Personally, I believe that most American families would have given these "Angel's of Death" the boot when they entered the scene with judgmentally clinched fists. But then, in Suleman's defense I must say that would have been hard to do because she was ass end over a barrel; either she accepted "THIS" help or the hospital would refuse to release her children. Talking about bullshit, I do not think anyone should face a decision like this; esp under such stressful conditions. Which brings me to the AIW's offer being accepted, and the impression they gave as they entered the scene.
The fact is that from the very beginning, the mere presence of these women gave me chills. First their website puts me in mind of a black market baby ring that removes society's fragile youth and then places them with nurses instead of regular foster homes. Then if you listened to them, it was easy to hear the "greater than thou" attitudes as they continuously mock Suleman, and judge her as incapable of raising her children. Of course, this causes me to ask a number of questions. Such as, why do these women set a higher standard for the Suleman's than would be expected for any other premie bearing family? I mean, is it "normal" for a gang of social workers to enter a parent's home and give it the white glove treatment in order to decide if a home is fit for a newborn's release? And, what was so wrong with Nadya's new home that it would place her children at greater risk than other family's homes? Personally, I think that Nadya's house puts the majority of the homes to shame, and the remodeling process was uncalled for! I say this because from what I could see, the carpets weren't filthy, the walls weren't destroyed, and it appeared to be in excellent condition, which is more than I can say for most homes these days. (Then again, the donations ARE tax deductable, so they get the money back, right?)
My next question is, how can Nadya be so bad? After all, the other six children are for the most part healthy and happy. Surely, they would have shown signs of abuse or neglect if she was doing so much wrong, but they do not. Matter a fact, dr. Phil even said that there is has been nothing substantial enough to warrant the removal of these children. Therefore, it seems that Society is jumping the gun, which only stands to hinder any efforts made by Nadya, and creates a negative atmosphere for the children.
The fact is, when the AIW approached this situation they contaminated the scene with negativity. By doing so, they destroyed any chance of truly bonding with Nadya. After all, who wouldn't become fearful and paranoid with the AIW pointing fingers and running to the state over every little detail? Such actions are not part of "Mandatory reporting"; especially when Nadya was obviously open to suggestions, and made efforts to change things before they reoccured. Then again, I believe that this organization was intentionally placed in the Suleman's home in order to investigate and report her as unfit so that child services could remove the children, instead of to assist her attempts to provide a safe home for 14 children. This of course is another controversial topic, because some people believe that the reports were justified when I do not. For that matter, as a future psychologist, I would recommend against such reports, unless the allegations are part of a predetermined list. In other words, there needs to be changes made so that mandatory reporting has "guidelines" instead of being decided by a worker. I say this because it allows professionals to endulge in ethnocentric behavior.
For example: The way I see it, the AIW should not have been allowed to dictate who could enter Nadya's home in the first place. They were there to assist not DICTATE! Of course, some one is going to say "But these babies are fragile." Well ok, but the fact is that when any other child is released from the hospital, it is ALWAYS assumed that the child is "ready" to face the public. I mean, most parents do not lock their babies in a nursery, so why should Nadya? Most parents carry their babies around in public, and have unlimited guests. So why is it so wrong for Nadya to show these babies off? After all, Dr. Phil wants transparency, and how much more transparent can you be than to have camera crews recording the family's every move? And as for the paparazzi and other trespassers, those people should have been arrested. That was not Nadya's fault that was the "evil" of society!
Anyway, after following this story, I feel Nadya did the right thing, because the AIW cannot be trusted. Therefore, it is my hope that the hospital and public health nurses will continue to provide the positive interaction that Nadya needs in order to finally have all her babies home.
Of course, I am also hopeful that society remembers the AIW organization and quits supporting them. I would hate to think how many other families these women have attempted or succeeded in destroying.
