<p>I’ve taken to watching a show on cable called “Deliver Me” which is about an OB practice and another show about multiples whose names escape me. They show the triplets/quads from pregnancy to about one year. It’s mind-boggling how much care these teeny-tinies need and the resources that have to be pulled together. There is no way on God’s earth that Ms. Suleiman could do that and care for the other children. As ugly and painful as it is, those kids need to have other homes found for them.</p>
<p>I agree, zm. The best plan would be for the octuplets to be adopted, singly or in pairs, as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will happen.</p>
<p>Has Kaiser been paid for the millions in care these babies require?? Does Suleman have health insurance? In my state you can’t sue a Dr. or facility that provides pro bono care. </p>
<p>The talking heads on the news this morning addressed the fact that it will likely be the State DFACS that will take ownership of the decision as to where the children will be discharged, not the hospital. The hospital works with DFACS when there is concern about safety/neglect but ultimately I believe it will be the state family/childrens services that will have juristiction over where the kids will go. This should relieve the hospital of that liability issue. The hospital doesnt want to set a precedent for any/all decisions past and future re: decisions to discarge medically fragile kids home. And what if they do discharge the kids to the home and one of the kids dies due to Nadyas inabilty to manage the kids? In addition to being tragic, she’d likely try to sue Kaiser then for allowing her to take the kids when they should have “known” she couldnt care for them adequately. What a total trainwreck.</p>
<p>
Yep. There’s no good outcome here, is there?</p>
<p>JYM, I’d like to say that your experience, insight and observations have been very valuable in helping to further clarify this situation.</p>
<p>The kids can’t be adopted unless Nadya signs away her parental rights, which she won’t do. But if the authorities believe that she can’t care for them properly, they can be put into foster care. I just hope they can do that before having to send them “home” with Nadya to prove that she can’t cope.</p>
<p>I guess Nadya still has a chance of receiving big donations of money, etc. to help her out, but I hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t think that Nadya is capable of coordinating the care that would be needed to take care of so many kids, and so many with special needs, including 8 premies.</p>
<p>Without the big donations, she won’t even have a decent place to live with the previous 6 kids. The house will be gone, since it is in foreclosure. Since her current situation doesn’t even allow for a mortgage payment, what kind of apartment could they afford? And worn out grandparents can’t be expected to be a reliable source of total help for very much longer.</p>
<p>Thanks, ZM.
I agree that since Nadya seems to be skilled in the “get other people /organizations to pay for her lifestyle” (living off parents, WC, state funding for the kids she was able to have identified as disabled, etc) she will continue to seek out subsidies for her living expenses, whether through state/federal funding , WIC, or atempts to go after deep pockets. I agree, the negligent one here is that fertility Dr. She should go after him, though I wouldnt be at all surprised if his clinic has all clients sign a waiver and agreement not to sue as part of the initial contract/consent form. </p>
<p>Any lawyer that takes her case to sue Kaiser is a bigger fool than she is.</p>
<p>Gladmom-
States can sever a parents parental rights. It doesent happen easily, typically requiring that the parent comply with the requirements they set forth for the parent to follow while the kids are in foster care (eg parenting classes, training in care for fragile babies, or whatever), but it does happen.</p>
<p>While I have appreciated some of the tougher (marginally) questions Dr. Phil asked, one thing no interviewer has touched on is that hospital bill. While Suleman claims to be supporting herself with food stamps (not welfare in her eyes) disability, school loans and her mother’s retirement savings, what is her insurance? Who did she think was going to pay that hospital bill, if not the taxpayers? Does she have any comprehension of what is going on in our country economically? This is the crux of people’s animosity, really.
Yesterday, after Dr. Phil, I switched over to Oprah and was devastated by Lisa Ling’s report on the “tent cities” springing up in Saramento—people with families who have lost their homes and jobs and are living in the open. What a contrast to Suleman’s blithe assurance that “money is only paper” --come on!
