LuciaDisturbed
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,718
- Reaction score
- 3
They have teacher's aides in the elementary schools, and sometimes in Middle/Junior high schools.
Octuplets' grandmother faces foreclosure threat
- Thread starter ncff07
- Start date
They have teacher's aides in the elementary schools, and sometimes in Middle/Junior high schools.
Oceanbreeze
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,975
- Reaction score
- 5
It's against a woman's civil rights. YOU CAN'T force her to be sterilized. It's just not doable.
Lucia, use common sense. Would you want a judge telling you you should tie your tubes or you must have a hysterectomy simply because you're deaf or you have a mental illness? No, you wouldn't. It's the same thing here. Regardless of how negligent this woman is, it's simply NOT doable to force sterilization on her. If someone were to do that to this woman, they can do it to others. I would NOT want that precendence set!
The best thing for those children is to remove them from the Mother's care until she can prove she can care for them. Daredevil, I agree with you. IT IS the best solution!
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 17,113
- Reaction score
- 1,175
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 17,113
- Reaction score
- 1,175
It gives somewhat of a concept of managing children behavior wise. Yes, bec a teacher doesn't have to support the students with everyday needs that can only be provided by parents.
On the Dr. Phil show , Nayda Suleman will appear on the show and maybe, there will be some answers to peoples' questions. Tune in to the show, Thursday, February 26, 2009
Check your local listing for the time
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,951
- Reaction score
- 25
On the Dr. Phil show , Nayda Suleman will appear on the show and maybe, there will be some answers to peoples' questions. Tune in to the show, Thursday, February 26, 2009
ummmm thanks but no thanks.. ill skip that. if i want to see a freak show ill go to the circus or something.
Tousi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 18,470
- Reaction score
- 181
Babyblue
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 12,187
- Reaction score
- 5
3rd graders can have one teacher for 25 kids....
thought you meant 3 year olds. ooops!!
Babyblue
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 12,187
- Reaction score
- 5
Not in all classes or all the time.
It is rare to see a teachers aid nowadays. Most schools rely on volunteers.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 142
LuciaDisturbed
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,718
- Reaction score
- 3
Part 1:
I agree.
I've been attacked in another thread :roll: for saying that it is humanely IMPOSSIBLE to care for the eight fragile babies along with caring for the 6 older children that are 7 and under, and IMPOSSIBLE to keep all 14 children safe from all kinds of dangers that are around the house that are often overlooked, etc, especially once the octuplets have learned how to crawl and pull themselves up to stand up with support of various objects, when there is only ONE ADULT. I still stand by my opinions and I feel that Kaiser is doing the right thing in not possibly discharging the fragile octuplets to Nadya until she has appropriate living arrangements to safely care for all 14 children and so that all the 14 children can live together comfortably. Trying to fit/cram all 14 children along with Nadya and her parents into a 3 bedroom house is like putting all the cats and kittens and dogs and puppies in cages at the Humane Society, to fit the animals all in cages and kennels in small rooms. 14 children plus 3 adults (Nadya and her parents) which makes 17 people living in a 3 bedroom house is just too cramped for everyone, and no one is going to be comfortable at all, especially the children. I just do not see how she can fit all 14 children comfortably in 3 bedrooms, even if the mother chose to sleep in the living room or something, the 3 bedrooms still would not be enough to fit all 14 children comfortably. The 6 children would end up in 6 bunk beds, one child per bed (2 or more children sharing a single bed would not be acceptable by CPS, I'm pretty sure) and the octuplets would end up in cribs, one baby per crib too, (2 or more babies sharing a crib might not be acceptable by CPS either). Bunks are two beds high. That's 3 sets of bunk beds which makes a total of 6 beds. I think you can only fit 2 sets of bunk beds in 1 bedroom, maybe 3 sets if the bedroom is big enough and you can arrange it in such a way so that it does not violate health and fire codes and regulations as well as the CPS regulations/rules/guidelines of how many children allowed per bedroom. If the bedroom is big enough to fit 3 sets of bunk beds for the oldest 6 children, the question still is how would you fit 