Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said they had to take the children away but I do think they need to step in and look at the environment that the children are being raised in. Do they have clean clothes, are they being bathed. Is there enough food and diapers in the home? Protective services is suppose to be a protection for the child and this case is calling for their services.
Oh heck. I've seen people with ONE kid that don't bathe them or clothe them properly. They run the streets half-naked, barefooted and with runny noses.
Here in Atlanta, a judge, of all people, had ONE daughter and went off to work at night leaving the child alone. She was found out when the five-year old got up and got out of the house and was found wandering the streets after midnight...alone.
Ms Suleman will have help with the kids; it's pouring in from other countries, so it doesn't matter that the USA is so critical and insensitive. She'll get the help she needs to maintain order and a lot of it won't come from taxpayers. There are private entities that are chipping in.
I wish I would hit the lotto. I'd send her enough to relocate her to a country where people actually like kids and make sure they have RTC nannies for at least the next five years. She would need about 4 nannies minimum. I know if I was one of those kids, I would prefer to be with my mother no matter how many other siblings are at home.
When I was growing up, women routinely had 12-14 kids in the deeper parts of the country on what used to be plantations and farms. Maybe not all at once, but...they did.
My husband's mom is the youngest daughter girl in a family of 13 siblings. Their father died when they were very young, but her mother had her neighbors and all the people at church, and every one of those kids turned out just fine.
I think that the law about boys and girls sharing bedrooms only applies to foster children, not someone's biological (or adopted) children. Or maybe it varies from state to state... that is the law in Florida.
I think that the law about boys and girls sharing bedrooms only applies to foster children, not someone's biological (or adopted) children. Or maybe it varies from state to state... that is the law in Florida.
Yeah I think so too. And I really don't think anyone would care when they're still babies.
Yeah I think so too. And I really don't think anyone would care when they're still babies.
Sure when they are babies but they won't stay babies for long, it will seem like a very short time and they will be up and running around. At this age a couple can share the same crib but these babies are premies and in time will catch up on their growing assuming they are all OK developmentally.
If her parents are going to continue to take care of her then they are going to have to move.
Sure when they are babies but they won't stay babies for long, it will seem like a very short time and they will be up and running around. At this age a couple can share the same crib but these babies are premies and in time will catch up on their growing assuming they are all OK developmentally.
If her parents are going to continue to take care of her then they are going to have to move.
If I understand correctly, her parents have several houses. I wonder if any are larger than the one they're in now?
If I understand correctly, her parents have several houses. I wonder if any are larger than the one they're in now?
They have several houses and they have their daughter living WITH them with 6 children?? Several houses in California?? Whats wrong with that picture?
Who knows and frankly this is just another story where the children are going to suffer. I don't care what happened 60 years ago to your grandmothers family, its today and its different. People shouldn't be having these many children unless they have money and resources like Brad and Angelina to take care of them. It might not be politically correct to say but the REALITY is that it takes money to take care of a child.
I was reading in another thread where it was mentioned that she was going to pose naked in some magazine?? I hope thats not true. Just one more thing for these children to grow up and feel weird about.
When I was growing up, women routinely had 12-14 kids in the deeper parts of the country on what used to be plantations and farms. Maybe not all at once, but...they did.
My husband's mom is the youngest daughter girl in a family of 13 siblings. Their father died when they were very young, but her mother had her neighbors and all the people at church, and every one of those kids turned out just fine.
But they were H O N E S T women and had all their babies in an H O N E S T way. There's a huge difference between those women, and this one who had her kids for profit.
They have several houses and they have their daughter living WITH them with 6 children?? Several houses in California?? Whats wrong with that picture?
Who knows and frankly this is just another story where the children are going to suffer. I don't care what happened 60 years ago to your grandmothers family, its today and its different. People shouldn't be having these many children unless they have money and resources like Brad and Angelina to take care of them. It might not be politically correct to say but the REALITY is that it takes money to take care of a child.
I was reading in another thread where it was mentioned that she was going to pose naked in some magazine?? I hope thats not true. Just one more thing for these children to grow up and feel weird about.
She sounds like an attention w h o r e.
I don't know if that comment about the "grandmother's family" was directed at me...but that wasn't me, that was another poster that mentioned their grandmother's family.
As far as the attention, that what I think is her absolute biggest issue. I think one of the biggest reasons she chose to do this is for the attention. She feeds off it and craves it and will likely do anything to get more. That's one of the reasons I think she will likely do this again.
I don't know if that comment about the "grandmother's family" was directed at me...but that wasn't me, that was another poster that mentioned their grandmother's family.
As far as the attention, that what I think is her absolute biggest issue. I think one of the biggest reasons she chose to do this is for the attention. She feeds off it and craves it and will likely do anything to get more. That's one of the reasons I think she will likely do this again.
NO, it was a general statement not directed at anyone. I was trying to say it might have worked out to have these large families WAY back when but today is not the same.
But they were H O N E S T women and had all their babies in an H O N E S T way. There's a huge difference between those women, and this one who had her kids for profit.
Yeah, my mom has 5 brothers and sisters (so my grandparents had 6) and I thought THAT was a big family.....this was in the 1940's/1950's when the kids were born and I know they had significant issues with having so many kids even then. I don't think it was normal to have even that many any time after about 1920/1930 maybe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
