Woman Gives Birth To Octuplets In California

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the updates, everyone. I'm really glad to read that they are seriously investigating all of the hinky factors here, the disability claims, the fertility clinic, etc. At least they are not just letting things slide on by, in the midst of all this publicity.

The Angelina Jolie connections are just totally weird. I can't tell for sure about her nose, but there is definitely something up (botox pumping up!) with her lips. I will not be surprised to find out that not only is she trying to "be" like AJ, but actually trying to outdo her as far as family size! :crazy:

I emailed the webmaster at www.awfulplasticsurgery.com and mentioned the Octomom, I'm sure others emailed too. Today there is a piece up about it.

Oh, I thought you were saying the doctor who helped her get disability was being investigated...........LOL, ya know that'll be next! :waitasec: These types of things usually work in networks, patient, doctors, lawyers.

I'm doin' fine, friend, thanks for your thoughts! :blowkiss:

:)
fran

The doc is being investigated!! :)
 
:furious:
Dad probably has no intentions of coming back to the states.(please don't yell at me for saying this). Let the American's pay for them.

Just saying:confused:

I'm not going to yell at you :), but your post is somewhat offensive. How do you know that they are not American citizens? Just because their family is Palestinian, doesn't mean they aren't just as much an American as you or I....just saying....

:blowkiss:

I live all the way across the country from CA and they are even talking about this story on my local news. With all the attention this has garnered, I have to believe the State of CA will step in. If they don't, and they allow her to go home with 8 babies, people will be in an uproar across the country!! This whole story is absolutely outrageous, and I agree with most of you, she seems a little unbalanced! Those poor, poor children.

:furious:
 
"The state documents describe Suleman becoming pregnant with her first child after a 1999 injury during a riot at a state mental hospital where she worked. Suleman feared she would lose the child and sunk into an intense depression, according to a psychological evaluation in her workers' compensation case. "When you have a history of miscarriages, you think it will take a miracle," she told Dr. Dennis Nehamen. "I just wanted to die. I suspected I was pregnant but I thought, 'That's ridiculous.'"
But the 2001 birth of the baby "helped my spirits," Suleman said.
More than 300 pages of documents were disclosed to The Associated Press following a public records request to the state Division of Workers' Compensation. Among other things, they reveal that Suleman collected more than $165,000 in disability payments between 2002 and 2008 for the work injury, which she said left her in near-constant pain and helped end her marriage."
(from the link Fran posted)



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090207/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

I am confused about this article. So during the riot when she got her "injury", she was also pregnant and sunk into a depression. Then the birth of the baby in 2001 got her out of the depression? Wouldn't she have had that baby sometime in 2000 if she was pregnant in 1999? Instead of having it in 2001? I'm sure she had another 2001, yet the wording in the article is confusing.

$165,000 in disability payments is ridiculous if the woman is claiming a back injury and gets that much money, yet she can have 14 kids since then. I guess pregnancy isn't hard on her back. Ha! I don't believe her stories.

Hi Meow333. I posted a rough outline of dates that I gleaned from an earlier article that had been posted in this thread by Jholi. You might find the answer you're looking for there. It was post #337 of this thread. Maybe now that some more information has come out we can tighten up a timeline? :)
 
I don't know if I should chuckle and think it was a flubbed moment for the mother, or feel sorry for the babies... or maybe both. Anyhow what I am referring to: I just saw an NBC teaser promoting the upcoming interview and the sound-bite they used was Curry (with a bemused look on her face) asking her something like "you forgot one of the babies names?". If she has forgotten what she has named one of the children, she's not doing herself any good by saying so. She should have really thought this interview through and waited to get her life straightened out, instead of running right to the camera.

This is just such a bad situation... I even heard a psych professional on the weekend Today show, yesterday morning, saying that the mother is in need a lot of help (mentally) to insure the children will be raised in a stable home. (or something along that line.)
 
I don't know if I should chuckle and think it was a flubbed moment for the mother, or feel sorry for the babies... or maybe both. Anyhow what I am referring to: I just saw an NBC teaser promoting the upcoming interview and the sound-bite they used was Curry (with a bemused look on her face) asking her something like "you forgot one of the babies names?". If she has forgotten what she has named one of the children, she's not doing herself any good by saying so. She should have really thought this interview through and waited to get her life straightened out, instead of running right to the camera.

This is just such a bad situation... I even heard a psych professional on the weekend Today show, yesterday morning, saying that the mother is in need a lot of help (mentally) to insure the children will be raised in a stable home. (or something along that line.)

I have just seen a few clips of the interview, and really, that is the first thing that I thought of on seeing and hearing the Mom - she is, to me, not very stable, and I seriously think anyone encouraging her, or paying her, is doing wrong by the kids. I know I will not be supporting any company that in any way gives her money or products. This woman needs a lot of mental help, that is for sure. What worries me is that when these kids don't turn out to be the money maker she planned on, or she doesn't get her gig as a tv child care expert (hello??!?!??) she might take it out on the babies.
 
