Octuplets Family $23,225 Behind On Mortgage Payments

CNN is reporting that the house that the octuplets mom is living in is currently in default, and the mortgage owner, the grandmother of the octuplets, is $23,225 behind on her mortgage payments.

News of the foreclosure is the latest twist in the tale of Suleman and her children.

Suleman, 33, had the octuplets through fertility treatments, despite being single and already having six young children and no clear source of income.

CNN says that the Suleman family could not be reached for comment because their phone had been disconnected.

Their website, however, seems to be working and is accepting donations.

Octuplets’ family reportedly faces foreclosure [CNN]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Torgonius wants an edit button says:

    Isn’t that a shock.

    I feel bad for all the people related to that woman. She has put them in a really bad spot.

  2. Illusio26 says:

    This woman is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility.

  3. Acolyte says:

    Paypal to the rescue?

  4. Sidecutter says:

    I feel bad for the people involved, especially the kids and the woman’s mother. I will not be donating, however. This woman is irresponsible, selfish, and clearly doesn’t even think of her children before herself. I have no sympathy for her situation.

    • Sidecutter says:

      @Sidecutter: Wow, she prints her home address on her website. Epic, epic failure.

      • Blueskylaw says:


        Not really a failure, but possibly a brilliant move to make her home a tourist attraction like they did with the Dionne quintuplets in Canada.

        The Dionne quintuplets (born May 28, 1934) are the first quintuplets known to survive their infancy. They are the only female identical set of five ever recorded. The sisters were born just outside Callander, Ontario, Canada near the village of Corbeil.

        The Dionne girls were born two months premature. After four months with their family, their were made wards of the State for the next nine years, with the government and those around them profiting by making them a significant tourist attraction in Ontario.

      • clickable says:

        @Sidecutter: No, that’s not her home address. She lives in Whittier. I remember that because I remember that was Nixon’s hometown, and believe me, I’d be thrilled not to have all this useless rubbish cluttering up my memory :).

        I think that’s the address of her (former) publicist’s offices.

    • K-Bo says:

      @Sidecutter: The selfish really comes out in how the web page says “Welcome to the Nadya Suleman Family website” It’s all about her, they might as well drop the word family off of that. She needs a better publicist ( althoug I think hers quit so she doesn’t even have one ) anyone could tell her you will get much more sympathy money if you play down yourself and play up the kids, but the 1st two things you see are her picture and name.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      @Sidecutter: Yeah – during her interviews when she said “I’m giving myself to my children totally giving myself to them, how many parents do that” the first thing I thought was – OK, you can’t *feed* yourself to them when you can’t afford to put food on the table lady.

      • AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

        @Oranges w/ Cheese: That quote bothers me so much. Granted, some parent’s don’t give their kids all they should, but this is like someone being proud for never speeding in their car. She is proud for doing what she is supposed to be doing.

      • K-Bo says:

        @Oranges w/ Cheese: I’m willing to bet that with 2 kids and a full time job that made it possible to feed/clothe/educated them, my mom still gave more per child to me and my brother than she will ever be able to. Even with just 2 kids there were events ( sporting events/ proms/ graduations /recitals) that overlapped for me and my brother to the point that we each only got one parent there. Not to mention, I could always talk to one of my parents alone if I had something on my mind, none of her kids will ever have that luxury, and even if they did, she would probably look at them and say “do I know you?”

      • CumaeanSibyl says:

        @Oranges w/ Cheese: Of course she’s giving herself totally to her children — it’s not like she has a job or anything to go to.

      • clickable says:

        @thatsnotfab: I don’t think the Duggars get gov’t assistance. They don’t get food stamps, welfare, disability, or anything like that. Daddy Duggar served as an elected official at one time (congressman or something like that) and there may be an official pension or stipend that all former elected officials get, but that’s not related to the number of kids they have.

    • UnicornMaster says:

      @Sidecutter:I refuse to donate a dime. She put herself in this situation. I’m sorry but your career choice cannot be having babies. If you can’t pay your mortgage you should not get pregnant and have more kids. You especially can’t claim some amazing feat that your vag can push out 8 kids and then ask for a paycheck. I hope she rots in a really lonely place and her kids are taken away from her!

      • K-Bo says:

        @DeanOfAllTrades: It’s not even her mortgage, she lives with Mom and Dad. Not that my parents would ever let their grandkids starve, but if I was pulling mess like this, having babies to feel loved, they would take me to court, get custody, and not let me see them. Instead her parents seem to have repeatedly enabled her behavior by letting her live in their house and taking care of everything for her like she was 10 years old.