8 babies in another room? (If the grandparents still sleep in the 3rd bedroom - I think since they own the house and have been falling behind in their mortgage payments in order to provide for the oldest 6 children, they deserve their own bedroom for comfort, since they have done so much for Nadya and her 6 oldest kids, they should get to sleep in their own room) Without sharing cribs? One baby per crib? I'm looking around my bedroom right now surveying how one would arrange eight cribs into one normal-sized bedroom. I looked around my normal-sized bedroom and it looks like I would only be able to fit 5 cribs into my bedroom if my bedroom was empty, and even so, that still does not leave enough space for a changing table (to change diapers). Therefore, I would reduce the number of cribs to 4 per bedroom so there would be room for a changing table. That still leaves 4 more babies with nowhere to sleep, and the 3rd room would be where the grandparents are sleeping in (unless the grandparents chooses to find somewhere else to sleep, but they deserve to have their own room since this is their own house that they bought, and they have done everything for and have provided everything for Nadya and the oldest 6 children, and it would not be fair to kick them out of their bedroom). They would be sleeping in a queen or king size bed, so there would not be room for 4 cribs in that room, either. I have a queen size bed myself, and if I removed my TV, the TV stand, my dresser, my night table, my lamp stand, my computer desk, my computer, and another set of drawers and some shelves, and a floor fan, I would still only be able to fit only ONE crib in my bedroom, and a changing table as well, and my bedroom is normal-sized. That still leaves 3 babies with nowhere to sleep. I don't think babies living in the living room would be acceptable by CPS in California, but it is not acceptable at all in Wisconsin - I was told by my foster mom who I used to live with when I was in high school that it is not acceptable by CPS in Wisconsin. I know that cramming 17 people, of which 14 are minors, would not be allowed by CPS at all in any state if this was a foster home. It's not a foster home, but, if we followed the CPS regulations of how many children to a room, etc, this 3 bedroom house would not be acceptable at all no matter what. Also, even though I do not know all the CPS regulations/rules/guidelines in California for how many children per bedroom according to the bedroom sizes and also how many children to how many square feet you have in your entire home, I do know that in Wisconsin, if you were a foster family, you are only allowed to have a maximum of 2 children to a bedroom if it is a normal sized bedroom. If the room is smaller than normal, then only 1 child can be in that room no matter what, even if you put bunk beds in there. That is not acceptable to the Wisconsin CPS. Their rules are that if you can fit 2 single beds and a dresser in a normal room, both beds has to be on the floor without having to stack them like bunk beds, and still have about 3 feet in between the beds to walk between the 2 beds and neither beds nor the other bedroom furniture are blocking the way to the door in case of a fire, then you can put 2 children in that normal room. If you can only fit 1 bed in a smaller room without stacking the beds like bunk beds and can still fit 1 dresser, then only 1 child is allowed in that smaller room. If the room is much bigger than those two room sizes I mentioned and you want to put more than 2 children in that room, then you have to have the CPS authorities come to your home and measure the bedroom and then determine how many children can be allowed in that bigger room according to how many square feet is in that room. No children are allowed to be sleeping in the living room or in a basement, it has to be a regular normal bedroom meant for the children to sleep in, play in, and do other normal things. CPS also comes out to your house if you want to become a foster parent and they measure your entire house and then determine how many children you can foster at one time in addition to the children of your own. Sometimes, if you have a large family (both foster children plus children of your own) you have to get a special license to foster an additional child or two. That's what the CPS did in one foster home I was in, because it was a large family, but CPS allowed me to come live with them and licensed them for an additional child so that they could take me in because one of the parents were deaf and they all use ASL so they could accommodate my needs as a deaf child. In this home, I had my own room because it was too small for two children. I know this much because I grew up in foster care. Sometimes I shared a room if the room is big enough, and sometimes, I had a room to myself because it is too small for 2 children, and I was told all