I don’t think anything can make this situation palatable–but I would like to see a genuine understanding of the far reaching consequences of her decisions–I would also like to see a heartfelt appreciation of her parents’ sacrifices over the years. I doubt either is coming any time soon.</p>
<p>jym, I know that parental rights can by severed by the state eventually in the worst cases. I just meant that I’ll bet she will never willingly terminate her rights. Any state action that would allow for the kids to be adopted by others would take a long time and require lots of proof that she is unable to care for them properly.</p>
<p>Whatever happens, I hope the kids don’t suffer.</p>
<p>And, yeah, siusplau, how can she claim that she isn’t “on welfare” when she has absolutely no resources to pay the hospital costs?</p>
<p>We all cross posted. yeah–I can’t imagine her ever terminating her rights. I really don’t know what is going to happen in the short term, but doubt they will go home with her at first.
In the long term, despite the lack of public support, I think there will be offers. Maybe not from the “classiest” of sources, but she will get some kind of deals to keep them all afloat. We cannot underestimate the power of the infotainment machine–look at how many d-listers out there that manage to eke out a living despite their lack of talent! I suspect that is what will happen here—eventually—assuming she utimately gets the children all under one roof. She’ll have some kind of deal for photo spreads, day-in-the-life articles etc.</p>
<p>She’s back on Dr. Phil today, isn’t she? Not her live and in person, but more of their taped interview. As I said yesterday, I’m not a Dr. Phil fan, but I do think he is asking her the right questions. Her continuing to talk right over and through him is amazing. Also, she never reflects before answering. She’s so glib.</p>
<p>I agree-- she will not willingly give the kids up. And I also agree about her demeanor on TV- her facial expressions (well, at least those parts of her face that move) seem to range from scowls with furrowed brows to smirks. She interrupts others, talks over them, and blurts out comments without sufficient forethought or self reflection. Her poor judgement, planning and problem-solving skills are downright scary.</p>
<p>She is indeed on Dr Phil again today. I have been vehemently disgusted by her, however, Dr. Phil is doing a terrific job understanding that society is not donating and coming to her due the theory of rewarding bad behavior…he also is right that by punishing her we are punishing the children…it is a horrific quandry that society is addressing…de we turn our back on her and punish the children or do we support her and hope that she “gets it”.</p>
<p>In the end of the day, I am not willing to support her directly…I would have no problem donating money if there was a legal executor distributing the funds, but as a parent I will never be able to wrap myself around the idea that any single Mom with no job could rationalize impregnating herself with 6 embryos because they were her babies without looking at the damage that she is doing to to children that already exist…it is like that strangers mean more to her…that is what those embryos were…strangers with no emotional connection and only the ability that they could cause harm to the mental serenity of the children she already had.</p>
<p>I hope Dr. Phil politely rips her a new one, if you know what I mean. This woman is so painfully clueless. She shouldnt be taping episodes of Dr. Phil, ET, Insider, Greta Van Sustern, morning shows or whatever, she should be furiously exploring options and resources for her kids.</p>
<p>While I understand from a media and ratings perspecitive why Dr. Phil has her on, he should be smacking her with a (symbolic) 2X4 telling her she should get her s-h-*-t together, get her priorities straight, stop spending her time at the nail salon and tv studios and get focused on those kids. Maybe all 14 should be taken from her with emergency foster care placement since she is clearly not capable of providing for them. Is that what it will take to get her to open her eyes?</p>
<p>BTW, I doubt, until the dust is all settled, that anyone will foreclose on grandma’s house. They’ll stall on that for now, as that would get really bad press.</p>
<p><em>edit</em>* anyone else notice that the help from the church she supposedly belonged to hasn’t been heard about or from in a while??? And there hasnt seem to have been any current reports of donated diapers, blankets, pacifiers, babywipes, clothes, etc etc from sponsors either.</p>
<p>I don’t agree that by punishing Nadya (i.e., not donating), we are punishing the kids. If she can’t care for them, then the state will take over. “Donations” will be made by taxpayers in California. Not making personal donations isn’t “punishing” her. I think long and hard about which charitable organizations will receive my hard-earned money, and giving money to Nadya seems a bad choice to me. </p>
<p>The woman is clearly not able to care for the kids herself, even with grandparent help. Even if she does get the huge donations, I don’t think she is capable of making sure all the kids get what they need. Many adults have to be involved.</p>
<p>I doubt that she would be able to support herself alone, with no kids. In my opinion she has multiple mental illness issues.</p>
<p>If you have seen her parents being interviewed, including Oprah, they now feel the same way. My heart breaks for her parents b/c they are in a no win situation…don’t support her and the grandchildren will suffer…support her and she goes off and does irresponsible actions knowing she has the support.</p>
<p>Best result…tell Nadya that her parents have custody of the children…I believe society would come up to the table financially and physically knowing that they were raising the children. I keep thinking about the adage you need a license to drive, but there is no course or evaluation until after the damage has occurred to prove that you are responsible enough!</p>
<p>Obviously she can’t care for the children - I’m a physician, I spent time in a NICU (albeit years ago), I know I couldn’t take care of those kids even with significant help, including a relative who is a NICU nurse. Unfortunately for these babies, the law and DHR policy highly favors the parents, AND DHR is notoriously overworked. I pray that they look at the whole situation and require stringent measures to allow these children to go home.
I actually suspect that the babies won’t go home in the end - I can see them going to a local children’s hospital for further care. Back in the day, we had kids who lived at the hospital for a year or 2, because they required special care and no one felt comfortable sending them home. Things have changed a lot with portable equipment and home nursing, but 8 is a huge number.</p>
<p>I’m surprised with the tone of this thread, especially a few pages back, that no one has brought up the topic of her future fertility - I remember early on there was discussion of her problems, but could she have unassisted pregnancies? Ponder that for a minute.</p>
<p>Hi cangel- good to see you!</p>
<p>Actually, glad you brought up future fertility issues. I had thought about it too, though I strongly suspect no doctor would help her if she tried to pursue IVF again (and since she says she hasn’t had sex in over 6 yrs, lets hope she maintains that pattern!)
There is actually a discussion in this thread <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe-election-politics/658878-colorado-state-senator-hopes-babies-get-seriously-ill-aids-punish-their-moms.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe-election-politics/658878-colorado-state-senator-hopes-babies-get-seriously-ill-aids-punish-their-moms.html</a> about forced/voluntary sterilization. I thought about mentioning Nadya but decided to defer for the time being. However, that said, if truth be told, I think she’d be a prime candidate!</p>
<p>*** forgot to mention, b&p, since the state usually prefers to place kids with family first whenever possible, the grandma, if she wanted to take the responsibility, would be a first line choice ( Nadya’s parents are divorced, arent they? And isn’t Nadya’s dad going back to a contract job in Iraq to help pay for the current kids??). I have to wonder if grandma’s softer tone in the last day or so was possibly because whe was considering the foster mom role (foster parents do get subsidy from the state in most states too, to help defray costs. It isnt much, but its something). As much of a bulldozer as Nadya is, and as much as she ran all over her mom in the interviews, I would hope that s there would be support for the grandma in setting limits on Nadya. At the very least Nadya needs not to live under the same roof as the kids if they are in foster care, even if grandma is the foster parent.</p>
<p>I don’t think that if given the opportunity, she wouldn’t try to have more children. Someone mentioned earlier that she would be hard pressed to find a fertility doctor that would go anywhere near her , with all of the publicity she has received.
I would wonder if any man would be too interested in " being" with her with all of the publicity as well.
I hope that a long hospital stay isn’t going to happen for these babies. I would think that would impact them too, in terms of bonding and development.</p>
<p>Re: post 1015-
Given the enormity of the financial needs of these kids, and the scope required to manage funds, state resources, donations or what have you, I’d guess that an outside individual or agency will be appointed to manage the funds, and a GAL (guardian ad litem) will be appointed to look out for the best interests of the kids. Little by little, the kids needs will take front and center stage (as they should) and Nadya’s involvement in the management of their needs will, IMO, be gently pushed back by the systems that are put into place. The state is responsible for looking out for the needs of the kids, not the needs of Nadya. Good luck to you, Nadya. You will need it.</p>
<p>And sadly, lje62, I fear there are sick puppies out there that would happily sleep with Nadya. Lets hope they are smart enough to use birth control, even if she claims she cant have kids the “regular” way.</p>