    • the lesser of two weevils says:

      @Sidecutter: I cant believe the grandmother has changed her tune and is suddenly supporting her daughter and apologizing for being so critical of her. No wonder her daughter gets away with this lunacy if her mom cant stand up to her. Support crazy and you’ll get what you deserve.

  5. hypnotik_jello says:

    Darwin didn’t strike soon enough.

  6. Yoko Broke Up The Beatles says:

    Smells like someone needs a bailout!

  7. goodpete says:

    Welcome to America, where you have the freedom to have as many kids as you want. And where you also have the freedom to be a deadbeat. And where, thank God, we have a system for taking children away from people who compulsively exercise both of those freedoms.

    • floraposte says:

      @plamoni: I don’t think we do, actually. Failure to pay one’s bills isn’t generally a concern of the child protection folks.

      • supercereal says:

        @floraposte: It most definitely is if it means that the children have no home, no water, no electricity, etc.

        • floraposte says:

          @supercereal: They can get removed for neglect, sure. But not simply because Mom’s a deadbeat. If she’s living with parents who are providing home, water, and electricity, or if she’s providing those by running her credit card bills into the stratosphere, that’s not DCFS’s issue. It’s the state of the children, not the finances of the mother, that are the issue.

          • karmaghost says:

            @floraposte: I agree, but you have to imagine that with 14 kids (8 of whom are infants), eventually there’s a point where a lack of income will affect living conditions, amount/quality of food, etc. If those get bad enough, then child protection will get involved.

            • KyleOrton says:

              @karmaghost: I can see 3 social workers in an old DHL van with 8 carseats waiting to snatch them up at the first sign of neglect.

              I think the scrutiny is a good thing.

            • goodpete says:

              @karmaghost: Agreed. That was the original intent of my post. If you’re $23,000 behind on your mortgage, they generally don’t let you live in your house for very long. And, as we learned from the “Adolf Hitler Birthday Cake” fiasco, when you start parading your children in front of cameras, you can bet that DCFS is watching.

              Sadly, there are many kids in this country for whom, being homeless is the least of their problems. All else being equal, I think DCFS should concentrate their efforts on helping those children instead of these children, who will probably receive a great deal of charity through their publicity.

              However, when it comes down to it, a neglected child is a neglected child. And DCFS should be out there doing everything they can to save as many neglected children as possible. DCFS workers have a very hard job, for which they are paid far too little. I imagine that cases like these, where everyone from CNN to TMZ is documenting the mother’s behavior are something of a relief in a system that often has to work off of short, infrequent house calls. But I could be wrong.

              Either way, if she does wind up homeless, I am confident that the children will be taken care of. And that’s the important thing.

    • SacraBos says:

      @plamoni: But you need a license to get married, drive a car, own a dog/cat, …

    • Repique says:

      @plamoni: Having a lot of kids and no way to earn enough income to support them is, by itself, not going to get your kids taken away, because it will make you eligible for a lot in social services that ought to be able to provide at least a safe and healthy environment. Not nice, maybe, but safe and healthy. So either way, you have to consciously choose *not* to give your kids food/shelter/etc, generally, before DCFS gets involved. Not just be unable to support them by your own income.

  8. gtrgod01 says:

    If you take a look at TMZ.com they have her on cam buying $14 lip gloss yesterday (i think) and the other day she was getting a manicure.

    Doesn’t seem like she’s too worried about getting evicted.

    • FlyersFan says:

      of course she isnt, its her parent’s house. I bet the parents are behind because they were trying to feed this lady’s older kids instead of paying the mortgage.

      The comments page for her website is unavailable. haha

    • Saboth says:

      @gtrgod01: I think she was planning on being on tv, and having thousands in donations pouring in, and it ain’t happening.

  9. semanticantics says:

    I wonder why the Comments section of her website is shut off?

  10. TKOtheKDR says:

    I feel bad for her family and kids. However, I also believe that all of her kids taken away by child services because of her financial irresponsiblility and inability to care for her children.

    /If you can’t afford them, DON’T HAVE THEM!

    • calquist says:

      @TKOtheKDR: Agreed. Hell hath no fury like my scorn for this woman, but all that is going to happen is that she will make millions on her inevitable TV show, interviews with Oprah and best-selling books.

