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