Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe ‘are not biological parents of any of his children’

UK Daily Mail 30th June 2009

Last updated at 5:17 PM on 30th June 2009

* Comments (68)
* Add to My Stories

The fallout from a custody row over Michael Jackson’s three children intensified today after fresh claims that neither Jackson nor ex-wife Debbie Rowe are the biological parents of any of the children.

Jackson also never filed any papers to formally adopt any of the children, according to U.S. media reports today.

Rumours have long circulated about the true parentage of Prince Michael, 12, Paris, 11, and Prince Michael II (or Blanket), 7.

Divorced: Jackson and Debbie Rowe divorced in 1999 after three years of marriage. Rowe gave birth to the singer’s eldest two children

Divorced: Jackson and Deborah Rowe separated in 1999 after three years of marriage

Today TMZ.com, which broke the news of Jackson’s death to the world, claimed that ‘multiple sources deeply connected to the births’ had told the website Jackson was not the biological father of any of the children – and Rowe was not their biological mother.

Instead she acted as a surrogate mother for Prince Michael and Paris – and was ‘paid well’ for her services, according to the website.

Five years ago it was claimed that Rowe was artificially inseminated by an anonymous donor before giving birth to Prince Michael and Paris.

Blanket was born to an unnamed surrogate mother. His surrogate mother, thought to be from Europe, has never been identified and the box for the mother’s name on the legal petition was marked ‘none’.

The paternity of all three children has been questioned in the past.
Concerns: Michael’s father Joe Jackson suspects foul play was involved in his son’s death

Michael’s father Joe Jackson may have been cut out of his son’s will

TMZ claimed documents outlining the birth arrangements for all three children do exist. No such documents proving or disproving their biological parentage have ever emerged into the public domain, however.

Jackson never filed any papers to formally adopt any of the children, according to TMZ.

The website did not attribute a source for the adoption claim, saying simply: ‘We’re told at the time the kids were born there was no third party whom he believed would try and claim custody. For some reason, Jackson never thought Debbie Rowe would mount a custody challenge.’

I’m a child of the 60’s as well (am again by golly

Who was “Lynard Skynard”?

Personally I never was much of a MJ fan. I thought ‘man in the mirror’ was a good song. But to me he always was bubble-gum, manufactured, music. Spears, N-Sync, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, etc… Mass-produced music ‘legends’. Talented – yes but not a music ‘legend’.

I think he could well have been what he was accused of. But I’m not going to definately say he did-or-didn’t. I don’t know enough about it and the media is entirely unreliable in this. He was strange, creepy even, but his life and probably his death were the results of his own choices.

The worship he is getting now is rather disgusting. The BET awards (which I didn’t watch – can you imagine a WHITE entertainment awards?) the National News Coverage – for an entertainer?

I watched him grow into a young man and, with the release of Off the Wall, he finally hit the big time as a solo artist. A couple of years later, Thriller came out and Michael Jackson hit legendary pop status. His next two albums were pretty good, too, but people finally started to notice his face’s continued, umm, evolution. And then really icky stuff appeared, at which point I finally asked myself: When did it all go so horribly wrong?

I know that some people are angry about people eulogizing someone whose final years were, to use Jonah Goldberg’s word, tragic. While I cannot blank that part of his life out (and rightfully so), I’ll always remember him as that smiling, singing, dancing young man on the Ed Sullivan show, someone whose considerable talents onstage were only eclipsed by his big, happy smile.

Elvis Presley, John Lennon, the Challenger, and even Randy Paush — people act as if they knew those who passed away, and not just to say ‘Oh yeah, I knew his work’ or “Yes, I followed their career” but as if they *personally* knew the people, have had them over for dinner or what have you.

How can people become so emotionally attached to celebrities? Openly weeping, emotionally spent and depressed, sometimes physically ill, mourning the death of a person (with all due respect) who wouldn’t know them in a crowd.

Maybe I’ve had a hard life: I’ve seen too much illness and death in the people in my own life – family and friends – to get emotionally worked up over the death of a musician or other celebrity.