      • thatsnotfab says:

        @calquist: I’m not so sure about the TV show thing… Any rumors have been shut down so far. TLC basically said “Um, fuck no.”

        • lars2112 says:

          @thatsnotfab: TLC received a lot of negative comments about her show so they decided best not to do it. The one family that can do it is the Duggers (spelled wrong), one income from the father and like 18 kids, NO DEBT.

          • thatsnotfab says:

            @lars2112: And government assistance.

            But at least the kids are old enough to take care of each other (which I personally think sucks for them, but I’ll save that rant for another day).

          • Rectilinear Propagation says:

            @lars2112: Wow, what’s the father do? Work for NASA?

            • karmaghost says:

              @Rectilinear Propagation: I don’t know much about the show or family, but what I’ve heard is that they own and rent out at least one relatively large commercial property. I’m not sure if that alone is enough to sustain the entire family, but some of the children are old enough to have part-time jobs and I think the oldest is in his 20’s and still lives at home.

              • K-Bo says:

                @karmaghost: I believe their oldest has actually married now. His wife must be very brave, I’d need a pre-nup agreement on how many children I was expected to pop out before I’d even think of saying yes to marrying one of their sons.

        • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

          @thatsnotfab: Yeah, once they realized she was a dead-beat and basically totally an irresponsible bitch…

      • trujunglist says:


        Any network or company that goes for profit on this will unleash the scorn of like 85% of America. The other 15% are insane and probably won’t buy their products anyway. It would be a terrible business move and, honestly, while I don’t normally say shit like this, it is a BAD example of how to live your life. Can you imagine Lifetime putting this on or something? Very doubtful. Most of the “positive Xtian” networks go for stories where maybe the person is a screw up, but then they get it together (or they get murdered or something), and there is a lesson to be learned by everyone. What lesson would anyone take from this? I can be a free-loading moron that gets rich just by popping out a shitload of babies? I very much hope that she fades away and never gets anything from this ordeal.

        • clickable says:

          @trujunglist: I don’t see any Xtian network picking up on a single mom with no husband on the horizon, even without taking into account the freakishness of 14 children born through IVF. Not gonna happen.

    • kaceetheconsumer says:

      @TKOtheKDR: In this case, I think this woman was pretty stupid and made poor choices.

      However, do please be careful about sweeping judgments of all who struggle and have children. I’ve got plenty of friends in economic trouble this year who are well-educated, economically-intelligent people who are facing severe hardship due to circumstances way beyond their control. People who decided to have kids six or ten years ago when they had stable jobs, were paying extra on the mortgage each month to pay down principle faster, who never carried credit card debt, who had medical insurance through work, etc. can now find themselves jobless with an overvalued home and no medical insurance.

      The company my husband worked for last year collapsed after it was taken over by some corrupted board members who drove it into the ground. They still owe him his last month’s pay, and he’ll never see it because as an employee, he’s at the bottom of the creditor list. We had to live very frugally to afford the COBRA payments for a couple of months, and luckily we had some savings to live off of. Fortunately he found another job fairly quickly, and we were also extremely fortunate to be able to sell our old house when we moved across the country…and we were only able to do that because we purchased it before the market boom, so we could undercut the foreclosures in our community.

      If not for some really lucky timing on our part, we could have ended up in some dire straits ourselves. Hell, if this new company he works for goes under, it could all happen again.

      Does that mean we shouldn’t have had our child – who is an IVF baby, incidentally – three years ago, long before any of this economic crisis hit?

  11. MonkeyMonk says:

    I’m usually a supporter of children staying with their parents but this situation is ridiculous and this woman clearly has serious mental issues. Is there even such a thing as baby addiction? Health and Human Services really needs to swoop in and make her a proud mother of zero children.

    • cabjf says:

      @MonkeyMonk: I knew a girl who had major abandonment issues and decided having a baby would solve them. I think she explained it as, her daughter would always need and love her. It’s actually pretty common. Sadly, people with issues like that often pass them on to their children. It’s a never ending cycle.

      • Andrea Viera says:

        @cabjf: That’s sad because its true. Alot of girls who went to HS with me had kids because they felt their parents didn’t care about them. Now that their older, they leave the kid with their parents as they go out and party. Very, very sad cycle.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          @Andrea Viera: My mom worked a full time job and went to college at night. We’d go to the grocery store at 11 pm just to spend time together because she had to leave for work before I could leave for school. Tough cookies. It happens. Doesn’t mean you need to have a baby so you can treat it like your pet dog, and expect unconditional love and care. What’s wrong with some people?