This is a snip of an article I read on FOX:

Suleman also said she had never been on welfare and would find a way to get by with the help of family, friends and her church. She said she planned to return to school in the fall.

This woman doesn't have a clue.:bang: WHO is He!! does she think is going to take care of her 14 babies (the first 6 aren't much more than babies) while she's lolly gagging in school~!!!!! :mad:
Her mother says she's leaving when the babies come home.....

I'm generally a lurker, but I'm incensed, can you tell??:furious:
 
This is a snip of an article I read on FOX:

Suleman also said she had never been on welfare and would find a way to get by with the help of family, friends and her church. She said she planned to return to school in the fall.

This woman doesn't have a clue.:bang: WHO is He!! does she think is going to take care of her 14 babies (the first 6 aren't much more than babies) while she's lolly gagging in school~!!!!! :mad:
Her mother says she's leaving when the babies come home.....

I'm generally a lurker, but I'm incensed, can you tell??:furious:

I'm glad you came out of lurking, please don't go back:)
 
These are children born into a bad situation. They didn't ask to be born to a mother like Nadya, or brought into a world where they will suffer for her choices.

I think boycotting the companies who do chip in with supplies is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The end result of this kind of errant moralism is further suffering of the children. Shunning the mother for her outrageous behavior hurts the kids, and none of us want the children to suffer because you and I refuse to meet a need we can meet.

There has to be a middle ground where Nadya is denied her attention seeking games and forced to take responsibility (if she can or will) while the babies and children at home are cared for.

We pride ourselves in being the kind of society that takes care of our "poor" and "meek". Threatening the companies who may donate supplies to children who need them is the issue. These kids won't be raised by Nadya et al, anyway. At least not for a long time.
 
These are children born into a bad situation. They didn't ask to be born to a mother like Nadya, or brought into a world where they will suffer for her choices.

I think boycotting the companies who do chip in with supplies is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The end result of this kind of errant moralism is further suffering of the children. Shunning the mother for her outrageous behavior hurts the kids, and none of us want the children to suffer because you and I refuse to meet a need we can meet.

There has to be a middle ground where Nadya is denied her attention seeking games and forced to take responsibility (if she can or will) while the babies and children at home are cared for.

We pride ourselves in being the kind of society that takes care of our "poor" and "meek". Threatening the companies who may donate supplies to children who need them is the issue. These kids won't be raised by Nadya et al, anyway. At least not for a long time.

I have to agree with this. I was hoping Oprah et al would give the 2 million in a trust overseen by third parties, and when they do the shows, be sure not to paint her in a positive light.

Any gifts should be simple necessities. Food, diapers, etc. And any volunteers should make clear that they do not approve of what she did and aren't her help, but the children's.

Finding the balance between serving the kids' needs without rewarding her in any way isn't going to be easy, but will be critical to achieve.
 
That is a very good article, thanks Jholi.

This woman is reported to be 33, so depending on what her date of birth is, she was born in 1976 or 1977 give or take a year.

So she would have graduated from HS in or around 1994. I just added 18 years to her birth year. Does the math look okay so far?

Kat, I'm also 33 years old. I was born in 1975 and graduated from HS in 1993. I don't know what octuplet mom was up to right after HS. But, by 1995, I was finishing my sophomore yr of college and starting my junior year. Anyone who is 33 yrs old right now would have to have been either born in 1975 and turning 34 sometime in 2009 or born at the very early part of 1976 and have just turned 33 in January or this month. Just trying to add some perspective to the timeline, because it was mentioned again recently.
 
TY LillyRush:)


So she was probably born in 1975 and graduated High School in 1993.

In 1995 she has the first of her three ectopic pregnancies (The records are unclear about whether those pregnancies were the result of artificial insemination.)

A year later she marries Marcos G. 1996(?). She earns a psychiatric technician license from Mt. San Antonio College and began working at Metropolitan State Hospital, a psychiatric facility in Norwalk.

"On Sept. 18, 1999, 20 patients began rioting..." This is the date she was injured.

Keep in mind we don't know the dates of the other two ectopic pregnancies.

In 2000, she separated from Gutierrez, a split she blamed in part on her withdrawal and lack of interest in life."

2001 birth of the baby, I assume this child was IVF.

Anyone know the ages of the six older children? TIA :)
 
:furious:

I'm not going to yell at you :), but your post is somewhat offensive. How do you know that they are not American citizens? Just because their family is Palestinian, doesn't mean they aren't just as much an American as you or I....just saying....

