EXCLUSIVE—Investigation: Debbie Rowe Allegedly Made Claims Michael Jackson Not Father of Her Children
by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro**UPDATE** (7:36am PST): New of the World reports, “Mother of Michael Jackson’s children Debbie Rowe confesses he was not their father.”
Saturday night, Brian Oxman, former attorney to Michael Jackson told me that News of the World will report on Sunday that Debbie Rowe made claims just before Michael Jackson’s passing that he was not the father of her children and that she has made similar claims in the past.
Oxman explained that if Rowe has in fact made these claims that she is in violation of a confidentiality clause in an agreement that she signed which stated she would never talk about this issue.
“The contract says she would hold the birth of the children, the lineage, their parenting and how they were taken care of in confidence and not be disclosed in public to anyone,” said Oxman. “That agreement survives the death of Jackson. In other words, she’s still bound to keep all of these things confidential even though he’s passed away.”
Oxman, who handled the custody dispute between Jackson and Rowe said that Rowe has made conflicting statements about the lineage of her children.
“At one point she would say that Michael was the father, the next time she would say he was not the father. The number of contradictory statements coming from her was incomprehensible. I’d say Debbie, tell me straight is he the father and she’d say, yes he’s the father, and the next time she was upset she’d be yelling and screaming, he’s not the father!”
Oxman said Jackson’s story was always consistent, but to his knowledge DNA tests have never been done on the children.
“Michael always said he was the father,” Oxman said. “He never wavered at all on this issue.”
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a Washington, D.C. based investigative reporter and lawyer. He can be reached at jshapiro@ufl.edu.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
61 Comments
Okay, it's official. Common sense has DIED. Come on, which thinking person has ever looked at those white kids and thought, yeah, their dad was black?
I'm with Carolyn. Besides, it's old news that it was a sperm donor who fathered the children.
One word: google.
[...] here: EXCLUSIVE—Investigation: Debbie Rowe Allegedly Made Claims Michael Jackson Not Father of Her Child… This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Just sick. Just crazy. When you think it can't get any worse for those poor kids, this happens. Pray for the children. And pray that there is someone in this unholy mess that will look out for their best intrests and not their pocketbooks.
It's gonna be a free for all..between that whacked out family and the crazy women, hard to say which will be worse….Im sure those moving trucks were getting all the good stuff out fast.
I have biracial relatives in my family, so I know how children can turn out. At first sight, having seen a sort of blurry picture of these children, I would have to conclude that their father probably isn't white. A DNA test would answer this more clearly.
Ooops, I meant to say that the father probably is white.
What a freak!
One big long joke has come to an end and stupid people are going to get knocked on their asses when all the truth comes out, but they will still defend him and love him as their eternal Peter Pan Sould child flying thru the sky to NeverNeverLand.
Debbie Rowe is white. Have you ever seen biracial children? They come in all shades. My best friend is black, and her husband is white. Her first daughter has a dark hair and eyes, and darker skin. Her second daughter is blonde and blue-eyed, with pale skin. Her son is in between the two as far as appearance goes.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Jackson isn't the father of those children, but the kids not looking black isn't a reason to be suspicious in and of itself. You don't often see the kids without masks on, but they all do look as though they could be biracial, with their skin tone and hair color the way it is.
In this day and age, where genetics are an important consideration in one's healthcare, I suspect that these kids will eventually know for certain whether or not Jackson was their father. As for the rest of us knowing, I hope that is left up to them…………
[...] sarebbe molto irregolare dal punto di vista dellla famiglia Jackson, perché a suo tempo Debbie firmò un accordo secondo il quale non avrebbe mai parlato di paternità di Paris e Michael Jr. E si tratta di un [...]
I imagine that in the near future there will be many violations of confidentiality clauses concerning Jackson. There will also be an entire niche industry of books related to the subject.
The best I can hope for is that at least one of these kids gets educated, gets a steady job, goes to college, and makes a humble and honest living for himself. At this point, that's the only way any of them will end up sane.
But that might be way too hopeful.
I'm for the kids not wearing a veil. Give Blanket a human name.
Biracial kids do ideed "come in all shades"…All but the plain white shade his kids are w/straight blond hair, etc. It is totally obvious that they are not his biological offspring, but that doesn't make him any less their father. Almost every adopted child I have ever met feels this way.
What the hell. WHo cares, He raised them. That makes him the father.
[...] Read it. [...]
So this is the first leg of the legs in the MJ saga? sheesh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTSueUEaQoO
Philipino inmates in Jacko Tribute
Just had a mental picture. THIS WHOLE MESS ON THE NEXT MAURY.
MJ…. YOU ARE THE FATHER!
Dear god no!
As long as Papa Joe Jackson is still alive, those kids won't get any peace.
Wait till the lawyers get involved.
As my mom told me this morning….
you can't libel the dead.
Who cares?
Those three kids. Their father died.
[...] UPDATED: BIG HOLLYWOOD [...]
