Latest on MJJC

Debbie Rowe Wants Michael Jackson's Kids Back -- Going To Court for Custody

okay
Treasure said:
a marriage is a marriage! (the thoughts/reason's behind it does not make it real or unreal)
Click to expand...

okay please do not take offense to this question because it's not my intention to offend you. If this is how you feel. then why are you even asking if their marriage was real or not?
 
respect77 said:
They are in court documents. Ivy summarized it about a week or two ago on another forum for another discussion, so I will quote her post here:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quotes
Although I am not the type to believe what has been written on a forum ...I do try to see it both ways really!
Michael earned 11 million dollars a year that time...so I think it ain't that much ..he spends 250.000 dollars in a few minutes buying antiques in Beverly
I don't think the money was a problem for Michael
Other artists pays hundreds of millions to get rid of their wifes/husbands
 
michaeljackson&lisamarie said:
okay

okay please do not take offense to this question because it's not my intention to offend you. If this is how you feel. then why are you even asking if their marriage was real or not?
Click to expand...

I'ts not my intention to offend others too.

I asked because you said that marriage wasn't a real one
 
Treasure said:
Thanks for the quotes
Although I am not the type to believe what has been written on a forum ...I do try to see it both ways really!
Michael earned 11 million dollars a year that time...so I think it ain't that much ..he spends 250.000 dollars in a few minutes buying antiques in Beverly
I don't think the money was a problem for Michael
Other artists pays hundreds of millions to get rid of their wifes/husbands
Click to expand...

You can refuse to believe it but they remain facts nevertheless.

The point is not if it was a problem for MJ or not to pay out that sum. The point is that he paid money to Debbie Rowe for the kids, so they were not "gifts" and they were not given "out of love". It was a business arrangement. And maybe that money was not much for MJ, but certainly much for someone like Debbie Rowe who worked as a nurse at the time and could stop working after she was paid out handsomely by MJ.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
Prince and Paris had no idea Deborah was related to them biologically on June 2009, they realized later.
Click to expand...

The kids were protected and so little then, but now they are growing up to being an adult soon
I know from personal experience we want to know where we come from sooner or later...and maybe even more now that their father isn't here anymore.
Really I think these kids are old enough now to say what they want or not want..if Debbie asked for custody and the kids don't want to be part of her life ..it will not happen ..the only thing that worries me is Blanket ..it would tear me apart to see these kids live separate from each other in the future
 
@purdyyoungthang your posts in response to joyce's post pretty much said it all. you laid the whole truth and facts out there, BRAVO.
 
respect77 said:
You can refuse to believe it but they remain facts nevertheless.

The point is not if it was a problem for MJ or not to pay out that sum. The point is that he paid money to Debbie Rowe for the kids, so they were not "gifts" and they were not given "out of love". It was a business arrangement. And maybe that money was not much for MJ, but certainly much for someone like Debbie Rowe who worked as a nurse at the time and could stop working after she was paid out handsomely by MJ.
Click to expand...

I want to believe ..its not that I refuse but these are not the real documents ..its like reading an book we never know if it's really true or not.

I wouldn't give up my kids for 100 million each! and I need to work too.
Because everyone knew Debbie is the Mother of P&P I don't think Michael would have liked it to divorce her and leave her with nothing ...what would the media have said about that? Maybe he wanted to gave her a good life...after all she is the mother of his children.
 
Treasure said:
I'ts not my intention to offend others too.

I asked because you said that marriage wasn't a real one
Click to expand...
okay then let me put it this way. It was a real marriage on paper, the legal sense like respect77 said on the previous page.

It wasn't a real marriage in the sense of what a real marriage should be. as n he was not inlove with her ect.
 
michaeljackson&lisamarie said:
@purdyyoungthang your posts in response to joyce's post pretty much said it all. you laid the whole truth and facts out there, BRAVO.
Click to expand...



And none of us KNOW what true arrangements were made or why they were made. Whose to say that their marriage wasn't a cover for their business merger? And that doesn't have to mean that Michael didn't care for her. But whose to say?

Yes especially the bold part ^^


we just don't know ...we weren't there
 
Treasure said:
I want to believe ..its not that I refuse but these are not the real documents ..its like reading an book we never know if it's really true or not.
Click to expand...