this by one of my foster mothers who has been fostering for a really long time, for many years. CPS in Wisconsin does not allow for children to be living in cramped living quarters. I am not sure how it works in California as I have never lived in California, but I am pretty sure that the CPS there have similar rules and regulations and guidelines of how many children are allowed to sleep/live in a room according to how many square feet the room has. And since Nadya is living in a 3 bedroom house, it's pretty likely the CPS will not allow her to have the babies come home until she finds something much much much more suitable than what she has right now. There's also the concern of how many bathrooms that house has. She has 6 children at home plus her parents and herself....that's 9 people, and if the house has only 1 bathroom...I truly feel sorry for the grandparents and for the children, I wouldn't be surprised if the children had frequent accidents because the bathroom is always occupied at the worst possible moments. So, add 8 more babies, and when they get old enough to use the toilet...that will be 17 people and one bathroom. CPS might find this unacceptable (maybe not now, but when the babies become old enough to use the toilet - around 2 or 3 years old). There is bound to be tons of accidents because very small children cannot hold their bladder or their bowels for even one minute. Especially if Nadya tries to start to toilet-train them when they are old enough to begin toilet training. That's going to be quite a feat, if there is only one bathroom. The small children being toilet trained might start thinking, "oh well, I'll pee in my pants and mommy will just clean me up" and that will become a problem, and they might not be successfully toilet trained until they are much older because they have to wait ALL the time for the bathroom to be free if there is 17 people in the house and someone is ALWAYS in there. I know children should learn patience, but that's going to be very difficult with eight very small children of the same age. Imagine trying to toilet-train eight children all at the same time, anyway, that is still going to be quite a feat even if there are 4 bathrooms or more. And then there are the grandparents who are old enough to develop bladder issues, especially incontinence.
I know very well that this is not a foster home, but is her own family, but I have a feeling that CPS in California might use the regulations/rules/guidelines that they use for foster homes to determine whether the 3 bedroom house is adequate for all 14 children, and they may look at many other things to determine whether Nadya can provide for, care for, and keep all 14 children safe all on her own with no one to help her at all, since her parents are clearly refusing to help her anymore, her mother already had said so. Right now they are only allowing her to stay at home, but it looks like they won't be doing anything anymore.
Continued in next post.
Last edited:
LuciaDisturbed
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,718
- Reaction score
- 3
Part 2:
If she wants to prove to Kaiser or the State of California and CPS that she can provide adequate and proper housing for all of her 14 children, and that she can keep all 14 children safe and out of any kind of danger, I would think she should get a place that has 8 bedrooms and at least 2 bathrooms (4 would be preferable), which is of course going to be completely and humanely impossible for her to get because of course she has no job therefore no income except the measly public assistance checks and the measly food stamps she gets each month (if it was just one person, the food stamps are usually plenty, but if you have a family, that's when you start to really feel the pinch and it becomes measly, I believe the government has a website that lists the amount of food stamps for each family size) and plus the cost of living in California is quite very high, so there is no way in hell she will ever be able to afford even a crappy run-down 8 bedroom house even in the ghetto. Even a house in the ghetto with that many bedrooms will cost $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ even if it has just one bathroom, and even then, it would be falling apart, which of course would not be acceptable by CPS at all anyway, rundown houses often have so many fire regulation violations and health regulation violations and so many safety issues as well as the issue of lead paint especially if the house was built in the early 1900s. (I do not know what year they stopped making lead paint) And she would have to spend a very vast amount of time carefully inspecting the house and the front and back yard and garage and anywhere around the house to make sure it is completely child-proof and baby-proof (even then, I do not think you can achieve a 100% child-proof and baby-proof household) and still