July 14th, 2009
04:20 PM ET

Debbie Rowe's lawyer: No deal in Jackson case

Debbie Rowe is scheduled to attend a child custody hearing on Monday.

Debbie Rowe is scheduled to attend a child custody hearing on Monday.

Alan Duke

No deal has been reached between Michael Jackson's mother and his ex-wife over the custody of the late singer's children, according to a lawyer in the case.

Eric George, who represents Debbie Rowe, the biological mother of Jackson's two oldest children, demanded Tuesday that the New York Post retract its report that Rowe had agreed to take $4 million not to challenge Katherine Jackson for custody.

In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon to the newspaper's editor, George said the report "can only have been concocted with reckless disregard for the truth."

Keep reading...

Filed under: 360° Radar • 360º Follow • Michael Jackson
soundoff (27 Responses)
  1. theresa

    i find this woman, if you want to call her that ,.quite repulsive. this woman does,nt seem to care about anybody but herself and her bank balance. it takes a certain kind of person to just decide to get up and abandon her children for money. it,s a joke that she can actually say she want,s custody, it,s quite obvious to most people that her children mean nothing to her.she is a greedy heartless,i won,t say the word.

    July 14, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
  2. Cindy H - Ontario Canada

    Listen...if this woman seriously wanted her kids back, she would be going to court and not asking "how much will you give me for them?"

    July 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
  3. Cindy H - Ontario Canada

    she doesnt want her kids..she wants the money..open your eyes!

    July 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm |
  4. Annie Kate

    Maybe Debbie Rowe is after more money; but, maybe she is looking out for the children too, knowing that if they stay with Katherine Jackson they could be used by Joe Jackson like he did his own son, Michael. She may be telling the truth when she says she just wants to be sure Joe has no influence on their lives. Time will tell what her true intent is; we won't know for sure what her goal is until then since none of us can read minds. I would be concerned about Katherine taking care of them – she is 79 years old. With Blanket 7 years old that means she will be 90 when he turns 18 – if she lives that long. I'd rather see Rebbie or LeToya or Janet have the children; they at least have more of a chance of being alive for the children a lot longer than Katherine does.

    July 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm |
  5. Joe Fattal

    Those kids needs to be away from the family until the whole investigation is over with. By then everyone and to include his mother will have something to do with his death. Rowe had a chance to have those kids and she refused. Why now?.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
  6. Lampe

    how can you people be so sure that she is after the money? she had those children for Michael, because he wanted to be a father. And no matter what she is their mother. Now that Michael is dead, there is no longer a contract for the guardianship of those three children She has just as much right to them as any one else, and I think she should be considered.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
  7. Dora

    Michael's kids belong with grandma and aunts and uncles, not with grandpa, not with Debbie (very HIGH PAID egg donor), not with the surrogate mother, they belong with grandma.
    A woman can pop out a kid it doesn't make her a MOTHER, stay away from them Debbie

    July 14, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
  8. Lucy

    Leave the kids alone! Don't you think it's too early for this to happen? I mean their dad died like what 19 days ago? I say that's not even enough time for them to get over his death. And as for Debbie Rowe, she tried to sell her children before! She'll probably do it again! I don't even see why she would want them now, because of doesn't make a difference. And the Paris and Prince probably don't even want to go with a mother that practically abandoned them!!!

    But please just don't exploit those beautiful children. Please

    July 14, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  9. Dennis Mag

    Debbie Rowe was, is and will always be a goldigger. All she does is for money not for motherhood. Kids should remain in Kates's custody.

    July 14, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  10. Lori

    She sold those kids! I agree it takes more than DNA to be a mother!!!!

    July 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
  11. JEAN

    debbie would be good for the kids but rember she sold them to MJ for over 8 million thats not a mother leave the kids where thay are l am a shame of debbie now the children are happy my god debbie keave them alone look at you you ride a harley drink party thats not a mom get real.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  12. Henoch

    Shame on you Debbie Rowe!!!, Michael Jackson has paid you $6 million, and it is done!, you have no right to have them back or God will punish you...

