Is the mother the mother?

Michael Jackson's daughter, who is now a model (are there still models? Do they earn as much as before?), says she met her "mother" when she was 15 years old. The "mother" had them, her and her brother, through artificial insemination. Michael Jackson and she met – of course – at the dermatologist's where she worked. The New York Post reported that the woman had waived custody "in exchange for a payment of about 2.8 million euros." The lawyer for Debbie Rowe, the mother, denied it. We read in ARA, however, that the woman — a nurse — "lived for years in a mansion in Palmdale, California." Presumably, of course, she must have been paid well. And then that was "a job".

Someone will say that the one who takes care of you is your mother, whether she gave birth to you or not, and I am one of those who say it. And someone will say that the one who doesn't take care of you is not your mother, whether she gave birth to you or not. And I am one of those who say it. If you were paid to give up and spent the money on a mansion, it was a job. But I understand that Jackson's daughter now wants to establish ties with the woman who carried her and romanticize her, since she cannot romanticize her father. And she, the woman, must want to establish ties too? Did she see what Neverland was like? Did she go there? Did she have contact with the clinic's client after the two births? And above all, did she, that day, see the images of the brother of the girl in question, her "son", at the window of that hotel, wrapped in a blanket and with the "father" carrying him with one hand? Did she want to take him then? Did she not think anything? Did she feel a pang of regret? Did she not feel it?