She continues to claim that she is the biological mother but Wendy Murphy, feminist lawyer and commentator, writes otherwise:
"Latest claims are that although Rowe gestated Prince and Paris, she used an egg and sperm donor. Rowe denies the claim and says they are HER biological children - but not Jackson’s. It’s an interesting legal dilemma in theory because neither Rowe nor Jackson formally "adopted" the kids, which is the typical way parenthood is established in situations where children are born at the request, but without the genetic material, of mom and dad. But it's a moot point because a court long ago declared Rowe and Jackson the legal parents of Prince and Paris.
The more curious issue is the way Rowe has described her children as a "gift" to Jackson. Most people who give “gifts” don’t demand millions of dollars as a quid pro quo. Oh, and then there’s that quirky problem in law that says you can’t sell your children.
In fact, it’s a felony.
Ironically, however, Rowe has priority seating in the current custody dispute because a few years ago, a judge refused to enforce Rowe's “kids for cash” deal, which means she automatically regained her parental rights – though she got to keep all the money."
sick sick sick
Why is FMF fascinated by this weird tale? Because it is what happens when money outweighs common sense, natural law, reproductive ethics. What of these children? Not only is Jackson's mother 79, she is apparently in failing health. The woman with whom the children have the longest relationship is Grace Rwaramba, who has literally raised the children for more than a decade. The kids have reportedly been asking for her and would probably choose Grace to be their guardian.
The only good that could possibly come out of this would be for tough legislation that would somehow put the brakes on making babies in petrie dishes and then going to Rent-A-Womb for gestation. --lorraine
"...put the brakes on making babies in petrie dishes and then going to Rent-A-Womb for gestation."
ReplyDeleteAmen, sister.
A simple DNA test will determine if Rowe is the natural mother of these children. And if she is the mother ...she's a cow...she sold her children to this fruitcake.
ReplyDeleteNo DNA test is required for Who's Your Daddy (MJ)....as we can all 'see' it certainly wasn't MJ!
Poor kids....people will be fighting for years over them, since they stand to inherit 40% of MJs assets.
Adoption is "normal" in gestational surrogacy - but Jackson and Rowe were MARRIED which I think made adoption unnecessary.Any children born to a man's wife are automatically "his" by law, I believe even if proven not be by biolgy.
ReplyDeleteThe question that a judge will need to decide if Rowe goes through with a claim on these kids...and one I am discussing over at FamilyPreservation.blogspot.com is:
What is in the best interest of the children if there is a custody battle? Is Rowe - if indeed she proves to be their biological mother - best suited to raise them now??
REPLY TO CHRIS MANY CHILDREN OF MIXED ETHNIC BACK ROUNDS ARE JUST THAT. MANY DONT TAKE ON THE EXACT LOOK OF EITHER PARENT SO UNTIL DNA IS NOT PROVEN WE WONT KNOW EITHER WAY. MONEY HAS PLACED THE KIDS IN A SAD SITUATION FOR THE REST OF THERE LIVES. THEY WILL LIVE IN A CONSTANT NEGATIVE WORLD.
ReplyDelete