      • K-Bo says:

        @cabjf: boy I bet the teenage years were/will be a rude rude awakening for her.

      • Mr. Guy says:

        what kills me is that she claims that she has abandonment issues, or lacked some kind of ‘connection’ with her family as a child, but lo and behold, her OWN MOTHER is basically the one supporting her brood of kids.

        • K-Bo says:

          @Mr. Guy: Not to mention, if she lacked the connection with her mother when she was an only child, what makes her think she can provide that connection for 14 children? Oh wait, she doesn’t care about them feeling connected, it’s all about her. Look to hear a lot about these kids doing stupid stuff and blaming it on not being loved/ getting attention in about 20 years.

          • sprocket79 says:

            @K-Bo: See, that’s where it’s all messed up. Having all those kids is about connections TO HER not her connecting to them. If it was really about mutual love and a connection, she would have fewer kids so she could really connect and bond with them.

            Also all her ragging on her mom is ridiculous. No wonder her mother says in interviews that she won’t take care of the kids anymore. Frankly, if I were the mother of that nut, I would just move. Let the foreclosure happen. Then see what the crazy bitch does.

        • DaoKaioshin says:

          @Mr. Guy: this kinda reminds me of michael scott on the office, showing his appearance on a children’s television show. he said he wanted 100 kids when he grew up because he could force them to be his friends.

    • ionerox says:

      @MonkeyMonk: Baby hording? I suppose when it gets out of control (say, with 14 kids) and the children aren’t being taken care of well anymore- then off they’ll go to foster homes.

  12. josephbloseph says:

    Seriously, I hope this ends with all of her children being taken away from her for the negligent way she went about getting them. Fourteen is far too many children for a single parent with “no clear source of income.”

    • albear says:


      Here! here! my thought exactly.

    • Sean Gamble says:

      @josephbloseph:”Seriously, I hope this ends with all of her children being taken away from her for the negligent way she went about getting them”
      As do I. She is being extremely reckless, and right now it seems that its just to feed her over inflaed ego, cinsidering all the media attention shes getting.

      • floraposte says:

        @Sean Gamble: Kind of harsh to wish suffering on the children there, though. How about hoping Mom pulls it together and manages to take care of her kids?

        • AngryEddy says:

          @floraposte: It seems obvious that this woman has no concept of how to raise the children she keeps producing. She also clearly has no desire to work and support her ever-increasing brood, instead sucking support from her mother. As far as I can tell, she was counting on her story raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Because that payday didn’t happen, I’ll be damned if I have to be all hopeful smiles when she uses those kids like a shield and says “Think about the children!”

          Those kids going to other homes could quite possibly be the best thing for them. If they remain with this nut job, they’re all in for a long and miserable life.

        • archeomason says:

          @floraposte: Sure, she’s fast on her way to doing that…

          • floraposte says:

            @archeomason: I’m not arguing that it’s likely. I’m saying hoping she fucks her kids up sufficiently that they get sucked into foster care is, however, a rather cold thing, suggesting that punishment for the mom is more important than the welfare of the kids.

            • howie_in_az says:

              @floraposte: The mother cannot take care of the 6 children she had originally, let alone the 8 she just had. The only solution is to put the kids into foster care, as callous as that may be — at least then they’ll have some shot at something resembling a normal life.

            • josephbloseph says:

              @floraposte: I’m suggesting that the kids should be taken away for their own welfare. I’m saying that the mother is negligent and has no way to properly raise her children. Yeah, foster care is not an ideal situation, but neither is having 13 siblings and a single, unemployed parent. At least in foster care you’ve got a chance that the caregiver won’t be a psycho.

        • ailema says:

          @floraposte: I don’t wish harm on her kids, which is why I want someone to take them now and place them in families as soon as possible. This woman is too selfish to properly care for her children. Leaving these kids in her care is doing them no good. I really hope they will be placed with families that will keep them in contact with their mother, but I don’t think she should be the one taking care of them.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          @floraposte: Well, she obviously has mental issues. We’re talking clinical, not “she’s a nut”…there are plenty of medical professionals who can attest that this woman has severe issues, and has a ridiculous idea about how she should live her life. She has no reasoning when it comes to children, and cannot seem to understand that babies need food and diapers, and that stuff costs more money than she will ever make. Her world revolves around herself and how other people can fulfill her purposes and her life. These children cannot be in her care. Ever.

