Report: Jackson Not the Father of His Kids

Lawrence Vickers in 2011, when he was signed with the Houston Texans. / NFL via Getty Images
The question over custody of Michael Jackson's three children may have gotten quite a bit more complicated.
According to a report on TMZ, Jackson was not the biological father of any of the kids. And Debbie Rowe, the Jackson's ex-wife and mother of his first two children, was just a surrogate - none of her eggs were used. That would mean, technically, that she wasn't the biological mother either.
TMZ cites multiple sources familiar with the births as saying Jackson didn't donate his own sperm for the in vitro fertilization of any of his children. They say Rowe was a paid surrogate who gave birth to son Michael Jr. and daughter Paris.
The report also states that the surrogate for Jackson's third child, Prince Michael II, didn't even know who the receiving parent was.
Jackson's parents have filed for guardianship of the three children in the wake of the pop star's surprising death, though a custody claim by Rowe is still not out of the question. The report notes that because Rowe was married to Jackson at the time of the birth of Michael Jr. and Paris, there is a presumption that she is the biological mother. That would have to be countered by evidence.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. According to a report on TMZ, Jackson was not the biological father of any of the kids. And Debbie Rowe, the Jackson's ex-wife and mother of his first two children, was just a surrogate - none of her eggs were used. That would mean, technically, that she wasn't the biological mother either.
TMZ cites multiple sources familiar with the births as saying Jackson didn't donate his own sperm for the in vitro fertilization of any of his children. They say Rowe was a paid surrogate who gave birth to son Michael Jr. and daughter Paris.
The report also states that the surrogate for Jackson's third child, Prince Michael II, didn't even know who the receiving parent was.
Jackson's parents have filed for guardianship of the three children in the wake of the pop star's surprising death, though a custody claim by Rowe is still not out of the question. The report notes that because Rowe was married to Jackson at the time of the birth of Michael Jr. and Paris, there is a presumption that she is the biological mother. That would have to be countered by evidence.
Popular in Entertainment
- Cannes Film Festival 2013 46 Photos
- Taylor Swift dominates Billboard Music Awards
- "American Idol" season 12 finale 31 Photos
- Stars at NBA 2013 playoffs 15 Photos
- "American Idol" winner announced
- Inside Mariah Carey's "American Idol" performance
- Friends pay tribute to George Jones at funeral
- "Survivor: Caramoan" crowns a winner














http://www.godismichaeljackson.net/
http://www.lupus.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/new_empty.aspx?articleid=1286&zoneid=76
Michael Jackson had Lupus as well as other health issues. Possibly thats why he chose a sperm donor. I sure
hope the courts decides what's best for his children.
Everyone involved is going to walk again with millions anyways.
Lots more to worry about in this world. These people won't starve or go into foreclosure.
If I was the judge, I would put the nanny, who nurtured those children all those years as their legal guardian because they have a bond with her and they all can remain together. To grant permanent custody to a 79 year old, who is not equipped to raise young children and who probably didn't see those kids much is just asking for trouble & the media circus will go on for years. I am shocked that MJ didn't consider the nanny but he probably made it quite clear she was hired help only as he did to Rowe who was only a brood mare. To grant permanent custody to a 79 year old woman who did nothing to stop her husband's emotion and physical abuse of their children to me shows she is unfit. Rowe has something to gain & certainly the greedy Jacksons also but the nanny can continue to provide the love & maternal needs of those children better than anyone else and keep them together as a family. I can't see anyone objecting to the nanny as their legal guardian. The judge should consider the children's best interest and not provide fuel to the never-ending WACKO Jackson WORLD and circus.