Katherine Jackson should have taken her chances against Debbie Rowe in Court: DEBBIE WOULD HAVE LOST

Look, just because Debbie is the biological mother doesn’t mean that she would have been or should be the custodial parent. Many biological parents do not have custody of their children. The court has to do what is in the best interest of the child. The court has to consider different factors in awarding custody after a custodial parent dies. Generally, the other “parent” is a shoo in and then the grandparents if the other parent cannot or will not do. But in this case, was Debbie Rowe a “parent.” I argue no.
There is some suggestion that Debbie never had a “maternal” role in the children’s lives but acted as a “surrogate” who merely supplied the womb. Whether that is true or false, I don’t know. But it sure doesn’t appear that those children think of her as “mom.”
Besides, the children are old enough to state their preference. The court will likely appoint a law guardian, a lawyer for the children and the law guardian would interview the children who at 11 and 12 (Blanket is a bit young) can say where they want to go. I would bet money they wouldn’t say with Debbie Rowe. They don’t seem to know the woman.
In considering the best interest of the child, the court will consider which environment is likely to foster stability. Well, first of all, the court looks at THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. So that is what would absolutely have killed Debbie’s arguments. When taken as a totality of circumstances, she didn’t stand a prayer and if Jackson’s lawyers advised her to negotiate with that woman, to be basically robbed of more millions of dollars all in the name of her not asserting a custody claim, I think that lawyer was full of it and sold his client up the creek. For zit.
I mean, we are looking at her behavior since she divorced the father. She’s been absent. No excuses will justify that. She even sought to give up her parental rights at one point. Notwithstanding the fact that she changed her mind later, that she even sought to do this from the start is a red flag in my view. I would have argued that she “abandoned” those kids if I were the lawyer for Jackson.
The other issue as I said is the children’s preference.
Then you have the issue of having to “relocate” them to some new home with a practical stranger after the death of their only “parent” which will be traumatic as I am sure any reputable child psychologist could easily have testified to.
Then you are looking at the fact that she doesn’t strike me as the person who could adequately provide for these children’s intellectual and emotional needs at this time under these circumstances.
But for me, this issue of money changing hands as soon as something happens so that she would “allow someone else to have custody” of these kids is disturbing. This is not a healthy approach to “motherhood”  but, instead, seems all about the money grab, which is completely disgusting.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. Joe Jackson is scary in the sense that, I know he is an octogenarian and unlikely to have the wherewithal to beat the kids but a leopard can’t change it’s spots. And I don’t think Michael would want Joe to have custody. But Joe lives in Vegas and Katherine lives in California and so the children are safe from grandpa most of the time.
But I really don’t think Debbie stood a prayer of getting those children and the Jacksons should not lay down and take her demands if she is making any. They should call her bluff. Because if they don’t she will continue to milk that cow till the kids are twenty one. And if something happens to Katherine, she’s coming back like a barracuda for more dough. Which is gross.
I would have fought her and kicked her ass in court so that she gets the message and take her greed to other pastures.
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/index.php?s=DEBBIE+ROWE