  13. LegoMan322 says:

    I do feel for the children and the rest of the family, but the family should of stepped in and did something about it. If you know she is ” not all there” don’t you think that you should of taken her to a doctor or something?

    She is making a circus out of this and enjoying the attention. I feel more for the family than I do for her.

  14. Hey Friend. says:

    Utterly absurd, maybe they’ll foreclose and finally allow those children to at least potentially have a decent place to live. It really burns my toast hearing about what people will do for publicity.

  15. IT-Chick says:

    Fertility treatment isn’t cheap, how did she even afford that?

    • floraposte says:

      @IT-Chick: I’ve wondered that–maybe that’s where the money for the mortgage went?

    • econobiker says:

      @IT-Chick: What server array have you been hiding under, IT-Chick?

      Nutshell- she worked as a California psych ward assistant years back, supposedly pulled alot of overtime and saved up, then was back injured by one of the wack patients, then got disability or a settlement to the tune of $165k over 5-6-7 years. Probably got into the baby making hobby when she had so much time on her hands…She is supposed to have student loans for $50k.

      It was reported Grandma Suleman didn’t even know about the $165k settlement until recently when a journalist asked Grandma about it.

      • IT-Chick says:


        Gah sorry, I don’t regularly follow the lives of deadbeat losers. Thanks for the nutshell.

        • econobiker says:

          @IT-Chick: No problem. I am only interested in this since my wife and I are considering similar treatments as octomom got and I now KNOW how much it could cost. And we are an intact couple with jobs and her benefits even pay for some low level fertility checking or treatments.

          Plus my wife is now gacking out on all of the Discovery Health, etc “having a baby” shows…sigh.

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @econobiker: For laffs, you should tell your wife to take a long, hot, scented, candle-lit bath. While she’s doing that, set a fire to a Barry White low, array a platter of strawberries and a homemade chocolate dipping sauce. Scatter the living room with scented candles then dim the lights. Fluff up the couch with comfortable pillows and put the cats outside. Spin the soundtrack to Say Anything in the background. When she comes down, tenderly guide her to the couch, nuzzle next to her, drawing a comforter over both of you. Quietly stare at the dancing flames in the fireplace for a bit, optionally hand-feeding her a dipped strawberry or two. Then, softly, in a low-pitched, sensual growl, whisper into her ear,
            “Let’s show that Suleman cow for the piker she is – let’s go for nine!

            (I hereby absolve myself of the resulting spousal abuse resulting on your body)

            • MPHinPgh says:

              @Trai_Dep: Let’s show that Suleman cow for the piker she is – let’s go for nine!

              DAMMIT! I laughed so hard Pepsi just shot out my nose. That stings, ya know!

              (still chuckling)

            • KyleOrton says:

              @Trai_Dep: You have it half right. Set up the bath and do everything to make her feel as relaxed as possible.

              And then give every child in the neighborhood a 3ft pixie stick and a can of MT. Dew and tell them there’s a Wii hidden somewhere in the house and the first kid to find it can keep it.

              That should cost $99,750 less than the fertility treatments.

      • Saboth says:


        I read she was also using her student loans to pay their bills instead of actually paying for school.

        • karmaghost says:

          @Saboth: Well, I think she’ll be using the loans for what they’re meant for; supporting herself (and her family) and paying for school. I think most school loans are given with the assumption that part of them goes for school and part goes for living expenses.

          Don’t get me wrong, though, I don’t think relying on student loans to pay for a huge family like that is a good idea. I think she’s just delaying the inevitable and I have my doubts that she would actually be able to do well in school with so many kids to look after.

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      @IT-Chick: She used money from two (I think it was two) workers comp settlements, and at times worked two jobs WHILE FEEDING HER OLDER CHILDREN WITH FOOD STAMPS to save up the approximately $100,000 she allegedly spent on the set of fertility treatments that resulted in octuplets.

      There’s been a lot of discussion about it in the media, particularly as she continues to insist she does not and will not accept welfare, but she narrowly defines welfare as TANF and excludes food stamps and children’s health care.

      She appears to have been gaming the system for years.

      • floraposte says:

        @Eyebrows McGee: I missed this too; thanks for the update. Have they figured out where the treatments were done yet?

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          @floraposte: Yes, “Nadya Suleman said in an interview aired Monday morning on NBC’s “Today” show that she used the West Coast IVF Clinic in Beverly Hills for all of her pregnancies.”