will overlook something, and with 14 children, one of them is bound to get hurt or harmed somehow by something that she may have overlooked, and she has no money to pay for someone to come and professionally inspect her house and the yards and the garage and anywhere around the outside of the house and to completely child/baby-proof it for her. And I do not know of any house that has more than 2 bathrooms and more than 6 bedrooms except the fancy mansions in the rich side of the town that rich families have, or where the celebrities live, etc, or if they are group homes or halfway houses (I have seen them and they are pretty bad!). I said that she should get a place that has 8 bedrooms and at least 2 (I prefer 4) bathrooms because of the CPS's guidelines/rules/regulations regarding how many children to a room depending on how many square feet a bedroom has, etc...if she got a place with 8 bedrooms, then 2 children can sleep in each bedroom if they are big enough, and the 8th room would be for Nadya. Or she could just get a 7 bedrooms place which would be a bit cheaper and sleep in the living room on the couch herself...sacrificing her own bedroom so that children will have adequate sleeping quarters won't kill her. She can just sleep on the couch. That's what responsible parents do, they sacrifice their own things that they want in order to make sure that their children get what they need and are comfortable and are healthy and safe. But to be completely honest, I don't think she can do any of this...she cannot even afford a one-room shack. So, it's just not going to happen. Unless someone who is filthy rich decides to buy a 8 bedroom house with 2 to 4 bathrooms and donates it to her. I hope someone does, for the sake of all the poor children. But the chances of that happening is pretty unlikely. We'll see. And that's my realistic opinion. No, I am not being unmerciful like one AD'er would like to claim, I am simply being realistic. Being realistic does not mean I am being unmerciful as sculleywr thinks I am being. I am not being merciful to anyone, but I do of course am disgusted with Nadya for making such inappropriate decisions to be implanted with SIX embryos, resulting in this unfortunate and dire situation, and for her not realizing that what she has done was wrong, especially when she is on public assistance, living in a 3 bedroom house with her parents, and no job and no other income, and no one to help her care for all of her children, especially since her parents are refusing to help her anymore now, and especially since she's already had SIX children who were conceived through previous IVF treatments which the state also paid for. Yes, I know the doctor was also wrong...but it's not only the doctor. It's both the doctor and Nadya, both of them are responsible for both of their actions. The doctor violated ethics and regulations by implanting SIX embryos fully knowing that it was a violation and fully knowing that all of SIX embryos making it IS possible, and knowing all the risks, and also fully knowing that she's already had six kids of her own already from previous IVF treatments, and yet did it. Nadya is also wrong because she ALLOWED the doctor to implant SIX embryos fully knowing all the risks involved and knowing that all of the embryos could take, that it was a possiblity, and yet she allowed him to do it anyway. A responsible mother would say "Stop! Don't implant so many into my uterus please, I don't want a litter! I only want one or two babies!" So, yes, I consider BOTH of them responsible for their actions. I think the doctor should lose his license, be tried in a court of law, convicted, and instead of being sentenced to prison (save the prison for murders, rapists, etc) he should be required to do community service for the rest of his life, working in food banks, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, clean up rivers, picking up trash on the sides of the highways, etc, do all sorts of community services for the rest of his life, and he will lose the privelege of ever practicing any kind of medicine ever again, and he also loses the right to use "Dr." before his name (such as "Dr.Whatsyourname").
I honestly think that placing the oldest 6 children with different relatives would be in the best interest of those children. They could visit each other whether they like, and they could visit their mother whether they like. I would like for all 6 to be placed with one same relative, but that's IF there is one relative that is willing to take in all 6 AND can afford everything for all of them and can provide medical, mental health, dental care, and vision care for all of them and is able to love them, nurture them, provide for, care for, and keep all of them safe as well as provide all 6 with adequate sleeping quarters and keep them comfortable (as in non-cramped housing, well-fed, appropriate clothing, etc).
