Octuplets' Mother 'Obsessed with Children', Wanted 'One More Girl'

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I think you got a very valid point here. I came from foster homes as well and you're definitely right about there not being enough good hearted individuals to take in all the needy children who dont have parents or deserving parents. Also, that many foster parents are greedy and in it fore entirely the wrong reasons. To that end I think it is foster parents who should have to undergo pysch evals. Getting back to the issue though, she's got these kids now and like I said earlier, they are what matters. Lets just give her the room to either do her job or fall short of the scrutiny you can be sure child services will be paying her.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


Lol. Having prospective foster parents undergo psych evals is a great idea. Of course that begs the question, why is that logically different from asking prospective natural parents to undergo psych evals as well?

Like someone else pointed out, you need a license to operate machinery, own exotic pets, but the care of another human life should be entrusted to someone with absolutely no assurance of competency?

The idea that a parents "rights" supersedes those of their children is a long standing one. Rooted in Biblical doctrine and perhaps other religious theory as well, but it isnt a logical one. Why should your "right" to own a child have more weight to the right of that child to safety, cleanliness, sustenance, and freedom from abuse?

Well, it doesnt. Kind of sort of. We do take children from abusive parents and sever the parental rights. But only after the child has been provably mistreated. We still hold sacred the right to bear that child. Which necessitates that some of those children will suffer until the parent is caught out. But people would fight tooth and nail to prevent any interference in that regard.

Consider, (logically, not emotionally) that the homicide rate in children under 5 was 11.3 per 100,000 in 2002.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...


The average death rate due to firearms in all states per 100,000 in 2002 was 11.5.

www.statemaster.com...

(2002 was the most recent year I could find reliable data for on both statistics.)

I want you to note several things.

1) The death rate from guns includes all age groups and all causes including accident and suicide.

2) The death rate for children 5 and under ONLY includes known homicides, it does not include accidental death due to negligence, or homicides of children above the age of five.


Guns- 11.5 per 100,000 all ages and causes.

Adults killing children- 11.3 per 100,000 only including homicides of children 5 and under.

Yet we will not even consider as a society any licensing procedure for prospective parents.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Lol. Having prospective foster parents undergo psych evals is a great idea. Of course that begs the question, why is that logically different from asking prospective natural parents to undergo psych evals as well?

At the same time, it can be very difficult to adopt older children. The news here has a weekly show highlighting different foster kids that desperately want homes (most of the kids have been in foster care for years, many are teenagers).

A woman I worked with saw the show and went on a mission to adopt three black brothers that had been foster care for several years (there were 8 or 9 kids put into the program from one mother, these three had managed to stay together).

It took her 2.5 years to get those kids. One was almost 18 by the time the adoption was approved, the other two were 14 and 16. All three were bigger than she was, and they all really wanted to stay together. They put potential adoptive parents through years of hassle, interviews, etc... So much so that more than half of the applicants would drop out of the process not because they weren't qualified, but because it was so long and difficult, yet they keep begging people to apply and adopt those poor older kids that can't get homes.

As an infertility patient this woman disgusts me. I do not have a problem with her using frozen embryos - if they are hers - but, I do have big problem with transferring 8! It is medical malpractice according to all the real reproductive endocrinologist's that have been interviewed (and the one's I have seen).

I have no problem wit wanting 12 kids - that is a personal choice - as long as you can support them. If she wanted to have twelve, no reputable clinic would transfer 8 embryos - NONE. Not with 6 kids having allegedly come from previous IVF cycles. She was under 35 with young embryos being used? That does not make scientific / medical sense!

Here is my wild-eyed theory about this woman:

She was an egg-donor in an egg-sharing cycle. Another couple paid for not only the normal expenses, but for her to cycle. The alleged sperm donor works at the same clinic. The sperm donor and she found out the other couple were going to allow the embryos to be destroyed, stole the embryos and had some disreputable physician / medical person transfer all eight.

This woman rings all of my "she is a scam artist and belongs in jail" bells.

She endangered here existing children and those newborns by her actions. Those newborns will have problems. It is statistically improbable that all of them will be healthy.

Taxpayers will end up paying for these kids. This is not going to be a feel good story in the end. I think any and all monies she receives should be taken by the state for the expenses she has caused and will cause. She deserves NOTHING.

Actually, she deserves CPS to be constantly on her back if she is even allowed to keep these children - which I do not think should be a given.

This is a clear case of either medical fraud or malpractice. The governing medical bodies will have the license of any RE who actually transferred 8 embryos into a woman with her medical / reproductive history.

reply to post by Sonya610


So true. And that only applies to those who are actually available for adoption. The vast majority of foster kids are supposed to be working towards reunification with their birth parents.

The USA has a culture of bio parent worship that cannot in any way be blamed on infertility patients or potential adoptive parents.

I know social workers, cops, and nurses who have seen the worst of these cases, and most of the time there were foster parents who wanted to keep those kids safe but the system gave priority to the bio parents.

It takes a very special type of person to deal with the extremely complicated problems surrounding foster parenthood - or even adoption. If you haven't done it, you shouldn't suggest it to someone else. Period.

Originally posted by Sonya610


At the same time, it can be very difficult to adopt older children. The news here has a weekly show highlighting different foster kids that desperately want homes (most of the kids have been in foster care for years, many are teenagers).

True, it can be hard to adopt children out of foster care, but I would argue two things.

1) It directly relates to the issue of "parental rights" as sacred and superceding the rights of the child as a human being. Which is an assumption that should be called into question. If "parental rights" were NOT considered sacred and inalienable, it would not be so hard to adopt those older foster children. They (the children) would have a say in the matter as human beings with their own rights.