I do not know Ivy as someone who just makes up such things. And it's pretty much a known fact anyway that Debbie Rowe was paid for those kids. It was discussed in courts.

I wouldn't give up my kids for 100 million each! and I need to work too.
Because everyone knew Debbie is the Mother of P&P I don't think Michael would have liked it to divorce her and leave her with nothing ...what would the media have said about that? Maybe he wanted to gave her a good life...after all she is the mother of his children.
Click to expand...

Michael did not want her to raise them. He put even Diana Ross above the kids' biological mother in his will. That should tell you something.

And he was so keen on giving her a good life that Debbie Rowe sued him and threatened a custody battle because he stopped paying... That looks nothing like a gift out of love.

And she so loves Michael even now that she pimps his children out to TMZ and other tabloids and teams up with a person who said so horrible things about Michael.

Debbie Rowe is just one of the many opportunists in Michael's life.
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
I do not know Ivy as someone who just makes up such things. And it's pretty much a known fact anyway that Debbie Rowe was paid for those kids. It was discussed in courts.




Michael did not want her to raise them. He put even Diana Ross above the kids' biological mother in his will. That should tell you something.

And he was so keen on giving her a good life that Debbie Rowe sued him and threatened a custody battle because he stopped paying... That looks nothing like a gift out of love.

And she so loves Michael even now that she pimps his children out to TMZ and other tabloids and teams up with a person who said so horrible things about Michael.

Debbie Rowe is just one of the many opportunists in Michael's life.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Michael was a freaking bank to 99.99% ppl around him.
It's an effing shame that he was never appreciated as the person he was but as what he could do for others.
It's sad that he wasn't a better judge of character. Rest in Peace baby.
 
tumblr_mh9a4jdtm71rhk2w1o2_250.gif





I love the ingenuity of the people........ >>>>
Kesha.gif
 
Not happy where and with whom the kids are at the moment, that is because they are used by several members of the Jackson family for their own agendas and their guardians (both also member of that very family) do not protect them instead they do use them also.
However they are teenagers and should be heard.
Aside from that I do not think Debbie Rowe qualifies to be a better choice of guarding the children. She seems to be not thinking (lots as a minimum is need to be talking at all) before talking, she's not a private person enough also and I have my problems of thinking Marc Schaffel to be involved in Michael Jacksons childrens lives at all.
 
I've read nearly this entire thread, so I can't even recall if anyone has already posted this or not.

Tabloid vs tabloid, eh? Which one are we supposed to believe. Also, even if this were true, it doesn't negate the custody issue. Plus, it would still mean Rowe is chummy with a slimy little piece of trash who has no business being around the children of a man he slandered. If they are just friends, she better keep that creep well enough away from those children.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/28/debbie-rowe-engaged-marc-shaffel/
 
respect77 said:
I do not know Ivy as someone who just makes up such things. And it's pretty much a known fact anyway that Debbie Rowe was paid for those kids. It was discussed in courts.



Michael did not want her to raise them. He put even Diana Ross above the kids' biological mother in his will. That should tell you something.

And he was so keen on giving her a good life that Debbie Rowe sued him and threatened a custody battle because he stopped paying... That looks nothing like a gift out of love.

And she so loves Michael even now that she pimps his children out to TMZ and other tabloids and teams up with a person who said so horrible things about Michael.

Debbie Rowe is just one of the many opportunists in Michael's life.
Click to expand...

Everyone seemed to be an opportunist these days, but they have to live somewhere
I secretly hoped for Diana as their guardian, way back in 2009, she knew how to keep her family out of the press, but we haven't heard much from her since :(
 
I can imagine Prince turning 18 and moving his siblings in to their own place. I dunno how Prince is feeling about Paris or vice versa these days, but that would be the most mind-easing scenario that I can think of lol. Not saying that Prince would do this, but it would be nice/comforting.
 
The fact debbie is friends/getting married to the scum that is schaffel says it all. its beyond logic and shows her lack of respect for mj. anyone who loved mj wouldnt p*** on schaffel if he was on fire let alone anything else.
 
And the ikyness continues.....

