<p>NSM, I think that Nadya’s mom looks rather old but I don’t know if she is chronologically that old or just has that sort of appearance (which running after six little ones at her age would do it to ya). I thought I had read she was in her sixties. </p>
<p>As far as Nadya’s looks, I saw an interview by a plastic surgeon (not Nadya’s) who reviewed her different features and said with certainty that she had had various procedures with regard to her nose, lips, cheeks.</p>
<p>Wow, NYMomof2: That must have been a shock. A good shock, but – a shock nonetheless. Wow.</p>
<p>It was a shock, but this child is an absoulte delight. I can’t imagine not having him. He’s 10 now.</p>
<p>Yes, confidentiality is waived for a child abuse report by a treating therapist. But a child abuse report is what it is limited to – not regaling the press with information. I am familiar with the laws in California as that is the state in which I practice. So I may have permission to call DCS or the police and to file a report – and, in fact, I am mandated to – but, that exception doesn’t extend itself to talking about the case with whomever I please. But, since she wasn’t the treating therapist, she had no obligation to report and, in fact, her report would be considered hearsay by the authorities as she has no direct information. All of her information is based on hearsay and DCS in CA doesn’t like to take reports based on hearsay. Every time I’ve tried in cases where I had legitimate concerns, I’ve been told I didn’t have enough direct observable information.</p>
<p>I agree that the psychiatrist who filed that complaint has nothing but heresay to go by. </p>
<p>In any case, this whole story seems like a soap opera. The sad part is that it is all true and many young lives are affected by all of it.</p>
<p>Hey mimk6!
At least when you called DCS you got through to a human being! When I have felt obligated to call our FACS, I either couldn’t get through (busy signal) or I got a recording. I always left a message and asked for a return call. Sometimes, though not often, I got one-- usually after hours left on our voicemail. They never called the answering service to reach me directly. In one particular case I called at least 5 times (probably more) and NEVER got to speak to a human being. In that particular case the patient was sitting in the office with me when I called (her H, the girl’s stepdad, had pulled her daughter’s hair trying to get her to go to her room as a punishment for not listening to him), and she, the mom, WANTED FACS to be notified even though this was a one-time incident, b/c her H didn’t think he did anything wrong with his discipline. We discussed whether her teenage D was in any imminent harm, and it did not sound at all like that was the case, especially since this was an isolated incident, but she wanted the possible clout of outside assistance, if FACS felt it was appropriate, in getting H to address appropriate parenting (he of course didn’t want to come to sessions with her, and thought he was fine-- no need for any therapy or parenting training or anger management). I doubted, even if I was able to get the report completed, that they would do anything or even open a file, but that was FACs’s call to make, not mine. I just had to report it to them and let them decide based on the specifics of the case. But I never could get to a human being. I’d leave my name, #, the name, address and contact info for the mom and the stepdad, and a general statement about the nature of my call. After weeks and weeks wend by of my calling and episodically getting a return call night on my VM (even though I’d tell them the hours we were open and even offered my cellphone #)… It was ridiculous. Our state’s FACS is underfunded, understaffed, and has a very high burnout rate (true in that field in general). It is a broken system. I hope CA’s system is better.</p>
<p>In many cases the report is based on heresay-- like in my case the mom said her dau told her of this incident (tho stepdad didnt deny it). Mom didn’t witness it, and I was getting it second (no third) hand from her. I probably was not obligated to report that, given the specifics of the situation, but mom and I discussed it and she wanted to let FCS decide if it was worth investigating to get stepdad to see that his parenting style might need some help or he might benefit from anger management classes. Yes, certainly when a child is reporting abuse directly to a therapist, doctor or teacher, or a kid is seen in the ER with contusions or broken bones with suspicion that they didn’t “fall” causing the injuries, the provider is compelled to report. In our state it is worded that if we have “reasonable suspicion or reason to believe” a child is being abused or neglected (or words to that effect) we are mandated to report. It can be second or third hand, especially since the victims often deny that they are being abused or neglected.</p>
<p>I agree with you that especially if Dr. Carole was the one to leak her report to the media, that her intentions were not in the best interest of the kids but merely for her own publicity, but I haven’t heard how the media got a copy of the report. Has she been on the airwaves blasting her opinion of Nadya and the need for FACS to be involved? It wouldn’t surprise me, given her role with the news media, but I haven’t heard that. I certainly smells like a publicity stunt, though again I’d suspect she’ll claim she did it with the best interests of the kids at heart. BS.</p>
<p>^^^ Oops, too late to edit and insert a missing word. In the example above the girl was pulled by her hair up the stairs. Still may not be grounds to report, but its FACs call, not mine, especially since the mom wanted the possible outside help for her H. Better for the Dr to err on the side of reporting than to be accused of not filing a report when neglect/abuse is possible. Its grounds to lose ones license, if something happens to the kid and the therapist/Dr had knowledge of an incident and didnt report.</p>