2) Why is legal ownership of the child so important? I was never adopted because my own mothers rights to me were not severed legally. However I spent my entire adolescence until I reached 18 with my last foster parents. (And they did not abandon me at that point either.) They never "owned" me. They couldnt because of the whole parental rights issue. But I remained with them as if they did for the rest of my minority.

There is always the danger in that situation that the child you have cared for, invested in, and loved may be forcibly removed from you at some point. And yes, that is emotionally traumatic. However you never have a guarantee that parenthood will not end in trauma.

reply to post by Valhall


In the interest of fairness we should include Mr. Brad Pitt in the catagory of "baby collectors" since he after all fathered 3 of Jolie's children and has legally adopted the other 3.

But credit to her though. At least she has chosen to adopt 3 of her children--better than bring more into the world wihtout a stable partner or situation as Miss 14 did.

Originally posted by asmeone2
But credit to her though. At least she has chosen to adopt 3 of her children--better than bring more into the world wihtout a stable partner or situation as Miss 14 did.

She can also afford to raise them and provide a good education for them. No one else is expected to pick up the bill.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by asmeone2
But credit to her though. At least she has chosen to adopt 3 of her children--better than bring more into the world wihtout a stable partner or situation as Miss 14 did.

She can also afford to raise them and provide a good education for them. No one else is expected to pick up the bill.

The point I was making is Jolie could have chosen to have her first 3 in the same way that Miss 14 did. Instead she adopted children from bad situations. We can quibble about whether it is better to adopt internationally or domestically, but it is a good thing to do for those who can afford it IMO.

Of courseI woudl have the same qualms if this woman had adopted 14 children in her situation of course, though with the way the system works that probably would not happen. She could not have aforded 14 children, biological ones or not. That is the issue.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


True, it can be hard to adopt children out of foster care, but I would argue two things.

1) It directly relates to the issue of "parental rights" as sacred and superceding the rights of the child as a human being. Which is an assumption that should be called into question. If "parental rights" were NOT considered sacred and inalienable, it would not be so hard to adopt those older foster children. They (the children) would have a say in the matter as human beings with their own rights.

2) Why is legal ownership of the child so important? I was never adopted because my own mothers rights to me were not severed legally. However I spent my entire adolescence until I reached 18 with my last foster parents. (And they did not abandon me at that point either.) They never "owned" me. They couldnt because of the whole parental rights issue. But I remained with them as if they did for the rest of my minority.

There is always the danger in that situation that the child you have cared for, invested in, and loved may be forcibly removed from you at some point. And yes, that is emotionally traumatic. However you never have a guarantee that parenthood will not end in trauma.

I think yet another point that should be acknowledged in the train of thought you're taking is to remember that ANY time spent on a child in the interest of selfless devotion or care for them and them alone, especially when it is difficult or risking emotional trauma for yourself is noble and a great example to the child in question that there ARE people out there who give a damn.

Originally posted by spinkyboo

Originally posted by Annee
I think I'll wait for all the real Facts.

In the mean time - I believe these children (all of them) are loved.

It isn't a loving act to fill your household up with in vitro children who do not have parents with time, energy and financial stability to give to their growth.
It is an irresponsible act.

Responsible or not - the children are here. They can't be sent back.

There is nothing to indicate these children are not and will not be loved.

Unfortunately, with all the shows now with people and their litters getting so much attention, I would not be surprised if this woman thought she would get attention and money out of the deal.

That being said:

Whatever her reason, I feel for the children. It is hard for two parents to raise multiples. And she is by herself. There is no way, this woman could ever adequately raise 14 children. 8 children at a time is almost impossible without a team. All the other multiples showed the whole neighborhood pitching in, in shifts, trying to handle 6 babies.

I don't care she wanted to have more children, or a girl. If you love children, then you love them enough to know when you can't take care of them.

I would love to have a second child, but my poor health adn financial status won't allow it. It hurts, big time. But I am smart enough NOT to do it,f or that child's sake.

Originally posted by NoArmsJames
When I first read about this story there was no mention of her being single and unemployed and I was still angry at her. She already had six kids and wanted another, and I thought "Why didn't she adopt?". There are so many kids that need a good home. Now I learn that she is single, unemployed and likely mentally unstable; and I'm furious with her.

What's the point of being furious with someone who's mentally unstable? The person isn't going out there intentionally doing something to harm others. The person is irrational and therefore not capable of thinking straight. It solves nothing to be angry at someone who is like that. Someone who is mentally unstable don't even realize that he or she is mentally unstable. This woman probably thinks she's a perfectly sane person. Being angry at her is a waste of energy because no matter how much people are angry at her, she'll never 'get it.' Why? Because she's not mentally stable enough to 'get it.' She'd probably even think you're the one who's crazy.

We must begin having restrictions on the amount of children one can have. 3 max. These 8 babies should be taken away by the state.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
In a few years these infants will be two years old and she will want another 8. She doesn't need children, she needs psychiatric help and sterilization.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, I think sterilization is going a bit far... I don't believe anyone has the right to tell another person they can't procreate.

But yes, she is clearly mentally unstable, and she/her doctor should have thought twice (or thrice) about this.

I presume the world smells:

EMOTIONAL MORBIDITY

on this women.

In a matter not dissimilar to the collector of 10 or 20 cats as surrogates for children and to create some animal or animals that require her or are dependent upon her to fill some void in her.

The way these articles are written one wonders what her childhood involved.

Being that it looks like the reality t.v. show deal is falling through, the house she is living in is being foreclosed upon, and that she is gaining enormous amounts of attention, I can imagine the state will be stepping in soon to take her babies and find them adequate living conditions. Possibly with Adoptive parents or something of that like. The babies are at the ideal stage of youth for adoptive interests to be very much near the peak. No one wants some one elses damaged goods (emotionally speaking) and EVERYONE wants their own baby to mold and shape.... My money is on the state intervening soon.