Then I honestly think that placing each of the octuplets with an adoptive family once they are deemed stable and healthy enough to leave the hospital would be in the best interest of the octuplets. Up to 8 different adoptive families that have the ability to love them, nurture them, provide for, care for, keep the children safe, and the ability to provide proper medical and mental health and dental and vision care to the octuplets either out of their own pockets or from insurance through their full-time jobs and can afford everything, with very little to no government/public assistance. Clearly the octuplets will need the best medical care possible since they were born so premature, born extremely tiny and very low weight, and from being one of the biggest multiple birth babies, and with a whole host of different kinds of very serious medical problems and complications that will last them their whole lifetimes. I think one baby per adoptive families would be the best due to the costly medical bills, since it is pretty likely that most insurance companies may balk at paying 100% of all medical bills, and will only pick up maybe like 75% (just my estimate/guess) or even less of all medical bills, and there is also the concern of "pre-existing medical conditions" term that insurance companies like to use to get out of paying for certain medical bills. But if an adoptive family would like to adopt two babies, great, as long as the family can provide everything for the two babies. If there is actually some family out there that is so fucking rich and can afford everything in the world and they would like to adopt all the octuplets and love them and nurture them and can provide everything to them and can keep them safe and can pay all the medical, mental health, vision care, and dental care bills for their entire lifetimes and can afford to hire several helpers to help them keep all the babies safe and can provide appropriate housing and living/sleeping quarters and everything and, of course, not exploit them, then it would be completely wonderful to keep all the octuplets together and with one wonderful adoptive family. But the chances of that happening are very very very slim, maybe like .1% or even less chance of that happening. We all know that. Not many adoptive families wants to adopt a baby with extremely serious medical problems, and not many adoptive families wants to adopt eight babies with extremely serious medical problems.
If there is actually a family out there that is so fucking rich and can afford everything, can even afford to buy a country or whatever, and they want to adopt all 14 children, that would be so awesome, especially if they can care for, love them, nurture them, pay all the medical, dental, mental health and vision care bills from the day they adopt them to the day the children die of old age (or at least til age 18), have proper housing with appropriate sleeping quarters for all the children, can afford to feed them all, clothe them, can keep them all safe by being able to afford to hire several helpers to help the adoptive parents care for the children so that they are not all on their own, and everything else that all the children needs, that would be wonderful. But realistically...the chances of that ever happening is extremely slim, way even less than .1% or maybe .000001%.
Sculleywr thinks that I have no hope for them, but I do...but realistically, very little hope in Nadya being able to care for all of them and being able to keep all 14 kids safe. I, however, do have a lot of hope for all the children themselves, I hope that the octuplet babies will become stronger and become stable and that hopefully in a few months their medical problems that are going to last them their lifetimes will become more manageable and more stable, and that they will live for a long time, and that I hope they do not end up with something so serious that they will spend a large part of their lives in and out of the hospitals and stuff like that, that they will be able to lead a normal life. But, that might not happen, given the circumstances that they were born in. I hope that they won't be neglected, and I also hope that the oldest six children will not be neglected either. I do keep all these 14 children in my thoughts everyday and I hope somebody will help those children. I feel very sad and very sorry for those children. What Nadya is doing is very unfair to all those children.
Everyday I hope that these octuplets will get stronger and will live. Everyday I hope that their medical problems that they may have for the rest of their lives will turn out not to be as severe as the doctors predict they will be.
I know my posts are long, but those are all my thoughts on this situation.