Tomorrow the newly engaged Miss Rowe will be on Entertainment Tonight tomorrow to discuss her recent engagement, (the vulture was right by her side) as well as the latest on Paris.

Man, you all don't even know how disgusted I am with this woman and ET had the nerve to present this as 'A Jackson Wedding Exclusive!' :rolleyes:
 
ExoticPrincess said:
And the ikyness continues.....

Tomorrow the newly engaged Miss Rowe will be on Entertainment Tonight tomorrow to discuss her recent engagement, (the vulture was right by her side) as well as the latest on Paris.

Man, you all don't even know how disgusted I am with this woman and ET had the nerve to present this as 'A Jackson Wedding Exclusive!' :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

sick to my stomach over this as well.
 
ExoticPrincess said:
And the ikyness continues.....

Tomorrow the newly engaged Miss Rowe will be on Entertainment Tonight tomorrow to discuss her recent engagement, (the vulture was right by her side) as well as the latest on Paris.

Man, you all don't even know how disgusted I am with this woman and ET had the nerve to present this as 'A Jackson Wedding Exclusive!' :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Promo running? Smh @ the whole mess.
 
ExoticPrincess said:
And the ikyness continues.....

Tomorrow the newly engaged Miss Rowe will be on Entertainment Tonight tomorrow to discuss her recent engagement, (the vulture was right by her side) as well as the latest on Paris.

Man, you all don't even know how disgusted I am with this woman and ET had the nerve to present this as 'A Jackson Wedding Exclusive!' :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dear God... I had respected Debbie before for defending Michael but all of it is starting to go down the crapper. When Prince turns 18 he should move out, somehow get Paris and Blanket to live with him (he would have to get custody from Katherine, I assume), and the three of them should never look back. It seems everyone is trying to take advantage of them these days. :(
 
Hope Debbie doesn't mention Paris in her next interview. She has to realize Paris might feel used. If she wants to promo her engagement or that singer guy she should do it on their own merits but not bring Paris into that.

And as sad as it is, sometimes I think it's better for the kids to know who really care for them and love them for who they are and not for what people can get from them. They are so young, they should be living their wonderful teenage years with the assurance that their loved but I think it's better they know now than later. I believe it will be worst if they maintain a relationship with someone thinking they're being loved to only learn, years from now, that they were used. It's a very sad situation.
 
Aquarius said:
Hope Debbie doesn't mention Paris in her next interview. She has to realize Paris might feel used. If she wants to promo her engagement or that singer guy she should do it on their own merits but not bring Paris into that.

And as sad as it is, sometimes I think it's better for the kids to know who really care for them and love them for who they are and not for what people can get from them. They are so young, they should be living their wonderful teenage years with the assurance that their loved but I think it's better they know now than later. I believe it will be worst if they maintain a relationship with someone thinking they're being loved to only learn, years from now, that they were used. It's a very sad situation.
Click to expand...

From the clip of the interview that I saw, she does answer questions about Paris, and get this, the interviewer asks her if she thinks Michael would be pleased. I can just hear her response now:eek:
 
Aquarius;3988723 said:
Hope Debbie doesn't mention Paris in her next interview. She has to realize Paris might feel used. If she wants to promo her engagement or that singer guy she should do it on their own merits but not bring Paris into that.
Click to expand...

Do you think ET would give this Ian Thomas "exclusives" without Debbie giving them something in exchange? An American gossip show doesn't give a damn about talentless Belgian Justin Bieber-wannabes. The moment I heard that Ian Thomas will be discussed or mentioned on ET on April 24 I knew it is Debbie and Schaffel using their connection to MJ and his children for this promotion and that's why they will be given this spot.

And "Jackson Family Wedding"? Since when are Debbie and Schaffel "Jackson family"?

I don't know how any MJ fan can still defend this woman and still try to think "the best of her" and Schaffel ("maybe he changed") when she and her fiancé are so transparent. (I'm not talking about you Aquarius, but generally about her defenders and fans among MJ fans and about those who still want to give Schaffel the benefit of doubt.)
 
Last edited:
I have always tried to give Debbie the benefit of the doubt because she fulfilled Michael's dream of fatherhood. Now I am changing my mind somewhat, just wrong Ms Rowe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top