Debbie Rowe: The portrait of motherly love or greed?
It took just a few days for Debbie Rowe to be dragged through the Michael Jackson aftermath mud. For those not following Jackson's melodrama...Rowe is the woman whom Jackson married and then had this two eldest children with back in the 1990s. After Rowe and Jackson divorced Jackson got custody of the children as Rowe signed away her parental rights. She did try to get those rights back once before. Will she do it again? And if she does want the children, does that signal she is a gold digger or merely a mother taking advantage of a rare moment of power?
The evidence against Rowe's maternal love is summed up in a quote I've seen on TV and on news websites many times over the past few days:
"These are his children. I had the children for him," Rowe said of her kids at a hearing eight years ago.
"They wouldn't be on this planet if it wasn't for my love for him. I did it for him to become a father, not for me to become a mother. You earn the title 'parent.' I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title."
The general public has no idea what happened to their marriage and why Rowe would essentially walk away from her children. Perhaps she was intimated by Jackson's power and team of lawyers. Even with Jackson needing to pay for Rowe's legal fees, is it unfounded for Rowe to believe that she just couldn't win against Jackson? It wouldn't be the first time I had heard of a woman who felt she didn't even have a fighting chance. It wouldn't be because Jackson was evil, but some women, especially divorcing women, have no faith in the court system.
The theory that Rowe was just a surrogate throws a wrench in all of the speculation only a bit. If Rowe was paid as a surrogate, but then later changed her mind, I don't hold that against her. I don't believe that even the best intent and cash can break the bond that is created while a woman is pregnant. Perhaps Rowe sees the possibility of her children being raised by one of two elderly women (Jackson's mom or Diana Ross) and thinks that she might be the better option.
Then again, all this giving her the benefit of the doubt could be for naught if she is just looking for a big pay out in the form of the kids.
Either way, it's amazing to watch the vilification of a non-custodial mother and the beatification of a man who most agree was, to say the least, creepy in the media. Much love to those kids, they are gonna need it.
Comments0 comments have been made. Post a comment.
Have an idea for the blog? Click here to contact us!
Reader54321 (not verified)
Natalie Ribbons (not verified)
Anonymous-E (not verified)
Ariel Wetzel (not verified)