If she wants to prove to Kaiser or the State of California and CPS that she can provide adequate and proper housing for all of her 14 children, and that she can keep all 14 children safe and out of any kind of danger, I would think she should get a place that has 8 bedrooms and at least 2 bathrooms (4 would be preferable), which is of course going to be completely and humanely impossible for her to get because of course she has no job therefore no income except the measly public assistance checks and the measly food stamps she gets each month (if it was just one person, the food stamps are usually plenty, but if you have a family, that's when you start to really feel the pinch and it becomes measly, I believe the government has a website that lists the amount of food stamps for each family size) and plus the cost of living in California is quite very high, so there is no way in hell she will ever be able to afford even a crappy run-down 8 bedroom house even in the ghetto. Even a house in the ghetto with that many bedrooms will cost $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ even if it has just one bathroom, and even then, it would be falling apart, which of course would not be acceptable by CPS at all anyway, rundown houses often have so many fire regulation violations and health regulation violations and so many safety issues as well as the issue of lead paint especially if the house was built in the early 1900s. (I do not know what year they stopped making lead paint) And she would have to spend a very vast amount of time carefully inspecting the house and the front and back yard and garage and anywhere around the house to make sure it is completely child-proof and baby-proof (even then, I do not think you can achieve a 100% child-proof and baby-proof household) and still will overlook something, and with 14 children, one of them is bound to get hurt or harmed somehow by something that she may have overlooked, and she has no money to pay for someone to come and professionally inspect her house and the yards and the garage and anywhere around the outside of the house and to completely child/baby-proof it for her. And I do not know of any house that has more than 2 bathrooms and more than 6 bedrooms except the fancy mansions in the rich side of the town that rich families have, or where the celebrities live, etc, or if they are group homes or halfway houses (I have seen them and they are pretty bad!). I said that she should get a place that has 8 bedrooms and at least 2 (I prefer 4) bathrooms because of the CPS's guidelines/rules/regulations regarding how many children to a room depending on how many square feet a bedroom has, etc...if she got a place with 8 bedrooms, then 2 children can sleep in each bedroom if they are big enough, and the 8th room would be for Nadya. Or she could just get a 7 bedrooms place which would be a bit cheaper and sleep in the living room on the couch herself...sacrificing her own bedroom so that children will have adequate sleeping quarters won't kill her. She can just sleep on the couch. That's what responsible parents do, they sacrifice their own things that they want in order to make sure that their children get what they need and are comfortable and are healthy and safe. But to be completely honest, I don't think she can do any of this...she cannot even afford a one-room shack. So, it's just not going to happen. Unless someone who is filthy rich decides to buy a 8 bedroom house with 2 to 4 bathrooms and donates it to her. I hope someone does, for the sake of all the poor children. But the chances of that happening is pretty unlikely. We'll see. And that's my realistic opinion. No, I am not being unmerciful like one AD'er would like to claim, I am simply being realistic. Being realistic does not mean I am being unmerciful as sculleywr thinks I am being. I am not being merciful to anyone, but I do of course am disgusted with Nadya for making such inappropriate decisions to be implanted with SIX embryos, resulting in this unfortunate and dire situation, and for her not realizing that what she has done was wrong, especially when she is on public assistance, living in a 3 bedroom house with her parents, and no job and no other income, and no one to help her care for all of her children, especially since her parents are refusing to help her anymore now, and especially since she's already had SIX children who were conceived through previous IVF treatments which the state also paid for. Yes, I know the doctor was also wrong...but it's not only the doctor. It's both the doctor and Nadya, both of them are responsible for both of their actions. The doctor violated ethics and regulations by implanting SIX embryos fully knowing that it was a violation and fully knowing that all of SIX embryos making it IS possible, and knowing all the risks, and also fully knowing that she's already had six kids of her own already from previous IVF treatments, and yet did it. Nadya is also wrong because she ALLOWED the doctor to implant SIX embryos fully knowing all the risks involved and knowing that all of the embryos could take, that it was a possiblity, and yet she allowed him to do it anyway. A responsible mother would say "Stop! Don't implant so many into my uterus please, I don't want a litter! I only want one or two babies!" So, yes, I consider BOTH of them responsible for their actions. I think the doctor should lose his license, be tried in a court of law, convicted, and instead of being sentenced to prison (save the prison for murders, rapists, etc) he should be required to do community service for the rest of his life, working in food banks, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, clean up rivers, picking up trash on the sides of the highways, etc, do all sorts of community services for the rest of his life, and he will lose the privelege of ever practicing any kind of medicine ever again, and he also loses the right to use "Dr." before his name (such as "Dr.Whatsyourname").