<p>jym, I don’t consider the level of heresay in your example as the same as the psychiatrist who reported Nadya. In your case, the family were patients of yours (at least the mother was and she was reporting to you about a situation in her family, and you’d be obligated to report if there was any suspected abuse if a child may be in harm’s way). In Nadya’s case, this psychiatrist is not treating anyone in the family and has not talked with anyone in the family but is basing it all on media reports. I don’t see that as the same at all. </p>
<p>I see it as a psychiatrist, who is involved in media generally speaking anyway, who sought the media to provide her commentary on the case in so many words. While she wasn’t asked for an interview, by filing this report, she was able to be in the media and provide her commentary on the case. This is a psychiatrist who deals with media a lot.</p>
<p>soozie-
I am not an attorney, but I don’t believe there are different levels of “hearsay” as you suggest. Under licensure, if a professional (or in our state, even a teacher) has reason to suspect that a child is being neglected or abused, they are obligated to report.</p>
<p>jym, I don’t know the legalities, but the typical application of that law, I would imagine, is by those who either have direct contact with the child or family, or have observed something or heard something in their community. It just seems different to me to send in a complaint based on the news stories. That would be like all of us on CC sending in a complaint about Nadya. The points made by the psychiatrist were almost all ones made right here on this thread, LOL. She used a few diagnostic terms but she had no more contact with anyone involved than we do.</p>
<p>I am off to catch a plane–just clarifying that this particular doc decided that she was compelled to report under her interpretation of CA law. Probably for her own media attention, but nonetheless-- she sounds like one of the many outraged people, but someone who can actually do something about it</p>
<p>Re: the whole psych.story. This is like one narcissist calling out another narcissist. Scary stuff-- that some people can be supposedly experts on, and treating, other people when they themselves seem to have some ‘issues’. </p>
<p>So if you can ‘make money’ being on the right side of this story, you go for it.</p>
<p>Jym, wow, how awful not to be able to reach a human being. I’ve always been able to reach a human being but, I have to admit, I haven’t had to try since the current state budget crisis so I can’t be sure if I still could. However, in CA we can report either to CPS or to any law enforcement agency, and the police are still reachable by phone – it will be a sad day when they are not. In our state, if you can’t reach a human being after sincere attempts, you can fax the report instead, although I would be uncomfortable with that. Rule of reporting here: “A mandated reporter shall make a report to a specified agency, whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.” If the report is rejected on the phone, we should still send in the form so we’ve fulfilled our obligation. I don’t think a non-treating psychiatrist was obligated to report – if so, every mandated mental health professional in CA would have been obligated to report.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL!!
Right…that’s what I mean. There is not a one who hasn’t heard of Nadya’s “case.”</p>
<p>Thanks for quoting CA’s reporting law, mimk6. Obviously that particular psychiatrist decided to interpret the law as meaning she, in her professional capacity, was “mandated” to report. I agree that it was silly-- an unnecessary and broad interpretation of the law. I believe she used the law to make a statement. I daresay most medical professsionals would not interpret the law the same way. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was the one who leaked her report to the media-- I just don’t know for sure. It appears that she does commentary on high profile cases just as media attorneys comment on high profile legal cases.</p>
<p>Apparently Gloria Allred also filed a DFCS complaint with LA County on the 16th…can’t fathom why Nadya wouldn’t be all over this offer, but the article says she hasn’t responded…</p>
<p>Attorney Gloria Allred lobbed a huge offer to Nadya Suleman on Thursday: round-the-clock nursing care, physical therapy, occupational therapy and a home for the super-sized Whittier family. </p>
<p>[Octuplets</a>’ mother gets a giant babysitting offer | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Archive blogs)</p>
<p>Also, grandma just looks her age…I don’t think I’d be up for it at 50!
“Grandma is tired,” Killeen said. “Grandma and grandpa are in their 70s. You know, they’ve raised a daughter. I’m sure they didn’t think that they were going to be helping to raise six children.”</p>
<p>sk8rmom, I am smiling because when many posts ago, we were talking about the psychiatrist who filed a report as a bystander basically, and was in the media a lot, I immediately thought of Gloria Allred who gets involved in high profile cases and I thought that the psychiatrist’s filing of a complaint was a way for her to get into the media herself to provide “commentary” on the case. I was gonna mention Gloria Allred as an example but then chose not to and voila, here she is too! Well, at least Ms. Allred has come up with a solution and not just a complaint.</p>
<p>Wow, Suleman is a fool if she doesn’t accept Allred’s offer. And it gets us taxpayers in CA off the hook, too. A win-win if you ask me.</p>
<p>good luck catching that plane, jym, they move pretty fast!</p>
<p>Well, I move pretty fast too, younghoss 
I’d love to see the gazillion page contract that Allred prepared for Suleman. Should be a doozy. Wonder if it has a “one screw up and the kids are gone” clause.</p>