If you were to go by what this woman claims then there are a lot of unsuitable homes out there both genetic and fostered.
If you’ve got a Mental Illness, the appearance, or even a history of one, your kids should be taken away. Oh, the past of my life, the lives of my friends, and the lives of total strangers.
If you’ve got other kids who don’t like the idea of more kids coming into the family [you should meet some of my past acquaintances. Their kids were Middle Child Syndrome poster children. [More and More], then your kids should be taken away.
If you don’t have a set amount of money, your kids should be taken away. Ok, all poor and lower middle class people kindly sterilize yourselves. You’re verboten. Sure Classism doesn’t exist in America…suuuure.
If you’re not married, then your kids should be taken away. Most of my old neighborhood, and a good portion of where I currently reside is populated by very well adjusted single parent homes. Nevermind that, give your kids up now.
Radio psychiatrist files complaint against octuplet mom
By Airan Scruby, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/17/2009 05:28:04 PM PST
A radio psychiatrist filed a complaint with county authorities against the Whittier mother of octuplets even though the two women have never met, officials said Tuesday.
Dr. Carole Lieberman, who often appears on cable news as a Beverly Hills psychiatry expert and who runs her own Internet radio show, said she believes Nadya Suleman is an “extreme narcissist” who neglects her children.
Lieberman said Tuesday she filed the complaint with Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services. She requested the longest living octuplets in history be removed from Suleman’s care even before they are released from Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center, where they remain in good condition.
“Some of her psychological problems are so obvious that it doesn’t take a psychiatrist to see that her problems would interfere with raising children,” Lieberman said. [More]
Now, when the story of this suit initially broke, the first thing in my mind was that this woman either had or was angling for some kind of publicity to get herself [or boost attention for] a contract for a book, television, or radio show. Duh.
Then I read more articles via the lovely Google and found out that she’s a consultant, with a radio show, and a lot of lovely other things. Maybe she’s genuinely concerned or maybe not. I don’t know her personally and can only speak on what I see.
As much as a lot of people seem to have a venemous hatred for Nadya Suleman, based on what even the people who’ve had no association with her have said [journalists et al] no one has said that these kids are the spawn of Satan, mentally deranged, or [unlike some in the news recently being held] torturing small animals. Nor have they said that she’s throwing them against walls, or letting them play in traffic, or who knows what else.
Do they need a bigger house? Oh hell yeah.
Do they need more people to help with the influx of children? You bet ya.
Do they need a lot of supplies for at least the next five years? YEAH, oh yeah.
I don’t think its fair though, regardless of your beliefs about her being on Welfare, somehow sucking up more of your money than Bernie Madoff and all the other Corporate Fatcats who OBVIOUSLY are hurting people WAY more economically to make judgements about her parenting skills when you haven’t had any close association with her or her children to see whether or not they are or aren’t socially maladjusted. Do the math. She’s a drop in the bucket, actually not even that, compared with a lot of the others in the news recently.
It sure as hell isn’t right to make death threats or other such violent comments against her or anyone else regardless of your beliefs about whether she was right or wrong to have done what she did.
Its also more than a bit peeving to hear people go on the pathetic conjecture of tabloid journalism in determining judgement in this whole situation. I’ve seen people referencing every sensationalist article out there rather than finding a clean, non-hyped source that doesn’t add the opinion or bias of the writer to it.
If any of you have been following the recent story of Alfie Patten, you’ll probably see where I’m going with this. Some papers will do anything to drive up readership by exploitation. One News Google of that sad story will tell you the lengths some people will go to just to get readers and revenues on the backs of babies.
Instead of believing whatever some tabloid pops up, go to the source and ask. They’ve [the tabloids] have switched their stories so many times and then referenced each other on the data, that it’s both a head and tailspin to read. Do go directly to the publicists of Angelina Jolie, Wes Yoder, or whoever else to find out the truth about what they said or didn’t say. Not ‘sources close to’ but the actual publicists since they’re the official spokespersons who, like a PR Firm or lawyer, are hired to keep the loonies away from high profile people and situations.
Don’t threaten that woman and her family, former PR Firm, and any corporations who actually had the common human decency to offer her aid and stand by their decision without worrying about public opinion.
I hope someone donates them at the very least a nice big house far away from the psychos protesting outside their home. How that’s considered healthy for young children is anyones guess.
Plus, any business or corporation that gives a realistic donation to them will get my future patronage if I ever have kids if I can manage not to ‘get my uterus ripped out’ for not being the text book ‘All American Mom’. They’d definitely get my recommendation if anyone should want or need the items they sell for their own children.
Don’t bitch at me about my opinion until you’ve followed the rules times seventy.