I honestly think that placing the oldest 6 children with different relatives would be in the best interest of those children. They could visit each other whether they like, and they could visit their mother whether they like. I would like for all 6 to be placed with one same relative, but that's IF there is one relative that is willing to take in all 6 AND can afford everything for all of them and can provide medical, mental health, dental care, and vision care for all of them and is able to love them, nurture them, provide for, care for, and keep all of them safe as well as provide all 6 with adequate sleeping quarters and keep them comfortable (as in non-cramped housing, well-fed, appropriate clothing, etc).
Then I honestly think that placing each of the octuplets with an adoptive family once they are deemed stable and healthy enough to leave the hospital would be in the best interest of the octuplets. Up to 8 different adoptive families that have the ability to love them, nurture them, provide for, care for, keep the children safe, and the ability to provide proper medical and mental health and dental and vision care to the octuplets either out of their own pockets or from insurance through their full-time jobs and can afford everything, with very little to no government/public assistance. Clearly the octuplets will need the best medical care possible since they were born so premature, born extremely tiny and very low weight, and from being one of the biggest multiple birth babies, and with a whole host of different kinds of very serious medical problems and complications that will last them their whole lifetimes. I think one baby per adoptive families would be the best due to the costly medical bills, since it is pretty likely that most insurance companies may balk at paying 100% of all medical bills, and will only pick up maybe like 75% (just my estimate/guess) or even less of all medical bills, and there is also the concern of "pre-existing medical conditions" term that insurance companies like to use to get out of paying for certain medical bills. But if an adoptive family would like to adopt two babies, great, as long as the family can provide everything for the two babies. If there is actually some family out there that is so fucking rich and can afford everything in the world and they would like to adopt all the octuplets and love them and nurture them and can provide everything to them and can keep them safe and can pay all the medical, mental health, vision care, and dental care bills for their entire lifetimes and can afford to hire several helpers to help them keep all the babies safe and can provide appropriate housing and living/sleeping quarters and everything and, of course, not exploit them, then it would be completely wonderful to keep all the octuplets together and with one wonderful adoptive family. But the chances of that happening are very very very slim, maybe like .1% or even less chance of that happening. We all know that. Not many adoptive families wants to adopt a baby with extremely serious medical problems, and not many adoptive families wants to adopt eight babies with extremely serious medical problems.
If there is actually a family out there that is so fucking rich and can afford everything, can even afford to buy a country or whatever, and they want to adopt all 14 children, that would be so awesome, especially if they can care for, love them, nurture them, pay all the medical, dental, mental health and vision care bills from the day they adopt them to the day the children die of old age (or at least til age 18), have proper housing with appropriate sleeping quarters for all the children, can afford to feed them all, clothe them, can keep them all safe by being able to afford to hire several helpers to help the adoptive parents care for the children so that they are not all on their own, and everything else that all the children needs, that would be wonderful. But realistically...the chances of that ever happening is extremely slim, way even less than .1% or maybe .000001%.
Sculleywr thinks that I have no hope for them, but I do...but realistically, very little hope in Nadya being able to care for all of them and being able to keep all 14 kids safe. I, however, do have a lot of hope for all the children themselves, I hope that the octuplet babies will become stronger and become stable and that hopefully in a few months their medical problems that are going to last them their lifetimes will become more manageable and more stable, and that they will live for a long time, and that I hope they do not end up with something so serious that they will spend a large part of their lives in and out of the hospitals and stuff like that, that they will be able to lead a normal life. But, that might not happen, given the circumstances that they were born in. I hope that they won't be neglected, and I also hope that the oldest six children will not be neglected either. I do keep all these 14 children in my thoughts everyday and I hope somebody will help those children. I feel very sad and very sorry for those children. What Nadya is doing is very unfair to all those children.