          That’s ALL FOURTEEN of her pregnancies, which means some doctors are getting licenses pulled; everyone kept saying the only way a doctor would have done this was if they didn’t know she already had six, and even then it was unethical. These doctors produced ALL FOURTEEN of hers.


          Jezebel has been doing a lot of coverage on Octomom and usually catches the latest articles.

        • econobiker says:

          @floraposte: Yup, the press even found a 2006 video of her at and touting the clinic…

      • ailema says:

        @Eyebrows McGee: She could have used that conniving, manipulative personality to give her kids a shot at a good life. Such a waste.

  16. IT-Chick says:

    And is it just me, or does that photo of her make her look like she’s had some plastic surgery? Botox, cheeks, lips…

  17. sirwired says:

    This case does raise interesting questions for which there are no good answers…

    We, as a society, have never penalized people in the past for having children they cannot afford. Indeed, we have things like the WIC program, CHIP, Medicaid, Head Start, etc., all to help parents raise children they cannot afford to have.

    Yes, this woman clearly has mental problems, and it was irresponsible for the doc to ever insert that many embryos. However, where do we draw the line on “too many kids”?

    Rules saying “No fertility treatments unless you have X income for your current Y children plus one.” might be a start. But you don’t need a fertility doctor to have kids. All you need is a sperm donor, and sex or a turkey baster and the need for a doc is gone. (Okay, you are unlikely to have octuplets this way, but you can certainly still turn yourself into a baby factory, and nobody is going to be able to stop you.)

    Limits on the number of embryos implanted are an idea, but some parents, especially ones that cannot afford multiple treatments, reasonably want as high a chance as possible of a pregnancy. More embryos = higher chance of being pregnant.

    Ah, we could put in hard limits (say, three) on the number of embryos, and then make the next round of treatment free if the first round doesn’t work! Nope. That would discourage clinics from taking on hard cases since those would increase their costs.

    All this said, I am having a hard time imagining how this woman could possibly NOT neglect her kids since she has so many. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to take care of them all, even with the help of her parents, who also sound like they are not exactly thrilled with the situation either.

    • econobiker says:

      @sirwired: “We, as a society, have never penalized people in the past for having children they cannot afford. Indeed, we have things like the WIC program, CHIP, Medicaid, Head Start, etc., all to help parents raise children they cannot afford to have.”

      That is also the economic premise of illegal immigrants’ “anchor babies” since the child is a US citizen the aid provider cannot ask the parent’s citizenship status.

    • chrysrobyn says:

      You state that “you don’t need a fertility doctor to have kids” and then go on to outline the way normal people have kids. I’d be foolish to disagree, and in fact I think we’re all on the same page that 14 is too many, but think about how long it would have taken to have 14 kids naturally. Medically, it’s not smart, but you can have a kid once a year (honestly once every 11 months, I believe, and that assumes 40 week pregnancies). Assuming no miscarriages, and one incidence of the 1/80 chance of natural twins, this is ordinarily a 13 year mission. On the 4th or 5th year, of course, the eldest can begin to help each other out and compensate for the parent being too busy with the youngest. 13 years is a long time to consider how tired you are and how much of a drain on your family and society you are.

      Fertility doctors aren’t required for pregnancy, but when they’re acting irresponsibly, they can cause the number of children in a family to climb far faster than a parent can reasonably be expected to learn how to care for them. I’m not suggesting I’d want to impose my values on someone else in this particular regard, but I don’t think a fertility doctor should make a parent go over 2-3 kids — I worry we’re going to breed the inability to procreate without intervention.

      • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

        @chrysrobyn: “honestly once every 11 months, I believe, and that assumes 40 week pregnancies”

        Most women it takes a while to re-ovulate after pregnancy. I’d calculate with like 15 or 18 months as your standard if you’re trying to go one right after the next. (Actually, what’s the average birth spacing for the Duggars? That’d give you a nice baseline!)

      • floraposte says:

        @chrysrobyn: Problem is, I can’t even get on board with “fourteen is too many.” That’s a cultural call, not a genuine health/child welfare call, and I’m sure many of us know people in or from huge families that worked perfectly well. They don’t work the same as smaller families, but that doesn’t mean they’re worse, just different. And it’s not like having only one or two kids guarantees a parent’s ability to be a successful caretaker.