    July 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  13. jim austin

    Debbie will sell those kids if she could. I hope she doesn't win anything.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  14. Rebecca

    i think that katherine jackson should have full custody of the kids. you could tell at the memorial how much love the whole jackson family had for those kids. If debbie gets them, i will be mad. last night they said how the kids had only met her a few times, and they were introduced to her has "Debbie" not "Mom." She even admitted that she never visits them. Shes not even a mother figure in their lives at all. I doubt they would want to live with her when she is practically a stranger to them. and what about blanket? they cant split up the three kids.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  15. Nancy D

    I heard Randi Kaye report on Prime News that the Jackson family & their lawyers say Debbie Rowe is going to take cash for her kids & give up any rights ... don't you think the Jacksons have something to gain by spreading rumors that she is doing this? Don't you think they want the public to dislike her? Not sure why you take their 'word' as anything close to the truth, they have half a billion dollars to gain by getting control of those kids too.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  16. Lori Culbertson

    but from what i hear...it was alwaysabout money and giving michael jackson what he wanted...i hear he never even paid her all the money they agreed to in the first place...i think he has made lots of deals then just didnt hold up his end of the bargain...but hey..when u r the king...i guess the same rules dont apply to u...and i agree...how in the world did he get blanket? no one in the usa would have kept quiet about it so he went outside the country for that one. probably a lot cheaper for him...poor poor family..what a mess...debbie rowe included...u cant win...either way..either side...

    July 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  17. Maria CS

    I perceive Debbie Rowe as a money monger...why?.. go figure her interview, RELINQUISHING HER RIGHTS. She is not interested with those children, otherwise she will not give them up for $8.5. Did she not get a second settlement also? The children has no bond with her whatsoever. True she carried them...she was a surrogate mother paid to carry the children. There is a lot to gain by taking custody of the children...more money for her. I think, the kids are old enough to know who they want to be with. I understand the judge usually talks to the kids in close quarters to ask them questions. If Debbie is successful in getting them...at the age of 18 the kids can decide if they prefer to stay with her or go back to Jackson's family, who you can see loves them to pieces and vice-versa.
    Debbie get lost, you have enough money to last you a lifetime. I am truly incensed with this woman. Biological of what, she has never been a mother to them in every sense of the word. She rented her womb that's all it was. She does not deserve those children. They belong to Jackson's family, period.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  18. Kat

    Michael will never be able to Rest In Peace anytime soon....such a sad thing.....the money will go where the kids go.....Im praying for those children....they are innocent pawns

    July 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  19. kylie

    This is making me sick..
    Why do you now want your own children when you said before that you didn't want anything to do with them?

    Anything for money... sheesh.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  20. oj

    The matter of the fact is money is what she's looking for not the kids.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  21. LaShae

    I hope this woman do not get the kids. She was never their mother. It takes more than DNA to be a mother

    July 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  22. lisa (Chicago IL)

    I think Katherine Jackson should have full custody of Michael kids. It doesn't seem to me that Debbie Rowe even cares for her kids. She hasn't even been in their lives. I hope that Katherine Jackson is the one who has them in the end.

    July 14, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  23. Juan

    I feel they should come to some type of agreement where the kids should be alowed to see the other half of thier blood...But she did give up her rights...I just feel kids should decide .there are people out there that dont have a mom or dad.

    July 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  24. Rick

    I am not surprised that Eric George demanded a retraction. He would not want the community to think that he advised Rowe to accept such a paltry offer. The two of them (Rowe & George) will screw the Jackson family and estate for as much as they can, and , just like the rest of the Hyenas circling a carcass, they too will want their share.

    July 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  25. John Hobarth

    She sold these children in the past and now wants more money for them. She should not be allowed anywhere near these children. When will people in the media let these children be. They are going through enough pain. Let this rest, show some humanity. Please.

    July 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  26. Lori E

    I think the courts had better protect these kids from exploitation right now. Immediately.

    July 14, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  27. Jean Vaughn

    If Michael Jackson's own family could not get into visit how could Debbie Rowe when of all reason's she wasn't welcome!!! Those are her babies and her's alone.... please let her have them, and Tell Jane Velez to knock it off judging Debbie Rowe and others, that isn't fair on wide TV news and the person hasn't a chance to respond...

    please run an issue thing where Blanket came from and how Michael got adoption.... He looks like he came from the middle East... He is so beautiful.... please tell me how a person as well known to bother little boys obtained him????? Jean

    July 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm |