No Surprise Here: Michael Jackson Is Not the Biological Father of His Children

June 30th, 2009 by Evil Beet



jackson-752-klein

I suppose it’s not any big secret that Michael Jackson isn’t the biological father of his children. That’s because the children are white. It’s something that we all knew but didn’t discuss, and people would throw out comments like, “Well, you know, just because someone has one black parent doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to look black.” And, ya know, maybe that’s true, but it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’re not going look like little Swedish kids either. It was obvious these weren’t his biological kids.

Now Us Weekly claims they’ve found the real father — an LA-based dermatologist named Arnold Klein, who was Debbie Rowe’s boss at one point, and who is white.

“He is the dad,” says a Jackson insider. “He and Debbie signed an agreement saying they would never reveal the truth.”

I wonder what kind of impact — if any — something like this will have on the custody proceedings.


Before you leave a comment, please make sure you've read our Guide to Commenting. It could save you a great deal of embarrassment.

37 Responses to “No Surprise Here: Michael Jackson Is Not the Biological Father of His Children”

  1. Jennb says:

    I feel like tons of details keep coming out and a lot of them contradict each other, but I read (somewhere) that the woman who carried his children was a surrogate and that the eggs were implanted and not her own.

    So…. the sperm wasn’t his. The eggs weren’t hers. Basically, he just ordered some sperm and eggs and had them put together in some woman he knew?

    If that’s the case, why didn’t he just adopt one of the many kids out there who are already born and NEED a home? Sigh..

    • Alzaetia says:

      I think if you’re super famous there’s some fear that the biological parents will become a problem someday.

    • Scarlett says:

      Would he be able to adopt with his background? I guess money can buy anything even a child for an alleged pedophile.

      • Sasha222 says:

        I think he ‘had’ those kids before the molestation charges. I could be totally wrong though. Plus, since he wasn’t convicted or anything maybe it doesn’t apply..

        • Anonymous says:

          He didn’t. The birth dates were 1996, 1998, and 2002. The first charge was made public in 1993.

  2. kylie says:

    The kids look remarkably like the man in the bottom pictures, so i think this is pretty true, but i think the eggs were hers because one of them has the same blond hair, idk i could be wrong

  3. jenn says:

    As an adopted person, I have zero problem with not questioning the paternity of MJ’s kids for another 10, 20 years.

    • JennB says:

      Yea, it shouldn’t matter…just guess it gets messy when it comes to custody stuff now that he has passed.

      • jenn says:

        I was adopted after my dad died, and I didn’t really know my mom or want to see her. So that whole thing was pretty tricky, too. Any judge worth his salt will ask the two older kids who they would like to live with. Hopefully biology will have very, very little to do with it. :(

        • Donkey Punch says:

          These kids weren’t adopted. They were ordered and bought like McDonald’s fries. Considering MJ is a known pedophile those kids are must better off with him dead.

          (PS. my brother is adopted and I fully support the adoption process)

    • Alzaetia says:

      Paternity means almost nothing when compared to who love and support.
      I gave a child up for adoption. I refer to the woman who adopted her as her mother, even though I do still refer to her as my daughter.

    • Just Saying says:

      Mad respect to adoptive parents, Jenn. It’s when we start engineering children that the lines get fuzzy.

      • rayne says:

        you know, it always bothers me when a family (either famous or not) are introduced and it’s pointed out which kids are adopted. why? why must they declare which ones are adopted? they are as much a loved and included child as any of the biological ones. there should be no difference. whenever it’s pointed out on TV i always growl in frustration and drive my husband nuts with the same rant.

  4. Melissa says:

    He looks so happy in the pic with his kids :(

    • Nora says:

      If by happy you mean, FREAKY DEAKY, then yes, he looks very happy.

      I honestly think the bottom pic looks more like a wax statue than an actual person.

      • Melissa says:

        Well no shit…

        I was talking about the expression on his face. It seemed like genuine happiness.

        Also, that little boy reminds me of that kid from Children of the Corn.

  5. Alzaetia says:

    He was married to Debbie when the kids were born, so they’re his legally.

    My mom and stepdad separated but were still married when she got pregnant by somebody else. My stepdad was still my little brother’s legal father, even though they had a DNA test to prove otherwise, and he and my mom divorced after my brother was born. They had to convince my stepdad to give up his legal rights before the biological father could be put on the birth certificate.