        I think the faulty junction here was the IVF. I’d like to think there’s a standard beyond “Can you pay me for making these babies?”, and I’m glad to see that’s getting a fair amount of discussion in the medical community.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          @floraposte: Total post-jinx, dude. :)

          • floraposte says:

            @Eyebrows McGee: Heh. Cool, so long as this doesn’t mean I have to share the pregnant thing too.

            The North American Council on Adoptable Children used to have (and may still) a really interesting newsletter, and I vividly recall an examination of the way large families worked. Really fascinating.

        • DeeKey says:

          @floraposte: From what I read, and saw on TV, the Doc inplanted 4-5 embryos that she had stored, and at least two of those embryos split, causing the 8.

          Usually when this happens, the Doc will eliminate a number of those embryos to give the others a better chance of survival, but in this case, she refused to reduce. Stating religious and moral reasons to deny the reduction of embryos.

          She was not implanted with 8 of them and it is normal for women undergoing this procedure to have multiple embryos implanted because of the cost, and the viability of all of them to grow is small. She won the embryo lottery, much to our dismay.

        • sirwired says:

          @floraposte: Fourteen isn’t too many in all situations.

          Fourteen, spread out over twenty years, with one parent with a solid full-time job, stable housing, health insurance, family support, and stable a marriage(or civil union… I’m not picky) can work.

          Fourteen, eight of which are infants, none of which are out of elementary school, with no visible means of support, burnt out grandparents, a house falling into foreclosure, and no father, is almost certainly too many.

          Where do you draw the line? I don’t know…

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          @floraposte: But it IS a health/welfare call when you factor income, or lack thereof. I can’t sustain my own life on $15,000 a year, how does a mother of 14 kids expect to sustain herself and a family on NOTHING? I knew a family that had six kids, two of them were twins. They made it just fine, but there were two steady and reliable incomes.

          The more kids you have, the more room you need to provide them with shelter and a healthy amount of space. You can’t put 8 people in a 1,000 sq. ft. apartment. That’s a health and welfare problem. You have to feed everyone reasonably healthy meals (that’s money as well). There’s a level of responsibility, and it does turn into a health and child welfare call.

    • idip says:

      @sirwired: As far as income ratios to children in the family.

      That’s an interesting idea.

      I mean… We can have as many children as we want and the government cant’ say anything. I’m sure the children can get taken away by CPS after a while but there is no law saying we can’t have children.

      But, we do require people to have a certain income to live in a home. I mean, apartments in my area require you to have monthly income that is equal to 3x’s the monthly rent.

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      @sirwired: “All this said, I am having a hard time imagining how this woman could possibly NOT neglect her kids since she has so many. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to take care of them all”

      While I agree this woman is probably going to neglect her children, and large multiple births are a special case, large families are not inherently neglectful. It’s simply a different dynamic than most modern American families are used to, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.

      Similarly, an awful lot of DCFS actions boil down to “being poor” … and an awful lot of DCFS refusals to intervene boil down to “middle class and white.” There are some really shocking studies out there about how poor and middle class families can do exactly the same thing, and DCFS calls one neglect and ignores the other or deems it okay upon investigation.

      We need to be very careful in what we’re defining as child neglect.

      • sirwired says:

        @Eyebrows McGee: Certainly I was not implying that large families are necessarily neglectful. I was specifically referring to this case, where none of the fourteen kids are out of elementary school, the grandma is getting ready to throw in the towel, and the mother has no visible means of support.

        I could certainly see this working for fourteen kids spaced out over twenty years, although it would be extremely tough, and still a massive drain on the taxpayers.

        I could also see an upper-middle-class mom pulling off a similar family situation if she could afford a couple of nannies. It’s still stupid, but probably no longer neglectful. (One woman simply cannot change diapers and feed that many infants fast enough.)

        Is this the way things should be? A poor mother gets her kids taken away for neglect, while a wealthy mother can simply purchase enough childcare to avoid it? No, not really, but again, there are no good answers here.

        • clickable says:

          @sirwired: Your mention of nannies reminds me of a question that’s been nagging at me since the beginning. Every time our family or extended community’s been blessed with births of triplets (the highest # of multiples I’ve known personally), the whole community stepped up to help out with caretaking shifts, bottlefeeding shifts, housecleaning shifts, even take-mommy-for-a-breather shifts, for as long as it took for the family to get everything together. In some cases it was months, in some cases a year or two. I’d say I’ve seen this happen 5-6 times, and it involved either the immediate family, or the couple’s friends, or sometimes members of the congregation or other social organizations.

