Debbie Rowe sells kids to Katherine Jackson for $4 million? She says not true!
Debbie Rowe may make Octomom Nadya Suleman look like a good mother.
Michael Jackson's incubator has reportedly sold off her two kids for the third time.
According to the New York Post, she just squeezed a reported $4 million from Katherine Jackson, her former mother-in-law, in exchange for giving up the kids.
But according to TMZ, that's simply not true.
The site is reporting that her lawyer Eric George says the story that Rowe is getting a cool $4 million is "completely false."
George wrote a letter that says "Ms. Rowe has not accepted -- and will not accept -- any additional financial consideration beyond the spousal support she and Michael Jackson personally agreed to several years ago."
Here's more of the Post's disputed report....
The paper claims that Rowe forfeited her parental rights before in exchange for big bucks.
After the birth of son Prince Michael, now 12, and daughter Paris, 11, she agreed to have Jackson raise them for a tidy $8 million, plus $900,000 annually for five years, the NY Post source reports.
When Jacko was accused of child molestation in 2001, Rowe popped up to demand her parental rights again. But -- surprise -- she gave her ex-husband full custody of the kids for an additional $4 million plus a $900,000 home.
"This would be it. This takes away any rights she has to challenge custody at any given time," the source said to the Post. "If something happens to Katherine, [Rowe] can't challenge the next [guardian], whether that be Diana Ross or someone in the family."
Yeah, don't be too sure about that.
If this is true, is this disgusting or what? What kind of sick people was Michael Jackson surrounded by?
More Michael Jackson dish:
LaToya Jackson believes her brother Michael Jackson was murdered. Do you?
Did Michael Jackson live in Neverland General Hospital?
Arnold Klein gave Michael Jackson Demerol, and he donated sperm "once"?
Where is MIchael Jackson's brain?
Corey Feldman has been dressing like Michael Jackson for a loooooong time
Chris Brown dances to "Thriller" at P. Diddy's White Party
OK! Michael Jackson death photo stirs controversy
Video of Michael Jackson rehearsing. Was he up to form or a shadow of his former self?
Photo credits: Michael's kids at his memorial service. Debbie and Michael in 1997. WireImage
Rowe is a white trash, sick, sick, sick! She was going after money at the first place when she convinced MJ to bare children for him!
if tmz say it not tru than it not tru cuz tmz a god baby
Debbie Rowe's Uterus Is Up For Hire !!
Think about the whole scenario from the moment Debbie Rowe offered Michael Jackson to give him children "as a gift!" IF IT'S A GIFT THEN WHY THE HELL HAS SHE BEEN ASKING FOR MONEY?? That's a lie you don't ask for money if you GIVE someone a gift !!! Females do not give children as 'gifts' through marriage and then declare 'they are not my children, but so-and-so.' They do it for money, using the uterus as a hired object!!! From one female to another, that was sheer stupid, but conniving, what she was really thinking of primarily was 'MONEY', fame and . . . .'Oh my . . . having a celebrity, like Michael Jackson, having his children.' She planned it all from the very beginning in her weasel conniving mind. Let's not forget that she knew Michael enough to know how to get to him and trick him to her own devise. She came up to him and basically offered her 'uterus up for hire ! !' Meaning . . . MONEY FOR CHILDREN, in her mind! Therefore, she was a surrogate, she offered to be a surrogate . . . NOT A WIFE ! That's all! So for a surrogate she got more then she should have received when it comes to money. If anything, she owes the Jackson family money back. Once the contract for the 'uterus for hire was paid' she was not entitle to any more money. Therefore, whatever money she got over and above the original contract was purely FRAUD, AND THEFT! She never wanted to be a wife nor a mother, neither was it ever her intention because she said she never wanted children. She just never came out and boldly just said it verbally she wants money. That just EVOLVED ! Remember that!
