Who should have custody of the children of Michael Jackson?

United States
June 25, 2009 7:50pm CST
Upon the death of Michael Jackson, who had sheltered his children all of their lives, who do you think should have custody of his children? Debbie Rowe should not be allowed to have the children as she didn't care enough to keep them the first time and she has basically sold them. I am not sure that I think that his parents need them, but I think that Janet would be a good influence on those children and raise them the way that Michael has.
4 people like this
12 responses
@dawnald (85129)
• Shingle Springs, California
26 Jun 09
I hope he had a will, in which case the answer is, "whoever he designated in his will." But if he didn't, I agree with you on Debbie Rowe. I would hope that one of his siblings would be able to take the children. His parents are probably too old, but they should be in their lives certainly.
• United States
28 Jun 09
Yes, I do remember that interview very well. I don't believe that Michael would want his children with his father. I believe that he has probably made provisions for them and I know that he would allow the nanny to care for them.
@ClassyCat (1214)
• United States
27 Jun 09
Have you all forgotten or not heard Micahel's interview, where he said to Barbara Walters that he had been both "beaten and sexually abused" by his dad and some of his brothers?! Michael would surely NOT want his children placed in a similar situation. I am just praying that God will cause whatever is best and most protective for these innocent children to take place.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
26 Jun 09
If his wife or former wife cannot take them, maybe his sister and are his parents still alive? Sometimes the children go to the grandparents or relatives if his grandparents are too ill. It is not about need but if they did a good job at raising Michael and his brothers and sisters, maybe they should take care of them. Does he have other brothers and sisters that would be good parents? Anyway maybe the courts should decide. Unfortunately even though we think that someone will make a good mother or father, the family court will make sure the children get a good home.
@ClassyCat (1214)
• United States
26 Jun 09
The courts will make this decision. I think folks should not judge their mother, with not knowing all of the circumstances that could be involved. She and Michael probably had a pact made before they ever entered into a marriage and having the children. And I heard something to the effect that his "3rd" child's mother was an unknown donor, or something like that. Now there'll probably be a battle over who gets these poor little ones. Money probably won't be able to be a factor, as Michael was living way beyond his means, and was deep into debt. That's part of what this newly planned world tour was about - helping him make more $$ to catch up. But the estate will have tons pouring into it, cause now many, many, will be buying his songs and souvineers, and - it was on the news, that he had created 100 new songs that have 'never' been published - to be released in an event not expected (like this one), for the sake of $$$ for his kids.
@Ravenladyj (22904)
• United States
26 Jun 09
Debbie Rowe should not be allowed to have the children as she didn't care enough to keep them the first time and she has basically sold them. It was my understanding that they had an arrangement..it wasnt that she didnt care or "sold" them..at least thats not how I understood it.. as for who shoudl get them...well i dont know but whomever it is they'd better be prepared to deprogram those poor kids and teach them how to be a part of normal society..
• United States
26 Jun 09
I don't think that the kids need to be deprogrammed. I think that Michael done a fabulous job raising them, but was protective of them as he didn't trust adults after the childhood that he had. His father was abusive and he didn't want his children exposed to the media and the nuts in the world. As far as Debbie goes, it doesn't matter that it was an arrangement, she still allowed him to keep them for a lump sum of money- that is selling your kids!
• United States
26 Jun 09
I"m not sure who would be the best fit for those kids. And honestly the whole having kids thing was an odd arraingment anyway with Debbie Rowe. As I'm fairly certain those kids are not biologically MJ's. I'm glad the kids were kept out of the spot light quite a bit but they do need to live their lives and be "KIDS" not a celeb child ect but thier own person. And I hope they end up with someone trusting who will help guide them in their life. I also agree Janet would be a good choice. She seems to be the sibling with her head on right out of that family.
• United States
26 Jun 09
I am not sure if they are his biological children or not, but it doesn't really matter as they are for all purposes "his children". Debbie gave him custody of those kids for a lump sum of money and so I don't feel that she has any rights to them. I am thankful that he kept them out of the limelight and kept them as private of a family as he could.
@rocketj1 (6955)
• United States
29 Jun 09
His will should be honored.... no matter who that will be. We are looking at it from the outside and honestly, we really don't know ANY of these people at all.
• Philippines
3 Jul 09
It's already out. Michael had a will and he wrote that his mother, or in case she is failing, Dianna Ross, his close friend, will be guardian to his children. The will was dated July 7, 2002. That was seven years ago.
@airakumar (1553)
• India
26 Jun 09
I have really no idea about it. And why we are discussing this thing here. It's their sole decision. Let them sort out.
• United States
26 Jun 09
We are discussing it as it is breaking news and something that many of us are interested in and if you aren't that is fine, but leaves us who want to share our opinion alone and let us do just that. Some of us are concerned about these children and how their lives have changed in less than 24 hours. Michael is the family that they knew and that takes a toll on children when that family is suddenly taken away.
@babs6219 (153)
• United States
26 Jun 09
I know that he had some major issues, but I so badly hope that, as a single parent, he had a will that clearly stated his wishes as to guardianship of his children, in case this happened before his children were 18. Those poor kids!
• United States
26 Jun 09
I hope so too. I feel so sorry for the children.
@stephcjh (38473)
• United States
26 Jun 09
I had just read a discussion about this a while ago. I had no idea this happened until now. I think Janet should get the children also ro maybe even the Presley girl? Who knows. I hope his prents can take care of them too.
• United States
26 Jun 09
It is such a sad story. Michael had protected these kids from so much of the outside world and now they don't have the only family that they have ever known. It is so sad!
• Philippines
26 Jun 09
I guess its Janet's turn to take of the child. What about his wife Lisa Presley (not sure of the name), she can take custody of it, isn't it?
• United States
26 Jun 09
Michael and Lisa Marie have been divorced several years now. She is remarried and has her own children. It is amazing that they were married and I will be interested in hearing from her in the next few days. He is the kind of icon that her dad was.
@ladym33 (10979)
• United States
27 Jun 09
Fortunately Michael had many brothers and sisters. Many of his brothers have families, and live relatively normal lives. I think the kids would do well to go live with one of his brothers. They can provide a more stable normal life. I think what they probably really need a stable normal life.
@JOIEMARVIC (2335)
• Philippines
3 Jul 09
I agree with you. I think Janet would be a perfect guardian inplace of Michael Jackson for his children. If a mother is not well equipped financially, physically and emotionally to take care and look out for her children, the closest relative of the father or a grand parent is the perfect guardian for the child. I do hope Michael has save enough or has a trust fund for his kids.
@ema1983 (51)
26 Jun 09
thats just ghoulish! Surely he should be buried first before his children get embroiled in a tug of war between ppl who are only interested in star status and money. Ppl only want to get involved because he was a star. If he was a common person then nobody would care. Harsh i know but also true. His children should be allowed a life with a family that want them and not just the fame that goes with it
• United States
26 Jun 09
I agree with you. I feel that if Debbie Rowe were to come and try to get custody of them it would be for the money. That is sad but she has done the money thing before.