Published by J. Secrist
I am a mother, sister, confidante, teacher, counselor, universal religious adviser, and open-minded friend. I believe everyone deserves acceptance, friendship, & a helping hand. I not only want to achieve my... View profile
- Non-Profit Organization Angels in Waiting Extends Offer to Nadya SulemanThe latest in the Nadya Suleman saga is a plan that would help her with the necessary care for the octuplets once they come home from the hospital -- a plan that does not involve tax-payer money.
- Is Nadya Suleman or Kate Gosselin the Better Mother?Is Nadya Suleman a better mother than Kate Gosselin from TV's Jon & Kate Plus 8?
- Nadya Suleman: Radio Psychiatrist Files Complaint with Child Services Dr. Carole Lieberman, a radio psychiatrist, has filed a complaint against Nadya Suleman with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, charging that she is an "extreme narcissist who neglects...
- Nadya Suleman, Octomom and Super Publicity Seeker, Drops Crumbs for All to FollowNadya Suleman has successfully created a following for herself-with a publicist and without one. With a new tidbit of information dropped just before the last one has lost interest, Octomom has become a Super Publici...
- Fireworks Explode Between Nadya Suleman and Her Mother AngelaExclusive video on Radar.com of an interview between Nadya Suleman and her mother Angela.
- Nadya Suleman, Octogenarian Mother, Now Has a Website
- My Thoughts on the Octuplet "mom", Nadya Suleman
- Nadya Suleman Donation Website Set Up to Help Her Octuplets
- Nadya Suleman, Octuplets, and Angelina Jolie
- Nadya Suleman Has Website Begging for Donations and Comments
- Nadya Suleman, Octuplet Mom, and Her Mother Make Peace
- Nadya Suleman: Mom of 4 Urges America to Send Money to Octomom or Volunteer Time

4 Comments
Post a CommentI understand why so many people are upset, but let's face it the AIW organization can say anything they want and the public will jump the gun. Why? because everyone wants to believe them. They want this woman to lose the babies and her other children. I really doubt if society in general cares if the AIW sprouts lies, as long as it gets them what they want. How about the fact that even Dr. Phil said there hasn't been any substancial evidence to cause child services to act, and I'm sure that the hospital staff sees the same thing that AIW seen.
And if Nadya really wants privacy she should hire an assistant to do her shopping and fetch her lattes while she parents all the children she chose to bring into the world. For someone who thinks giving even a second of her attention to a man instead of her children is "selfish" she certainly chooses to give alot of her attention to shopping. It's her life of course, but she is choosing to forfeit her privacy and her children's privacy to stay in the public eye which makes her fair game for criticism.
(sorry for the multiple post but I spent the time typing it so darn it I'm posting the whole thing! If I'd known it wouldn't all go I'd have posted it in reverse order...)
I can understand why they would be irritated with Nadya, it is very frustrating to attempt to help/teach/interact with a parent who is not interested in anything you have to say (even constructive criticism). And that's assuming the parent is around to listen. I'd be mad too if I were trying to help a parent (who desperately needed it) and they ignored me, continued to do things to compromise their child's safety, then left to go shopping. And I'd be even more angry if that parent then not only fired me for doing my job but publicly attacked me and sent a slimy lawyer around to the media outlets to spin the story and portray themselves as victims. It would have been nice if they had taken the high road and behaved like adults instead of responding to both lawyers' petty attacks and bickering like children. I can understand why they bear a grudge but it's too bad they put getting revenge over the reputation of their foundation. Sad all around.
I respectfully disagree. There are different schools of thought about how much term babies should be exposed to new people or environments, but preemies are not term babies (obviously). They are much more susceptible to infection and hospitals do in fact recommend limiting their exposure for a period of time. The length of time varies depending on the situation but is usually several months, maybe less for late preemies (which these are not). And under no circumstances would it be ok for any baby to go straight from the nursery into a crowd, then a to a home full of the media, camera equipment, and a dozen unfamiliar and/or unnecessary extra people.
As for AIW, I agree that their spokespeople and founders aren't coming across as very likable, but I fail to see the problem in having medically fragile babies in need of foster care placed with nurses. It's too bad that this has generated so much negative press for them since they provide a valuable service. I can understand why they w