Surrogates do not have any parental rights what's so ever, just like in the case of the surrogate for Prince Michael II (blanket). Which would explain why she did not live with Michael or the children? The same with Debbie Rowe. She was a married surrogate for him, but a surrogate nonetheless. Soon after the 2nd child, the 'uterus up for hire contract' was completed. Of course, to the media they would make up stories to cover that up, like, she gave up the children for . . . . whatever the excuse that was given, and there are a few.
How do we know that? Well, I'll bet that the marriage idea came from Michael, NOT Debbie. Did they not marry only when she was 6 months pregnant or so?? . . . . just to make sure that she did indeed get pregnant! Find out, I'll bet you, Michael did it because HE felt a moral sense because of his previously trained conscious, which told him it would be immoral to have children out of wed-lock. Therefore, for him it looked better in the public's eye, and his conscious was put at ease.
This present issue with Debbie Rowe wanting custody of the children is NONE EXISTING FOR SURROGATES !! She just wants money again over and above her 'uterus up for hire contract!' DON'T LET HER. THROW IT INTO HER FACE THAT SHE IS A SURROGATE WITH A UTERUS UP FOR HIRE !!!
Surrogacy Lawyer Speaks: I asked California surrogacy lawyer Stephanie M. Caballero to provide my readers a basic understanding of the contractual process involved in surrogacy cases and the rights of the surrogates and/or donors and how this relates to Michael Jackson and his children.
In an email reply, Ms. Caballero stated: Gestational carriers in California do not have any custodial or visitation rights to any surrogate child they give birth to because the intent to parent controls in these cases and the Intended Parents, whether they used their own genetic material or a donor egg or sperm, are the only legal and natural parents of that child.
Even if Michael Jackson used a sperm donor to father his youngest child, that sperm donor is not the parent. Custody would have been relinquished in this case by a judgment of parentage signed by the judge and certified by the court, allowing Michael Jackson's name to be listed as the only parent, since he was not married at the time.
I hate that little son of a b@$%! shes in it all for the money.my god she doesn't even care that those childrens father is dead one of the only people those kids new and had the strongest bond with.Those kids had better go to the jackson side of the family.Debbie rowe whenever i hear that name omg it makes me sick.
I bet that if those kids to happen to end up with debbie she wont even care for them.Michael cared and loved those children so much.in all the photos with the children they are all so close and stick by each others sides no matter what but if they end up with debbie that will all change.
RIP Michael u r truely the legend the KING OF POP.
evry body around the world has stopped and mourned for you MJ.You cared for every one and u truely made this world a better place.
Michael may you be resting peacefully with the angels
i love you Michael and may the best be for your children
AMEN
Debbie Rowe is such a worthless human being, trying to make herself money at even the slightest opportunity, no matter how immoral it might be, you gotta give her credit, she's made herself close to 20 million dollars by just selling her children over and over again.
In ancient times the wouldn't burned her alive by now, she's disgusting.
3 ways fat a$$ Debbie spent her payoff : food, drugs, and horses. How the heck she think she has any rights to intefere in those kids lives. She is a stranger 2 them. She stated numerous times she didn't want 2 be a mom 2 MJ kids. She even went as far 2 say she has no desire 2 send them any cards. How weird? She needs 2 continue 2 stay away They are in a nuturing environment with people they love and who loves them.
I think that if she had of wanted to fight for custody and also collect the large amounts of child support and spousal support and her share of his earnings during the time they were married, she would have received sums of money much greater than the small amount she agreed to. Joint custody is hard on children and to try and fight Michael's money for an attorney would have been hard.
Apparently she loved him enough to allow him to raise the children and if not fighting for them and feeling it is a gift from her heart to not fight does not imply she deserves nothing. Maybe, you are misusing the meaning of a gift.
Today it was announced that Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine will receive custody of Michael's children. I found a great article that explains everything. Ex-wife and mother to Prince Michael and Paris, Debbie Rowe, will receive "meaningful visitation rights". Hopefully this is what is best for the children! Check out the article here:
http://www.z100.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104650&article=5809960&cmp=ncle_mjcustody