    • Amy says:

      My husband’s step father was legally his father as well because he adopted him at birth. This was almost 40 years ago, but when his biological father tried to get in the picture, he wasn’t allowed to take custody away from him.

      Then again he didn’t really even try at all to be in his life until he realized my husband was in medical school on his way to becoming a doctor. it’s funny who comes out of the woodwork when they smell money Such as the case with Michael now..

  6. Chris says:

    “I wonder what kind of impact — if any — something like this will have on the custody proceedings. ”

    Not sure about the custody hearings but I suspect the kids will do a huge sigh of relief, having dodged a DNA bullet.

  7. Sasha222 says:

    It’s possible that Michael did have an agreement with these two and then simply adopted the children legally. If that is the case then those kids are just as much his as biological ones would be and would still have to abide by his Will.

    People tend to forget that at one point Michael did look 100% African American, and even with a Caucasian mother those children would at least look a LITTLE bit mixed i would think. My kid is only 1/4 Hispanic and 1/4 black and the rest Caucasian and she looks more ethnic then his children who are 1/2 black.

    In either case I’m just scared that those kids might end up in the hands of Joe Jackson who frankly scares me. Who knows how he will end up exploiting those kids for profit…or god forbid abuse them too!

  8. DailyBeetReader says:

    Anyone else notice that even MJ’s white children are darker than he is? Anyone? It still freaks me out to see that.

  9. MissLeeLoo says:

    Am I the only one who thinks Prince looks a little like MJ?

    • Dorothy says:

      I agree, and it’s weird cause he does look like MJ after MJ had all the plastic surgery. He definitely doesn’t look like Jackson 5 or Thriller MJ thats for sure. I wonder if since Michael had so many issues with his appearance and features, and claimed to have hated his “African American nose”, if that meant he didn’t want his children to look Black either and was more content having someone else, who was white, father them biologically. That would be eerie and sad.

      I think I read that he said his abusive father used to make fun of him and say his nose was too big and stuff and thats why he went all crazy with the surgeries. And this is the same man who might gain custody of those poor kids.

    • who cares. says:

      Yeah, for sure!

  10. meohmy says:

    I dont get it. Is the man claiming to be the parent (like some Jonnie cum lately) in order to get “his” kids back along with their trust fund?

    I wonder if Michael had some badass life insurance policy on him for his kids? Or any at all?

  11. Mercedes says:

    hehehe I heart you Beet. the beginning of this post was awesome.

  12. who cares. says:

    I’m not saying these are his kids, I wasn’t there so I have no idea, but I’m tired of people being like “oh, they’re so white, they can’t be his!” That’s just ignorant. Genetics are tricky, and having several cousins that are half white, I can tell you the range of “blackness” runs from light but still black looking to all out white. One cousin has kinkier hair than I do, (I’m black/Indian), and one is blond and blue eyed. But it doesn’t matter, what counts is that we’re a family. This stuff isn’t all cookie cutter like America likes to think.

    • Donkey Punch says:

      You are right, it is genetics. Black gene is always dominant.

      • Dmarie says:

        That’s true, but I dunno.. my friend is Aboriginal, and looks it, but with the skin colour of say Rihanna, she’s not fully black, but her little sister is blonde and tan.

    • Mercedes says:

      You are TOTALLY the person she’s talking about in the beginning of her post. The irony is almost too much.

  13. b says:

    I feel bad for these kids

  14. mcbiscuit says:

    Is Nicole Richie adopted? She’s light skinned.

  15. hihi says:

    Michael Jackson had never wanted children of his own. Because he does not love his real black appearance very much. He can not give birth children to look like his real appearance.

  16. Anna says:

    Yes, nicole richie is adopted. And Mj’s children is not only white, they are really white. I have a gruop of swedish kids around me as i write and his kids would not stand out in this crowd of pale blonde children. But why should it matter? Being someones child has nothin to do with genetics. If i found out i was not the biological child of my parents, i would not stop considering them as my mother and father.
    So who cares?

  17. shabs says:

    I am half-black and have the same coloring as the little girl in the picture. One of my cousins is the same as the little boy. It can totally happen, we’re proof.

Leave a Reply