after death be carried out? Dr. Golland uses the word ‘we’ as if she’s part of the Jackson family.

Perhaps, Doctor, a judge might have to decide what’s in the best interest of the kids instead of you. Maybe you’ve been in Hollywood on the TV circuit too long. You’ve lost all objectivity!!

Anonymous July 8, 2009, 9:47 PM

I’d swear at the paparazzi too if they harassed me.

mia July 9, 2009, 8:26 PM

No one can point fingers regarding lack of judgement in this case. How will those kids feel when they realize they were ‘created’ to be, in essence, sold to mj? Rowe is no worse; she and mj found each other, that’s for sure! Culturally, it might be easier for the children if they were with her - I don’t know. It couldn’t have been a walk in the park to have mj for a ‘father’. Normalcy undoubtedly eluded them, but maybe now they’ll have a shot. I don’t see how any jackson could really benefit beyond weekly visitation, as long a joe is kept at bay. MJ HIMSELF, not media hype, said on many occasions, how bad it was w/ his father; that surely shaped his outlook on a lot of very important issues.

Just say no to Rowe July 11, 2009, 12:47 PM

She gave those children to Jackson she didn’t want them. As she has stated herself they are Micheal’s children. They are his children,and his alone.

His wishes as stated in his will should be respected. They are Jackson’s they should stay with the Jackson family.

Anonymous July 12, 2009, 11:12 AM

he bought children - how is this ok?


Back to top >>
advertisement