According to TMZ, Debbie Rowe (55),the biological mother of the late Michael Jackson’s two oldest children (Prince Jr., 17, and Paris Katherine Jackson, 16) is taking the Jackson Family to court in an attempt to gain full custody of the children, even 12-year-old Prince Michael Jackson II, a.k.a. "Blanket."
The children are legally under custody of Michael’s mother Katherine and his nephew TJ Jackson, but Rowe claims Mrs. Jackson is getting older and unable to successfully care for the teens, and that the other relatives aren’t around enough to be able to provide the proper raising. In documents, Rowe claims she’s financially stable enough to care for her kids due to her successful horse breeding business.
However, the Jackson’s are upset that Rowe is coming for them now. “Rowe took Michael’s money and then ran away from her kids and her responsibilities…Our only desire is to see our niece and nephews continue to go on with happy, healthy and safe lives. We will do everything and anything within our power to help make that happen,” TMZ reports the Jackson family as saying.
Rowe claims she was always involved in the kids' lives, saying Michael would often call her for parenting advice, as well as being there for Paris when the teenager was admitted to rehab following a suicide attempt in 2013.
It also should be known that Rowe recently accepted the marriage proposal from Michael’s former business manager Marc Schaffel, after turning him down three weeks ago when she thought she had cancer. Maybe the health scare also prompted the need to fight for her children. However, being that her two biological kids are almost legal adults, and she never really was there for Blanket (at least publically), is it too late?
Sound off, Roomies!
Are you ready for a custody battle that has taken the world by storm? Get ready to dive into the heated dispute between Debbie Rowe and the Jackson family over custody of her kids.
In this article, we will explore the history of their custody arrangements and delve into the arguments from both sides.
In recent years, custody battles have become increasingly common and highly publicized. The case between Debbie Rowe and the Jackson family is no exception. As you read on, you’ll discover how this contentious battle unfolded and what led to its current state.
With emotions running high and tensions escalating, it’s a story that has captivated audiences worldwide. Stay tuned as we dig deeper into this ongoing legal saga.
The History of Custody Arrangements
You might be wondering how custody arrangements have evolved over time, shaping the way families navigate through difficult situations like Debbie Rowe’s battle with the Jackson family for her kids. Well, let me tell you, it’s been quite a journey.
In the past, custody was often awarded solely to the father, as women were seen as unfit or incapable of raising children on their own. However, as society progressed and women fought for their rights, custody laws began to change.
Nowadays, custody arrangements are much more fluid and flexible. Courts take into consideration what’s in the best interest of the child and strive to create a co-parenting environment whenever possible. Joint custody has become increasingly common, allowing both parents to have an active role in their children’s lives. This shift acknowledges that both mothers and fathers can provide love, care, and stability for their children.
Furthermore, today’s custody agreements focus on maintaining consistency and stability for the child. The courts aim to minimize disruption by encouraging parents to establish routines and schedules that work for everyone involved. This approach recognizes that stability is crucial for a child’s emotional well-being and development.
The history of custody arrangements has come a long way from solely awarding custody to fathers to now prioritizing what’s best for the child. Today’s approach emphasizes shared parenting responsibilities while maintaining stability in the child’s life. It’s important to remember that every family situation is unique, but these changes reflect society’s recognition of equal parenting abilities between mothers and fathers.
The Arguments from Both Sides
From the Jackson family’s perspective, it’s clear that they believe their arguments for custody are strong. They argue that Michael Jackson’s children, Prince and Paris, have been living with them since their father’s death and have formed a stable and loving bond with their cousins. They claim that they’ve provided a nurturing environment for the children, ensuring their education, health, and overall well-being.
Furthermore, the Jackson family argues that Debbie Rowe has had limited involvement in her children’s lives until now. They believe that her sudden interest in gaining custody is driven by financial motives rather than genuine concern for the children’s welfare. They assert that she shouldn’t be allowed to disrupt the stability and routine that Prince and Paris have found within the Jackson family.
On the other hand, Debbie Rowe presents her own compelling arguments for why she should be granted custody of her children. She claims that she’s always loved her kids and wants to establish a meaningful relationship with them. Rowe believes that as their biological mother, she possesses an inherent right to raise them. Additionally, she argues that it’s important for Prince and Paris to have a sense of identity and connection to their maternal side.
Rowe also raises concerns about the Jackson family’s ability to provide a normal upbringing for her children given their fame and media attention. She worries about how this constant scrutiny may affect Prince and Paris’ emotional well-being in the long run.
Ultimately, both sides present valid points in this custody battle, leaving it up to the court to determine what’s truly in the best interest of Prince and Paris.
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, it appears that Debbie Rowe is facing an uphill battle as she fights for custody of her children against the Jackson family.
The history of custody arrangements shows that these types of battles can be complicated and emotionally charged.
Both sides have presented their arguments, with Rowe claiming that she has a strong bond with her children and should have a say in their upbringing.
On the other hand, the Jackson family argues that they have been the primary caregivers for many years and should continue to play a significant role in their lives.
However, it may be too late for Rowe to successfully win back full custody of her children.
The Jackson family’s long-standing involvement in their lives could sway the court’s decision towards granting them continued guardianship.
Additionally, without substantial evidence or compelling reasons why changing custody would be in the best interest of the children, it is unlikely that Rowe will be successful in her efforts.
Ultimately, this legal battle highlights the complexity and emotional toll involved when two parties clash over custody rights.