There were pictures of the two oldest children in the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago and I would be surprised if those children had the DNA either Michael Jackson or Debbie Rowe. I think that it is likely that all three of his children are test tube babies and that Debbie Rowe was nothing more than an incubator which is why she probably has no claim on them at all.
This is going to turn into a knife fight, wait….it already has.
Those poor kids. Jackson's parents produced Jackson, Debbie Rowe apparently is even nuttier, Jackson is dead.
Why doesn't BH take the lead and put a pin in this MJ stuff. The guy is dead, let it go. Otherwise, you guys will start to look like the Inquirer.
Cheez, he was a singer.
This is a woman who gave up all rights to her children to a pedophile. She should be put away. Those children face a very grim and bleak future.
Long ago it was revealed that Debbie Rowe carried the embryos of eggs from another woman, fertilized by a man (obviously white, also) who was the sperm donor. She was nothing but the handsomely paid birth pod, and MJ was nothing more than the guy who took custom delivery of two living play toys. It's clear that the same situation played out with the "mother" of Blanket……
Wake up, people. NOTHING about MJ and his life was even vaguely realistic.
Geez, they haven't even buried that creature yet…and still, all of his unholy freak zombie hordes are already walking among the living.
Poor kids.
Not Over.
How about Sofa Cushion?
Jacko had so much plastic surgery, I would be surprised if he had any of his original DNA left.
I've never seen a finer pack of vultures. From Joe, the siblings (all but Janet) have been picking at his bones for years, and all are bankrupt. Now add Farrakhan and his group and the rest of the wolves, and I'm amazed he lived as long as he did. This is a classic case of showbiz dementia and all its avarice and greed.
let me summarize my thoughts
1. jackson was a pedophile.
2. rowe and oxman knew he liked little boys.
3. oxman is an attorney and will say anything.
4. rowe sold her "children" to a pedophile.
5. this story will be beaten like a dead horse until the "children" are adults…
[...] OH, GOOD GRIEF: Investigation: Debbie Rowe Allegedly Made Claims Michael Jackson Not Father of Her Children. [...]
Saw an article online from someone who "knew" him the last few years – he claims he was not a child molester but was gay. That would explain the weird "Elvis daughter" marriage – it seemed so fake at the time. The author claimed his source in the MJ camp reported MJ was meeting a construction worker in a flea bag hotel in Vegas for gay sex. At this point, whatever.
The story of his kids reminds me of the recent Duke University arrest – the homosexual white guy with a domestic partner adopted two black children and was offering up the under 5 year old for sex abuse on CUCME – the arrest warrant contained testimony that he had abused the child sexually online and showed it via CUCME. The reverse of Jackson [Racially speaking].
This is what happens when children are treated as a right of adults and perversion is mainlined.
What type of investigation did the California Child Welfare system do when Jackson was charged – did they determine parentage or what? Can you imagine if I was a single man and all of a sudden a baby appeared at my house, I called it blanket, and wouldn't answer where he came from? I would be arrested so fast my head would spin. Hmmm.
please, please . . . no more on Jacko!
It's a $145 DNA test. Would Janet Jackson please step forward with this massive contribution to settle it.
Amen!
I just read in the NY Post –
Ex-Wife Rowe bows out of custody fight –
The brewing custody battle of the King of Pop's children will not involve his ex-wife, it was reveales yesterday. Debbie Rowe – mother of "Prince" Michael Joseph, 12 and Paris Michael Katherine, 11 – is not going to fight for custody, but plans to negotiate a settlement to gain more access to the children, according to the Sunday Times of London…Sources told the paper that Rowe…does not want to upset the kids any further by igniting a bitter custody battle…There could still be a custody fight between Jacko's mom, Katherine, who want the kids, and their nanny, Grace Rwaramba.." – Angela Montefinise, NY Post 6/28/09 pg. 7.
I don't know how the nanny could possibly have any standing, but there you have it…
You know, just to say it, that kid with the light blond hair does look a lot like a young Macaulay Culkin.
The mother-of-record has likely acknowledged it would be a hard and costly fight to get full custody, especially with the fighting over the estate. Of course, once all the debts get tallied I doubt there will be much to fight over. If she wants to pursue it then it should be easier.
I hope any of the mothers, whether on record or true biological or whatever, start to push for custody or at least greater access. The true fathers as well, if that is the case and it is provable. Anything to get them away from that lifestyle and clique of enablers would be welcomed, there is still time to give those kids a normal life before they get permanently damaged.
Can I just ask one question…. honestly who cares? the kids are the really the only ones that should care…. My wife is adopted and she does'nt care who her real mom or dad are, the parents that she has had her whole life are TRULY her parents!!!
Just to clear up one very basic point. Under California law, a child born during the marriage is a child of the marriage. There are multiple reasons why Rowe may be considered an unfit parent, but unless she waives her rights finally, and in a way acceptable to a California appellate court, she is the mother of the children (and he was the father) for all purposes of determining original custody of the children. That doesn't mean she will finally end up with them or their potential money. It's the starting point only, but it is a very strong legal presumption that the natural mother gets custody. Whether she gets custody both the children and the children's estate is another matter entirely. There's a long and nasty legal battle coming up.
