The late Michael Jackson was not the biological father of any of his three children.
Moreover, his ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, is actually not the biological mother of the two children she bore for Michael, according to a report on TMZ.
Multiple sources deeply connected to the births of Michael Jr., (aka Prince Michael Jackson I), Paris Jackson and Prince Michael Jackson II (aka Blanket) claim Michael Jackson was not the sperm donor for the kids.
Nor were Debbie Rowe's eggs used.
All three children were conceived in vitro, outside the womb.
Debbie Rowe, it turns out, was merely the surrogate, and was compensated well for her services in the births of Michael Jackson Jr. and Paris Jackson.
In the case of Prince Michael Jackson II (Blanket, the youngest), TMZ says the surrogate was never told the identity of the "receiving parent" - Michael Jackson.
Three days after Prince was born at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego County, Jackson's lawyer came to the hospital to pick the baby up and deliver him to Michael.
It is unclear if Michael Jackson selected the sperm or egg donors or if he even knew anything about who Blanket's biological parents were.
If neither Michael Jackson or Debbie Rowe is a biological parent, what does that mean for the fate of Prince I, Prince II and Paris now that the King of Pop is gone?
Although Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother, some insiders say it is not a slam dunk that she would lose a custody battle for Michael Jr. and Paris.
Not shockingly, this type of case has never been litigated in California.
Since Rowe was married to Michael Jackson when Michael Jr. and Paris were born, there's a presumption (in legal terms) that she's the biological parent.
That presumption can be rebutted by other evidence.
There are apparently documents outlining the whole arrangement for the birth of all three kids. For now, though, it remains an open issue with the courts.
Rowe is said to have tried to contact Jackson's family since his death Thursday, but sources close to her say she has not actually communicated with them.
Share
33 Comments
June 30th, 2009 10:50 PM
This is such outrageous tabloid BS I am sitting here laughing.
Those kids look exactly like Debbie!(though not like Michael, but we know he was their father nonetheless)
She will NOT try to get custody of any children because they didn't know her to begin with. She can be looked at as a surrogate, that cared deeply for Mike and bared his children FOR him.
If any of your children would be left parent-less, surely their uncles, aunts or grandparents would be left as guardians, and not strangers. use your HEADS people or should I say, "you heartless animals".
July 1st, 2009 11:58 AM
I agree, Hanna! Very well said! People, you are doing a disservice to this family! There has been an overabundance of lies till those watching tv and listen to the radio, that you do not know what to believe! Quit being so gullible that you believe whatever comes out of someone elses mouths! This is ridiculous and I am so tired of people even telling me the rumors people have come up with! Would you want people to believe rumors about YOU?! Then why pray tell would you believe them about Michael? I will tell you why, because it is about Michael! He is gone people! Lets just celebrate the life and leave his family and kids names out of your mouths! And if it does not come directly from the family, you should not listen to it. I am not listening to another thing about Michael unless I know it is true. You guys just want to believe this because either you did not like Michael in the first place or you are so evil that you want to ridicule this man in death. A lot of you are the reason why Michael went into isolation anyway! A lot of you is the reason why he endured so much pain. A lot of you is the reason why Michael died years ago! He was literally the walking dead because of all this mess he had to endure over the years. You talk about people, you ridicule people and you do not care about anyone but yourselves! You do it to celebrities time and time again! Let Michael rest! And let his family grieve!
July 1st, 2009 1:17 PM
People who believe that these 3 kids were Michael's are kool aid drinkers and will simply take in whatever they are told, rather than think for themselves.
1}I have read people saying "the kids look just like MJ, so they must be his" Bull - MJ is black regardless of his bleached skin, therefore his kids should have a shade of blackness. Not these kids, they are completely white and the boy has blond hair. (half black half white kids should have the same skin tone as Obama or Halle Berry)
2)It now makes sense why Debbie Rowe easily gave up the children, it is because they are not her kids. No mother in her right mind would give up custody of her kids in exchange for money. The only logical explanation is that she was just a surrogate mother and the kids are not her flesh and blood.
People just because you adored and worshipped MJ doenst mean you have to take every lie he fed his fans, use your brain that's what it's for.
July 1st, 2009 8:32 PM
M Jacksons genetics are black... All three of his kids are 100 white... kinda speaks for itself...
July 2nd, 2009 11:52 PM
Well all i have to say is that i have a brother that is dark and he have a baby by his wife that is half white and half latino and his baby don't look like he have a spic of black in him and his hair was like his mother's. It is all about who genes are stronger and then again their appearance might change(a big possibility) and he is also mixed with indian and god knows what else. Also to prove another point my mom is brown-skin and my dad is dark and they thought it was something wrong with my skin because i was so light and there is not many people on either side of my family that is light skinned.
July 3rd, 2009 12:24 PM
Okay, so if the two kids are not Michael Jackson's; trash his will's provisions for them and let his nephews and nieces benefit. If that's how the game is to be played--whoever has their DNA should be found and made to support them. Michael Jackson could have chosen to produce beautiful, exotic children, like his brothers did. Debbie Rowe's genetics are no gift. If the kids were conceived through a surrogate arrangement with Debbie, how do we know MJ's sperm was not intentionally or deceitfully exchanged for someone else's. Nevertheless, regardless of those children's plain, colorless look and stringy hair; Michael Jackson willingly accepted and provided for those kids as if they were his own children. If there is any question as to whether or not Michael Jackson is their "biological father", neither Debbie or the children deserve to gain from Michael Jackson's will. Return the money to his genetic family. If Debbie then still wants the kids and has a clue who their real father is, she can work through their genetic details.
July 5th, 2009 2:34 AM
Larosa said it BEST! If that (fill in the blank) wants to be spiteful and try to take back children she gave away like they were concert tickets (multi-million dollar concert tix in her case), then everything their "father" left them should be voided.
July 5th, 2009 2:37 AM
And I know the kids weren't his (even though the boys features could pass for the 2007 MJ) but, mullato children come in all shades. I do now mullato people who look completely black, and there are some who look completely white. And yes they can have blonde hair. It is not common, but it is also not uncommon.
July 7th, 2009 7:27 PM
wow...there are some very ignorant post on this site! But to WTF and Paul and others that think along those lines... Having Bi-racial children doesn't mean that you will come out like O'Bama and Halle. What about Nicole Richie and Mariah, and I can only think of personal references as for biracial parents that have very brown children, but the point is that bi racial parents can have a range in shades of children and not all children are going to be the O Bama and Halle mixture. Some come out far lighter, looking European, and some even come out far darker with maybe only a few features revealing European descent. However, this doesn't mean that Michael is or is not the father of those kids, but using the complexion of the kids as a conclusive indicator is simply not logical. Blood test would be best! :)
July 7th, 2009 7:34 PM
Ummm hellloooo ppl micheal not their real father duh he bought sperm if he wuz able 2 have kids I think he could've had sex with a girl not pay someone 2 have it 4 him duhhh ppl get serious