MSNBC Home
Newsvine Home
MSN Home
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement

Should Debbie Rowe get custody of the children?

advertisement
Ready To Join?

Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.

Results with 579 short comments
Total of 48,253 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

43%
Yes
20,772 votes
57%
No
27,481 votes
Display Comments:
No

she was totally content not to even visit them these last years but wants them now and will even take the 3rd one too? Money is the motive

{"commentId":7990344,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"slipthalo"}
  • 43 votes
#1
 - slipthalo
 - 3:01 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
Yes

Since Michael has passed away it seems to me that the true mother should have custody.

{"commentId":7990380,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"atn-7"}
  • 29 votes
#2
 - atn_7
 - 3:03 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

She gave them up; now all she wants is money-once again.

{"commentId":7990407,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"angelinecbrown"}
  • 29 votes
#3
 - keep it simple
 - 3:04 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

No cause she is after the childrens inheritence But Joe Jackson should not b allowed anywhere near them Katherine & Diana should b guardian

{"commentId":7990534,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"lilprincess1194778"}
  • 20 votes
#4
 - lilprincess1194778
 - 3:09 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
Yes

The Jacksons are all money hungry, Joe should have no place in their lives, and Katherine is 79!!

{"commentId":7990536,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"valry"}
  • 29 votes
#5
 - VER-445151
 - 3:09 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

Shes never been a mother to those children, she'll split them up for her own greed...all she sees are dollar signs. Pathetic.

{"commentId":7990543,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"DrRiverSong"}
  • 29 votes
#6
 - DrRiverSong
 - 3:09 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
Yes

She's their biological mother and if she wants them she should be given the chance to be their mother

{"commentId":7990559,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"lacurtis2"}
  • 19 votes
#7
 - laurie-480643
 - 3:10 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

No, at this pt. in time she's a stranger. Too much change, too much turmoil. Need the familiarity of their grandmother. Liberal visits.

{"commentId":7990611,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"jerri"}
  • 20 votes
#8
 - Jerri-304806
 - 3:12 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
Yes

If she proves to be the biological mother, then yes, it's her right. I'm sure MJ paid her enough that she can support them on her own now.

{"commentId":7990646,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"delphia2000"}
  • 18 votes
#9
 - kenaiqueen
 - 3:13 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

If she wanted custody, she should have fought that battle when he was still alive!

{"commentId":7990649,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"love-my-ad"}
  • 28 votes
#10
 - love my ad
 - 3:14 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

No, she wasn't involved in their lives up to this point and there is the possibility that the children will be split up.

{"commentId":7990703,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"mem0709"}
  • 19 votes
#11
 - memo-683602
 - 3:15 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

At this time no, she has/had no relationship with them, it would be a major disruption in their lives. She sold her offspring.

{"commentId":7990786,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"roeled"}
  • 23 votes
#12
 - roeled
 - 3:19 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
No

She has never bothered with the children up to this point, her motivation at this late juncture would seem to be monetary.

{"commentId":7990789,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"ybnormal"}
    #13
     - ybnormal
     - 3:19 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    No. She would sell them out again? To media or whatever! Grandma can handle the job, she would have help. Trust me.

    {"commentId":7990844,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"Sarah-519357"}
    • 15 votes
    #14
     - Sarah-519357
     - 3:22 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    Yes

    She is the mom.

    {"commentId":7990860,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"timcheckley"}
    • 16 votes
    #15
     - Tim-479090
     - 3:22 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    i do not think so i think she is looking for the money that comes with the children if she wanted them she would not have been absent

    {"commentId":7990931,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"crumbybooks"}
    • 7 votes
    #16
     - sheila crumby
     - 3:26 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    The children should be raised by people with big hearts and who love them. Any mother who gives up her children so easily is not that perso

    {"commentId":7990935,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"evolvingbundle"}
    • 15 votes
    #17
     - mizmojois
     - 3:26 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    She was paid for her services and should not receive any other money. If they are her kids and not Michaels' kids, she should be responsib

    {"commentId":7990957,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"httpmsnbc"}
    • 1 vote
    #18
     - Bev-1194816
     - 3:26 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    I think she should have visitation rights, but to give her custody now when she's barely been part of the kids' lives is cruel to the kids.

    {"commentId":7990974,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"koalablue80"}
    • 9 votes
    #19
     - Christina-819922
     - 3:27 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    OMG here we go. The big money grab. Hope the court appoints an Attorney for the kids. Keep JOE J away from them.

    {"commentId":7990982,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"dberg"}
    • 10 votes
    #20
     - Deborah B
     - 3:27 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    She gave them up in an out of court settlement. The love of money is the root of all evil!!

    {"commentId":7990988,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"wain"}
    • 1 vote
    #21
     - wain
     - 3:27 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    She relinquished her right and has had nothing to do with the children, ever. AND, you can not split the children up.

    {"commentId":7990995,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"jdl0364"}
    • 10 votes
    #22
     - Joel-85018
     - 3:28 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    They don't even KNOW her! Of course she's gonna "step up" now...there's millions involved!!

    {"commentId":7991025,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"lab0826"}
    • 16 votes
    #23
     - L B
     - 3:29 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    No

    Somebody should ask the children! Do they even know her??

    {"commentId":7991094,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"marcyfaiman"}
    • 12 votes
    #24
     - MF in CT
     - 3:32 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009
    Yes

    She is the biological mother of 2 of them, and if she is found competent, why not?

    {"commentId":7991108,"threadId":"617980","contentId":"2991794","authorDomain":"elmo5159"}
    • 15 votes
    #25
     - ErinNJ
     - 3:33 pm EDT on Thu Jul 2, 2009