Very clear counselor. It would have been nice if Shapiro had mentioned that. He could have cleared up some of the confusion that seems to have hit the crowd here. I read your article at your blog about Jackson and I really liked it. You cut through the garbage and made all the legal issues understandable.
One question. How does what BevfromNYC pointed out below change this?
BevfromNYC, I wanted to tell you that I really like what you are all doing over at your blog. I know I sound like an ad, having mentioned this already today, but you guys really did some good stuff lately and it deserves to be noticed. Nobody else has caught what you caught about the Gitmo thing. Thanks.
BevFromNYC did a very good job of summing up what could happen once the court gets hold of the case. People are going to be coming out of the woodwork wanting custody (and all the benefits thereof). I was laying out the basic legal presumption on parentage. All litigation will flow from that. In order to protect whatever access to the children she wants, Rowe will probably assert her basic right, then go from there. Denying her access to the children entirely is nearly impossible.
But if the London Sunday Times is correct about what she said, she will probably get that access to the kids. That will not make the battle go away. As the presumptive custodial parent, she would have first choice in who would get custody in the long run, but not the only say, nor even the final say. The court must look to "the best interests of the children" above all else, and it must apply California rules. Therefore, the easiest legal choice would be the grandparents, since the rules say "next closest blood relative." If she should designate the nanny, it could get really ugly. The nanny is not in any way legally entitled to custody, but if Rowe designates her, the court must first decide if the grandparents are legally unfit, and then that the nanny is highly fit. And even then, there remains the question of who gets the kids, and who gets control of the estate? The two issues are related, but they are not the same issue.
I covered that briefly in the commentarama article. And to muddy the waters even more, we still don't know if there's a will. A will cannot cut off Rowe's parental rights regardless of the intent in the will. But if it says something like: "Should the mother of the children (Rowe) not want custody of the children, I wish my parents to have custody," the court would also take that into account. The simple answer is: there is no simple answer.
Thanks.
[...] The Big Hollywood Scoop of the Day [...]
Jackson was just like a lot of other famous people who had some talent, or skills that made them a lot of money. The problem was that their own ability to deal with their new found wealth was far less than required to deal with the wealth itself. Then there was all the hangers on who had their eyes on some of the new found wealth and their alegance was not to Jackson personally, but to the wealth that Jackson represented. Jacksons alleged kids were not fathered by Jackson himself. An example is Obama, half white and half black. Yes it can turn out otherwise, but not all the time. Jackson for whatever reason he had, turned himself into a freak show with all his surgery's, skin color changes and strange behaviors that everyone could see. Maybe this was for the attention such behavior would attract. The only thing he did that I thought was kind of unique was his moon walk. That took skill and lots of thought to bring it off as well as Jackson did., Yes there were others that tried this stunt, but Jackson was first to do it and do it well. A lot of people will miss Jacksons talent, but I surely won't miss his Hollyweird behavior. He died too young, but he also did it to himself by how he lived.
Wow, thank you! Please spread the word. We are all just trying to figure out the truth and – for me – I just want to bring back the almost lost art of intelligent and civil discourse.
[...] EXCLUSIVE—Investigation: Debbie Rowe Allegedly Made Claims Michael Jackson Not Father of Her Child… [...]
Of course they ain't his. first, he would have to sleep with an adult woman. good luck on that.
Second, they would look at least a little black, at least at first. if they inherited that skin disease he claimed to have that might change but not for many years.
DNA tests needed.
I'm sorry, but the simple knowledge that MJ has heirs….makes me shudder.
Wow mom just sold the kids like they were property. At least she admits she's not a good mother. Thank goodness Michael Jackson was a loving father! But, why didn't Michael use his own sperm? He didn't have to sleep with her as we can see… I wonder.
marcel marceau… as did other mimes from time immemorial… did the 'moonwalk'. it's not a jackson invention by any means.
he couldn't use his sperm because he wanted white babies that matched his whitened skin.
Or else all that crotch grabbing had more dire consequences that anyone realized.
Reported that Rowe compared her insemination to a horse. Saying, she was his thoughbred. I say, he was her pocketbook. In my opinion, Michael Jackson is not mentally fit to raise anyone's children. One look at his bizarre behaviorisms is enough to make the sane shudder. Marriage to Rowe and Presley were both for Michael's convenience and I believeJackson was incapable of loving either of those women. The Rowe marriage scam was to gain Jackson children. The Presley marriage scam was a cover for Jackson; to defray accusations that his preferance was little boys. What ever Michael wants, Michael gets. When it comes to Debbie Rowe, she saw an opportunity just as Jackson did. CALLED USERY. They both used each other with no regard for the children who would sooner or later come to find out how they got into this bizzare and veiled world they were introduced to. Lying to the public and children, Rowe & Jackson pulled off their scam. The children have a right to know the truth about who their biological parents are. The WHEEL is round! Karma catches up with people; what they sow, they reap! Money can't buy — escaping the WHEEL.
You must be logged in to post a comment.