:blowkiss:

I live all the way across the country from CA and they are even talking about this story on my local news. With all the attention this has garnered, I have to believe the State of CA will step in. If they don't, and they allow her to go home with 8 babies, people will be in an uproar across the country!! This whole story is absolutely outrageous, and I agree with most of you, she seems a little unbalanced! Those poor, poor children.

Sorry you took offense. The father is from Palestine and yes he could have applied for and recieved American citizenship. Although I do wonder about the alias,this family has been using. I live in a state that has numerous illegal immagrants living it,so I do wonder. JMO
 
:furious:

Sorry you took offense. The father is from Pakistan and yes he could have applied for and recieved American citizenship. Although I do wonder about the alias,this family has been using. I live in a state that has numerous illegal immagrants living it,so I do wonder. JMO


Sorry Nanny1 --
What gave you the impression the father was from Pakistan? I have read conflicting suggestions that he is either Palestinian or Iraqi, but this is the first I am hearing of his having origins in a non-Arabic-speaking country in Asia. Secondly, about the citizenship question -- does anyone have evidence that Nadya's father is NOT a US citizen? Thirdly, about this "alias" matter; since when has this family been using an alias? Is Suleman not their real name?
Sounds like a lot of misinformation to me. But I am open to persuasion if you have anything to back up your claims.
 
Sorry Nanny1 --
What gave you the impression the father was from Pakistan? I have read conflicting suggestions that he is either Palestinian or Iraqi, but this is the first I am hearing of his having origins in a non-Arabic-speaking country in Asia. Secondly, about the citizenship question -- does anyone have evidence that Nadya's father is NOT a US citizen? Thirdly, about this "alias" matter; since when has this family been using an alias? Is Suleman not their real name?
Sounds like a lot of misinformation to me. But I am open to persuasion if you have anything to back up your claims.

Sorry my mistake. I just corrected it. The family has also used the last name of Doud and it has been mentioned.
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/rd...ittierdailynews.com-www.whittierdailynews.com
 
These are children born into a bad situation. They didn't ask to be born to a mother like Nadya, or brought into a world where they will suffer for her choices.

I think boycotting the companies who do chip in with supplies is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The end result of this kind of errant moralism is further suffering of the children. Shunning the mother for her outrageous behavior hurts the kids, and none of us want the children to suffer because you and I refuse to meet a need we can meet.

There has to be a middle ground where Nadya is denied her attention seeking games and forced to take responsibility (if she can or will) while the babies and children at home are cared for.

We pride ourselves in being the kind of society that takes care of our "poor" and "meek". Threatening the companies who may donate supplies to children who need them is the issue. These kids won't be raised by Nadya et al, anyway. At least not for a long time.

If Nadya has not taken responsibility for the six children she already has I see nothing to support she will suddenly change and be responsible now.

Adoption would be a good solution the infants.
 
I have to agree with this. I was hoping Oprah et al would give the 2 million in a trust overseen by third parties, and when they do the shows, be sure not to paint her in a positive light.

Any gifts should be simple necessities. Food, diapers, etc. And any volunteers should make clear that they do not approve of what she did and aren't her help, but the children's.

Finding the balance between serving the kids' needs without rewarding her in any way isn't going to be easy, but will be critical to achieve.

Sorry to disagree, but if we (the taxpayers) or "Oprah et al" are going to pay, they might as well be removed from the home. AFAIK Gerber, Pampers and others have said they are NOT donating items to the mom. No, the kids don't deserve to suffer because of their mom, but she doesn't deserve any enrichment from their birth either, so where do we draw a line? Donations IMO will just cause her to do less than she already has.

As for her not being on welfare, AFAIK she's been receiving disability and has been investigated for a false claim. She's pretty darn close to welfare at this point.
 
Sorry to disagree, but if we (the taxpayers) or "Oprah et al" are going to pay, they might as well be removed from the home. AFAIK Gerber, Pampers and others have said they are NOT donating items to the mom. No, the kids don't deserve to suffer because of their mom, but she doesn't deserve any enrichment from their birth either, so where do we draw a line? Donations IMO will just cause her to do less than she already has.

As for her not being on welfare, AFAIK she's been receiving disability and has been investigated for a false claim. She's pretty darn close to welfare at this point.
I agree about the welfare and her being a leech.

I don't know where to draw the line. :( I don't want to decide what's best until we see more about and from the grandparents.

But I think taking them away, especially as long as private money is supporting them, will be more difficult to defend.

My biggest concern with removing the kids is the effect it will have on siblings. Not just the octuplets, but the older sibs who know about them.
 
I must have missed something about Oprah. Is Oprah giving Nadya 2 million dollars to help out with the babies? I'd also like to know if Nadya had any back surgeries for her injury or if she is claiming nerve injury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
1,099
Total visitors
1,260

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,830
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top