Everyday I hope that these octuplets will get stronger and will live. Everyday I hope that their medical problems that they may have for the rest of their lives will turn out not to be as severe as the doctors predict they will be.
I know my posts are long, but those are all my thoughts on this situation.
LuciaDisturbed
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,718
- Reaction score
- 3
WHOA!!! that's gotta be the AD'S WORLD LONGEST POST!!!
LOL, yeah, I know. I have given this situation a LOT of thought and as a result, many of my posts turn into novels.
I just have a lot to say.
LuciaDisturbed
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,718
- Reaction score
- 3
How true!
Dang, I got them by just carrying one child. One can only imagine.
Maybe she will get more plastic surgery..
I got stretch marks just by gaining weight...and I don't even have a child. I'm not interested in plastic surgery, though...I've been using cocoa butter lotion, they are supposed to help with the stretch marks...I love the smell of the lotion anyway, reminds me of the beach in Tampa...
Last edited:
Oh, there was another adult. Several in fact. But they were busy with their own gaggles. And I am close enough to when I was a kid that I can anticipate them. I am only 21, but I remember my own stupid stunts well enough to know what to expect. Remember, I worked there regularly, and have taken care of an audistic kid as well. There are several things you don't know about me.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 17,113
- Reaction score
- 1,175
3rd graders can have one teacher for 25 kids....
thought you meant 3 year olds. ooops!!
Yes, that's true about teachers are permitted to have 25 kids in Calif it might be 30 not accurate on that one.
I did watch the Dr. Phil show that had footage of Nayda at prom and her friend was talking via phone on the show under a different name. Everything about her well-being, the care for the children and all the issues that were mentioned here was discussed on the show. It appears no answer as how she will handle all the children in one household. Issues about them being in foster care was mentioned, its not the solution. It appears she will keep all her children possibly with help by some staff perhaps, like I said, nothing has been established on living arranagements.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 13,367
- Reaction score
- 2
If the state pays for a 'staff' to help her with the children then Nadya had better spend every free moment with those children because she has already wasted enough taxpayer dollars with this stunt. I just hope this 'staff' doesn't allow time for Nadya to cook up another child, in-vitro or natural.
I really wish Dr. Phil would have laid it out for her that what she did was incredibly irresponsible and stupid.
Im hoping that because of this California and other states should put into law that if you have been on state assistance within the last 10 years, and/or have 2 or more children then you are NOT eligible for any type of in-vitro fertilization procedure.
Because she could clearly afford plastic surgery and still received state aid, she should be required to pay back the state as it is obvious the money given to her was not used for the children. I am sure the grandparents have used up their retirement and have gone completely broke raising these children as well as Nadya.
I really wish Dr. Phil would have laid it out for her that what she did was incredibly irresponsible and stupid.
Im hoping that because of this California and other states should put into law that if you have been on state assistance within the last 10 years, and/or have 2 or more children then you are NOT eligible for any type of in-vitro fertilization procedure.
Because she could clearly afford plastic surgery and still received state aid, she should be required to pay back the state as it is obvious the money given to her was not used for the children. I am sure the grandparents have used up their retirement and have gone completely broke raising these children as well as Nadya.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 13,367
- Reaction score
- 2
BTW - I am working 2 jobs and I will start a 3rd job this summer, I am a single parent, live with my parents, and I don't draw food stamps, WIC, or welfare. The only aid I receive is ARKids 1st which is health insurance for children from low-income families.
Once I am able to get a job with good health insurance benefits I plan on getting employer based insurance on my child and off of ARKids 1st. I believe if you have health insurance available to you through an employer - you should use it and have it payroll deducted to cover you and your children instead of mooching from the state medicaid.
Once I am able to get a job with good health insurance benefits I plan on getting employer based insurance on my child and off of ARKids 1st. I believe if you have health insurance available to you through an employer - you should use it and have it payroll deducted to cover you and your children instead of mooching from the state medicaid.