.
July 14th, 2009
06:23 PM ET

Documents: Debbie Rowe's letter to the editor

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

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

Editor's Note: In the letter below, Eric George, who represents Debbie Rowe, the biological mother of Michael Jackson's two oldest children, demands that the New York Post retract its report that Rowe had agreed to take $4 million not to challenge Katherine Jackson for custody. For the latest on the fallout from Michael Jackson's death, tune in to AC360° tonight 10p ET.

Click here to read Debbie Rowe's Letter to the Editor at the New York Post.


Filed under: 360° Radar • Documents
soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. PJ

    Debbie Rowe needs to go away and stay out of the public eye and the news.
    She would keep appearing to demand more money as long as she
    had the opportunity.
    Since they are HER kids maybe SHE should pay child support to Katherine!

    July 14, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
  2. Donna

    CLEARLY Mikko Brando is the bio-dad to MJ's son "Blanket". Do a side by side photo of them. MJ loved Brando so it would make sense.

    July 14, 2009 at 9:48 pm |
  3. Joe G. (Illinois)

    Why is it that whenever any affairs of a so called Rock Star come to public it always seems pungent like the Louisiana mold after Katrina? Oh well..! America said that he’s the best of all times.. I’m not kidding..! Like Obama says “The world is watching” and it’s also all on tape throughout the media.

    July 14, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
  4. Donna

    This is such a sad state of affairs!! It always blows my mind how monitary value replaces "LIFE"!! I truly mean LIFE. We all need an income to survive but to exploit people by any means for that purpose is ludicros. Debbie has already received her $$$$$$$$ for producing children she had no intention of raising. As we all know she signed an agreement to that effect with the man she proposed to love – and took $$$$$ for having them.

    Now that the father (Michael) is gone and the children are devistated, she is negotiating another 'deal' to stay out of their lives!!! What 'mother' would have given up her rights in the first place??

    Children need unconditional love and support from nurturing parents. She has proven not to know what the word love or nurturing means!

    People must remember, there is no u-haul behind a hurse!! Love is what life is about!!

    July 14, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
  5. Lois

    Hey Anderson, I have a question and not sure how to actually ask you, but maybe someone could pass this on to you. What I'm wondering is who did Michael Jackson's plastic surgery, there hasn't been any mention of who the surgeon was. I hear about the dermatologist and his private doctor but who did the plastic surgery......I would highly not recommend him, that is for sure.....Michael was such a good looking man at for years and these doctors destroyed him.

    July 14, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
  6. Cindy H - Ontario Canada

    HUH? spousal support?? LMAO

    So that is what they decided to call it instead of baby brokering.
    Guess she doesn't want to appear as a greedy 'non' mother...lol

    California Family Code 4337 states "Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the obligation of a party under an order for the support of the other party terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the other party."

    If Michael didn't agree to pay her after his death, she's out of luck.

    July 14, 2009 at 8:58 pm |
  7. Wynoma Hollis

    I don't really care for Debbie Rowe, because I believe she sold her children to MJ. That's a traversty in itself. But if the New York Post lied on her about accepting $4millions dollars to give up her parental rights, in my opinion, that is slander, and Debbie should sue if they refuse to retract their statement.

    \Wynoma Hollis.
    Jacksonville, Florida

    July 14, 2009 at 8:21 pm |
  8. Annie Kate

    I wonder if the New York Post will retract or stand by its story? I did not see on first reading any threat of legal reprecussions if they didn't retract. I was hoping Ms. Rowe and the Jackson's had reached an agreement on the custody of the children that allowed for Katherine Jackson to raise them as long as Mr. Joe Jackson had no proximity or input into their lives. That made sense to me; and that was reported by several with no money aspect to it. If Ms. Rowe decides to sue for custody then I hope she will agree to take Blanket as well because it would be heartless to break the children up.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:58 pm |
  9. Rachel / Texas

    These children have been through enough, allow them to stay with Grandmother, it's what they know, I'm quite sure this reality check is very upsetting to them already, she would never abuse her position and the money would stay safe for them vrs: a women who sold them at birth for millions, now broke, unstable life, it would be cruel to release them to her and her lifestyle.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:56 pm |
  10. DawnMD

    The twists and turns in the Michael Jackson story just keep on going.
    This sad story is a media sensation with everyone coming out of the woodworks and putting their spin on it.

    Where was the concern when Michael was alive?

    If the New York Post was in error they should retract their story; can't they be sued for liable?

    We won't know the real truths until they are reported by the courts and the L.A. Police.
    No matter what happens with the children I think they will be better off than most of us so why are we so concerned in the first place?

    July 14, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
  11. olga Moreira

    If Mrs. Rowe is the real mother then she has so much right to have her children back but if she lend her body to carry the babies then she does NOT have the right, because it was just a profitable transaction.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:36 pm |
  12. Mark - Maryland

    Will this woman continue to receive spousal support from Michael Jackson's estate? wow... would be interesting to see her Last Will, if she doesn't spend all the millions, will it be left to the children??

    July 14, 2009 at 7:29 pm |
  13. Dora

    Debbie have a little pride and LEAVE those poor kids alone. They are not yours. They belong with grandma and sisters and brothers.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
  14. Tammi

    If she truly has "the childrn's best interest" in mind..then leave them with what they know, with their grandmother, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Why take them from what they have grown up with and know. It always amazes when people talk about what's in the best interes of the children when it's all about the adults. Leave them alone; they've lost enoug, now let's change their envrioment and their family too?! Seriously, the maddness needs to stop.

    July 14, 2009 at 7:21 pm |
  15. Cindy C

    She loves horses and dogs, she might love her children. It's possible

    July 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm |