Octuplets' mom already has 6 young kids at home.

Parent Cafe
1661

<p>If you go on his website, he has clips, either video or transcript</p>

<p>Here is a link
[Dr</a>. Phil.com](<a href=“Official Website | Dr. Phil Primetime”>Official Website | Dr. Phil Primetime)</p>

<p>The most telling part was from a third attorney that Dr.Phil brought on:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>KEY STATEMENT:
She’s got to get better, because she is going to be at risk of losing these children. This cannot continue, because these children will become failure to thrive</p>

<p>2nd KEY STATEMENT from another response:
“In order to remove children from their parents, the children have to be in immediate danger of physical abuse or sexual abuse, or the environment is an immediate threat to the children’s health and safety. That’s to remove the child without a court order. You’re essentially arresting a child. Social workers have the police power to come into your home, if the child is in immediate danger,” the attorney says. “In this case, although Tuesday night when the first babies came home, I don’t think we got to that point of immediate danger, but I do believe that it was very toxic to the children. I believe that when you over-stimulate premature babies like that, that that can have a long-term effect on their development. They have a problem with sensory integration as adults. These are very serious issues.”</p>

<p>Put those 2 together and you can see Nadya is basically holding on with a thread in keeping these children. When a 3rd party acknowledges that there are serious issues, they also shade it. Again I think this attorney believes AIW is more credible than Nadya</p>

<p>This is a third party and if I was Nadya’s lawyer I would walk away and tell her STEP UP and DO IT NOW, because the next headline you will see is CPS places OctoMoms children in Foster Care</p>

1662

<p>Thanks, B&P.</p>

1663

<p>My extremely subjective take on highlights from today’s dr phil show (remembering I am much more sympathetic to Nadya’s plight than the general public)</p>

<p>Gloria Aldred got into this for publicity herself. She is not motivated by altruism. She keeps demanding full disclosure and utter transparency for Nadya. Who appointed her God? If home health care nurses, who are mandated to report abuse, are in the home every other day (as reported yesterday and not challenged) that seems enough monitoring to me. Why should Nadya be subjected to full disclosure of her parenting to the general public?
Linda (AIW) is completely unprofessional. She absolutely appalls me. She is indignant Nadya wouldn’t allow her to teach Nadya (already a mom of six) how to care for her own children.
Nadya says the teaching was unnecessary, her babies are not fragile and have no medical issues, and that the nannies had had chest x-rays and were confirmed non-contagious. If I understood that exchange correctly.
Dr. Phil points out that the foster care system in this country is such that it is impossible to just take these babies away from Nadya and give them to someone else because there is a public outcry. He also sort of says Nadya gets blamed no matter what: whether the state pays for the babies or if she arranges for the media to pay for their care in some way.
Nadya’s lawyer explained that the controversial hot tub installation was a replacement of a leaking upstairs bathtub in the new house that was causing damage to rooms downstairs, said the house would require more repairs and indicated he was regretful not to have been involved in the purchase because of this sort of problem.
Child Advocate Lawyer explained concept of “good enough” mothering and that so far Nadya is a “good enough” mother but thought there are serious concerns and there still exists a real possibility the children will be removed from her care.
Audience response: one woman says the media has been portraying Nadya negatively from the beginning, “We believe what the media reports as if it is true. I have read she spent $1000 on cosmetics in some reports but that in others it was $12.”</p>

<p>B&P: IMHO parents must provide a certain level of care for their children. It does not matter who provides that care: moms, dads, grandparents, or hired caregivers.The children do need a consistent primary caregiver with whom they can bond. I really don’t think we want to get into a debate about career moms (and DADS) vs childcare workers vs SAHMs or SAHDs.</p>

1664

<p>"Gloria Aldred got into this for publicity herself. "</p>

<p>Of course. Nadya is going to attract a lot of people who do good for her in order to do well themselves. That’s the nature of basically having a family that is a sideshow, and also has great financial need.</p>

<p>“Linda (AIW) is completely unprofessional. She absolutely appalls me. She is indignant Nadya wouldn’t allow her to teach Nadya (already a mom of six) how to care for her own children.
Nadya says the teaching was unnecessary, her babies are not fragile and have no medical issues, and that the nannies had had chest x-rays and were confirmed non-contagious. If I understood that exchange correctly.”</p>

<p>Given Nadya’s bad decision making skills – ranging from deciding to have invitro fertilization again despite raising 6 kids – including twin toddlers and an autistic child – as a single parent – to lack of insight about what it would mean to take care of the 7 kids she found out she was carrying – indicate that she’s not a good mother and could benefit from parenting education.</p>

<p>Her saying that her infants are not fragile and have no medical issues is further proof of her lack of judgment, and her way of handling situations by denial. While her octuplets seem to be remarkably healthy for preemies, since they are preemies, they are at risk of having a variety of problems, and they are more fragile than are other newborns. Heck, most parents understand that even healthy newborns are vulnerable, and such parents take precautions.</p>

1665

<p>NSM: I couldn’t possibly argue Nadya is a good mother. However, she may be a “good enough” mother. I would absolutely argue Linda is not a “good enough” nurse, just by the fact of appearing on TV and discussing a client if nothing else.</p>

<p>I’m still distressed by the ET tape of the reporter feeding the infant in a nursery crowded with camera crew.</p>

1666

<p>Gloria was on the local radio today. I cannot personally stand her but I know some of you would like to know what she said. Highlights: kids (not the babies) up until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. One was in the back yard around 1:00 right before some intruder/stalker went in there. Nadya called 911 and pretended to be a nurse (that was the way I understood that ramble), the lawyer came in yelling in earshot of babies and so forth, Nadya is putting in a jacuzzi next to her bedroom (or somewhere.) Yes, the called CPS a few times. She has washed her hands off of Nadya. Etc. Not sure if it’s on the web. It’s Ryan Seacrest’s morning radio show – here is the link [On-Air</a> with Ryan Seacrest on 102.7 KIIS-FM](<a href=“http://ryan.kiisfm.com/main.html]On-Air”>http://ryan.kiisfm.com/main.html) I did not listen to the whole thing.</p>

1667

<p>Back in 1990 when I gave birth to my D, I was in a 1 bedroom apartment, approx. 900 sq. ft. It was a statute/law that I HAD to have a second bedroom for her by the time she was 1 year old. I had her on my own, so it was convenient to have her crib in my bedroom, and I didn’t see need for her own room at 1 year old, but I had to by law.</p>

<p>I am wondering are there not any laws or housing codes that prohibits 15 people being in 4 bedrooms, 2500 sq. ft.? I had more than 1/3 her square footage for myself and an infant, yet I was required to move to a 2 bedroom. I do realize certain HOA’s have restrictions on occupancy numbers, but is there nothing in place to mandate Nadya and her 14?</p>

1668

<p>mimk6…I recall that a neighbor called CPS a yr ago for something similiar to this…kids just wandering around the yard at all hrs and she was nowhere to be found.</p>

<p>GA2012MOM…there are regs, however it is determined by city code. So 14 kids that are familiar can be totally acceptable, since they may go by an age/sex situation.</p>

<p>Just looked on Dr Phil boards, it seems overwhelmingly that they still aren’t becoming a Nadya cheerleader fan. Got to go b/c it is on now! I have to look for this jacuzzi comment, b/c people are talking about her action during it. </p>

<p>NEXT WEEEKS HEADLINE: JEFF CZECH QUITS! </p>

<p>FINDS HER TOO CONTROLLING…OOPS isn’t that what the 1st 2 publicists stated after quitting?</p>

1669

<p>She is too “controlling” by being totally out of control, with complete lack of self control.</p>

<p>A jacuzzi? Yikes. 14 kids and she adds a jacuzzi outdoors. And I read on this board that it was suggested she put in a security system but she went out and bought a jacuzzi instead.</p>

1670

<p>^^I would be interested in clarification on the jacuzzi. Nadya’s lawyer said there was a tub replaced in an upstairs bathroom that the children use. He said the tub was leaking through to downstairs and photos were shown.</p>

<p>I absolutely think a security system is mandatory (and maybe a bodyguard)</p>

1671

<p>It would help if the bodyguard could also perform nanny duties. :)</p>

<p>Just because someone has 6 kids doesn’t mean that she is a competent mother who couldn’t learn a thing or two. Nanny 911 and other shows like it prove that in spades!</p>

<p>Why can’t kids come with instruction booklets? Probably wouldn’t matter, because I rarely read those things anyway until I have a problem…</p>

1672

<p>I made myself watch the Dr. Phil show today. It was an eye opener. </p>

<p>For one thing, the Jacuzzi is a replacement for one that leaked in the upstairs bathroom. There is a media feeding frenzy to put Nadya in the worse possible light, although, she certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. Some of it seems blown out of proportion though (the Jacuzzi, for instance). </p>

<p>Gloria Aldred and her Angels in Waiting did something that I didn’t think possible. They turned me into a lukewarm Nadya supporter. I would have tossed those battle axes out on their ear as well. It was obvious that they were setting up a confrontational atmosphere in the home. Nadya, no doubt, has her issues and I worry for the safety and well being of all of her children, but those women were not in any way helping the situation.</p>

1673

<p>The media tells us stories. From the beginning, they have chosen to portray this woman in the most negative light possible IMHO. </p>

<p>What if this had been the spin instead: A naive young woman (early 20s), knowing she is unlikely to ever conceive naturally, makes an agreement with a wealthy older woman to provide donor eggs in return for her own IVF treatment. From that point on she is taken advantage of by an unscrupulous doctor to improve his IVF success statistics. Understanding her immaturity and need for attention, he pressures her to have more and more babies even when it is clear she has neither the financial or emotional means to care for them and refuses to listen to her parents’ urgent pleas to stop.</p>

<p>When the IVF is successful beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings, she is left to cope on her own with a very angry public. She is denounced for accepting public aid. She is denounced for selling access to the babies. Every salacious detail of her past is dredged up and exposed, along with some invented tales. She receives death threats. A press seeking attorney tries to seize control of her infants by providing “free” childcare. When she realizes what is happening and bars the nurses from her home, they go to the press and accuse her of being an uncaring and neglectful mother etc etc etc</p>

<p>HeliMomNYC - page 42, post 616
Are you still reading?</p>

1674

<p>Granted the media is portraying Nadya in the worst possible light, but we are all savvy enough to see beyond the hype. Many of us dislike Kate intensely, but we also realize that the editing done to show her in the most contentious light. However, there is no doubt that the kids are loved by both parents and well taken care of. </p>

<p>You really have to stretch it to place Nadya’s behavior in a positive light. If she is so naive as to be taken advantage of by an unscrupulous doctor to boost his IVF stats, when should she realize it if she doesn’t have other mental problems? Did he do it for free? </p>

<p>As parents, we KNOW that these kids cannot be well taken care of by Nadya. Maybe she’ll be “good enough” but I wonder about that. An autistic child as well as other with handicaps take an enormous amount of time, often leaving the “normal” ones to fend for themselves. Twins take a lot time. Toddlers take a lot of energy. Children under school age must be supervised even in the most childproofed house. Does anyone believe that all the cabinets/medications/cleaning product/kitchen utensils are safely locked away. Are there locks on all the toilets? Are there gates at the stairs? Corner protectors on the sharp tables? Covers on the power outlets? </p>

<p>Infants are fragile. Preemies are especially so, even if they have no “apparent” health problems. Aren’t many at risk for sleep apnea? Some may have digestive problems? Aren’t you supposed to measure carefully the formula taken by preemies to make sure they’re eating/digesting/gaining weight properly? Infants who aren’t can nosedive quickly and be in serious danger.</p>

<p>This is a train wreck waiting to happen. I guess we’re all hoping the children can get off the train before it actually hits the wall.</p>

1675

<p>coronax2: I am sooo glad I’m not the only one who took that impression away from the show!</p>

<p>tango14: I share your concern about all the children. </p>

<p>During the Dr. Phil shows it was stated that the hospital is sending home health care workers every other day to check on the infants. They are also training nannies for Nadya. Although they have not been in the news, they seem to be overseeing the safety of the infants. And all the infants have not been released to come home, as far as I know. There seem to be guidelines in place that Nadya must meet for the hospital to release infants to her care. This is my understanding but some of you must have a lot more information on this.</p>

<p>It is not inconceivable to me that all the babies may never be released to her care. I keep trying to figure out the logistics of caring for 8 infants and 6 young children, including a set of 2yr old twins and it is mind boggling. Not to brag (LOL) but even though I consider myself a bit of a supermom and think I am capable of meeting just about any challenges in the parenting department – probably this would be beyond my capabilities even with unlimited resources. I really don’t see how all the children’s needs can be met (if they are kept together) except in what is essentially some sort of institutional setting.</p>

<p>But I remained glued to the TV waiting for the next installment…</p>

1676

<p>

</p>

<p>That is a good observation. What would be better for a child, to grow up in a fairly chaotic institution-like setting with his siblings and real mother or to grow up in a calm family setting with just a couple siblings but with visits to the others?</p>

<p>If it were me, I would want to be raised in a smaller family.</p>

1677

<p>Good point, alh–basically, the house in La Habra will be turned into what is essentially an institution.</p>

1678

<p>Considering that octomom, was propelled to become a baby factory to make up for her own parents lack of interest in that dept., I wonder what her children will think in twenty years.</p>

<p>My grandmother for instance, was one of ten daughters.
Ten was a large, but not unheard of size family in the rural midwest in the early 1900’s
No multiples, born over about 20 years or so.
( Its a good thing I guess for great-granma that she wasn’t married to Henry the VIII)
Since birth control was not nearly as effective as it is now, I think the lack of interest in having a large family is very telling.
Four of the women, including my grandmother, only had one child.
One died from an ectopic pregnancy.
One had no children ( but was married twice)
Three had two children, and one had four.</p>

<p>Whaddya wanna bet that less than 5 of them, even want to have kids?</p>

1679

<p>My son’s g/f has 5 younger siblings and for a long time did not want kids as she felt she had already helped raise 5, especially after her Mom left and she was really Mom to the youngest two who are 10-12 years her junior. She seems to be changing her mind now (happily as my son does want kids).</p>

1680

<p>Bullet and I know a couple where both of their parents were from a family of 7 kids (yep 4 parents in total and ea had 6 siblings). Both parents of our friends only had 1 ea. When the 2 got married we wondered which side they leaned to. They had 2 children, only because they wanted a sibling for the other. However, she told me once the reason why was that from the stories of all the parents they realized that their aunts and uncles stated either they raised their parent (our friends parent) or our friends parent raised them.</p>

<p>Even if you watch that reality show with the Duggars, you can see that there older siblings are at times used like another parent. Children should be children and not the 3rd, 4th or 5th parent in the home.</p>

<p>I said this many pages ago. Nadya relies on her parents to help raise these children, I wonder if in 20 yrs will she be willing to do the same. Or will she say I spent my life raising you guys and now its my time.</p>

<p>I believe that realistically some of these children will be dependent on her for the rest of her life for medical reasons. The old adage becareful of what you wish for may becme to much for her. I am not sure how severe her childs autism is, but if it is severe she will never be able to saythe child fly the coop and spread their wings. As a parent that was always my goal. I wanted to see them soar, I didn’t have them to keep me company.</p>

<p>I also agree, I don’t need the media to spin it in anyway, I am intelligent enough to call it on my own. When one publicist quits, you can get it, when another quits, you raise your eyebrows. When they come out and say she is a nutcase, then it validates your own thoughts.</p>

<p>As I watched the show yesterday, the place I saw spin was from her attorney. The bath tub was leaking and it had to be replaced, she replaced it with a jacuzzi. The attorney did not deny the jacuzzi, but tried to rationalize the purchase…i.e. tub leaking it had to be replaced. I am a realtor and that was a big red flag. Tubs very rarely have to be replaced due to a leak, typically it is a plumbing issue within the walls, thus a new tub wasn’t necessarily needed…let alone a jacuzzi that can cost over $1000 more than a std tub or a garden tub. Also in this market it is a buyers market. Buyers have inspections done, thus it would have been a contract issue that should have been negotiated before closing. It is rare that 2 weeks later an issue is found that is so bad it has to have an expensive item replaced. Finally, jacuzzi tubs are not the same size as a std tub, this means to me that she had to purchase a more exp jacuzzi to fit the std, or have the bath renovated to fit the jacuzzi. Either way you spin it she spent money while still receiving taxpayer money. Also if you know anything about jacuzzis those jets are great harborers of germs. Don’t use it frequently and you will see old scuzzy water come out of the jets as soon as you turn it on.</p>

<p>Her attorney did not deny her shopping instead he just spun it in his own way. </p>

<p>What I found comical was when Gloria Allred threw the stack of emails in his face, he told her he didn’t respond because he was too busy. ARE YOU BAGGING ME? This guy wants me to believe he is busier than her, but than tells her the paparazzi was there because of her being a high profile attorney. Which is it…reknown attorney (thus, she would be busy) or not.</p>

<p>He was slimy to me. He admitted that he got in the face of AIW nurses on that night and tried to kick them out b/c he didn’t know they were the nannies. Yet, he says on behalf of Nadya that AIW started. Where was Nadya when he got in their faces? She knew he was doing it. The house is only 2400 sqft, how many people besides AIW were there in the house? If it was alot, than again it proves the point she has no clue that her children come first.</p>

<p>Even the mandated reporter stated the house was filled with media and it was a commotion. This circus will die down as soon as she starts acting like a Mom and not a glory hound!</p>

<p>In the end when a 3rd party attorney that Dr. Phil brought on, states that Nadya is in a bad place and is at risk for losing the children, she was stating from an unbiased view and to AMerica that should be the voice you listen to.</p>