          The Sulemans don’t seem to have any extended network of help – no aunts and uncles, neighbors, church group, no one to help ease the burden. They seem so isolated, and it seems somewhat odd to me. I feel sorry for Grandma Suleman, who is bearing most of the day to day burden, and I really wonder why there isn’t any informal help network.

    • snowburnt says:

      @sirwired: I know you weren’t saying this, but I just hope we don’t get carried away to the point of saying that this woman is an example of our society.

    • Anonymous says:

      @sirwired: @sirwired:

      Good post, but keep in mind that programs like WIC are not always for people who cannot afford everything.
      My husband has a wonderful job and his insurance covers almost everything. This came in very handy when our daughter was born premature and spent 3 months in the NICU. She requires a special formula which you cannot purchase in a store and which his insurance will not cover. (Most insurance companies as a rule will not cover formula.) Her doctor filled out a form for WIC because that is the only way we could acquire the formula. That is all I receive from WIC and it has been a Godsend.

      I don’t even begin to understand how she can be out shopping and getting her nails done when she has 8 babies in the NICU. For the first month, I spent every single day beside my baby and never wanted to leave her side. For the next 2 months, I had to go every other day because emotionally it was too much. You would think she would want to be right there beside all of them. After all, one of the doctors told me my presence was helping my daughter get stronger.

    • samurailynn says:

      @sirwired: I think things like this could be helped with requiring some kind of financial backing to get fertility treatments. Not just “pay the clinic $100,000” but prove you have “an income”.

      It also might help if we didn’t reward people with tax benefits for having children. I know that sounds harsh, but I also know there are people out there that have kids because they know it will give them a tax break to have another dependent. Sure, you need more money to raise a kid, but having a kid also means more expense to the government (education, health care, WIC, etc). It seems like if anything, a person should have to pay more taxes if they have children.

    • hmk says:

      @sirwired: I agree with what you say.. where does one draw the line? Pretending for a second she did not have six other kids, by implanting all eight embryos to hedge her bets, how do you tell her to abort one or more? I’m not a pro-lifer or anything, but I honestly do not know what I would do in that situation. Well I know I would never be in that situation to begin with, but if I were, where would I want the line drawn? If I were that desperate to have a child, would I take the risk of octuplets? (remember, pretending I/she didn’t have six already)

      I think this woman is crazy and 14 children is certainly a drain on her, her family, and society. But I’m finding it hard to pass judgement too harshly.

  18. Closed captioning provided by Homerjay says:

    Dear Psycho Broad,
    Don’t worry. Go right ahead and breed as much as you damn well please. We’ll continue to pick up the tab.

    Your Loving Government

  19. Flow Bucks says:

    This lady is a nut case.

  20. Joseph Heck says:

    Funny, the leave a comment section doesn’t work on her page…I wonder why?

    Also I’d rather light my money on fire then send it to that lady.

  21. jklug80 says:

    The sad fact is that if she had 14 dogs or cats (instead of kids) and they were living in the same situation the city would take them away and label her as an animal hoarder. She is a children hoarded. She really needs to have her kids taken away until she can show that she is a responsible adult and an able parent. If you have 6 kids, are jobless, living off your parents who are behind on their mortgage, why are you paying to get pregnant again?

    I guess having more kids is an easy way to get more government help.

    • econobiker says:

      @jklug80: Thank you, thank you, thank you for the “children hoarder” description. That is what I first thought when reports of her case started to get weird…

    • jcargill says:

      @jklug80: Good point. Why are pets more valued and protected than children?

    • arsonisfun says:

      @Joseph Heck: this. horrible human being …

    • JanetCarol says:

      @jklug80: What she is doing is disgusting and an example of one of the reasons why this world is so messed up.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        @janetcarol: I think the fact that someone LET her do this is disgusting. The doctors should have their licenses pulled for allowing her to go through with her treatments. It’s not a right for anyone to have children through IVF, especially not someone who already had six children, was unmarried and didn’t have a source of income. Does no one check on these things?! Foster parents get checked out. Adoptive parents get checked out. Why not single women walking in looking to have IVF?

  22. joe18521 says:

    Just get your own reality show on TLC and you’re set.

    • scoosdad says:

      @joe18521: I was going to say, ABC’s “Extreme Makeover” show to the rescue. Think of the ratings.

      This woman does not need our scorn, she needs professional help. And her mother trotting around to the morning news shows is not an example of family support and togetherness. CBS should be ashamed for exploiting this story over the last couple of mornings. It’s sad no matter how you look at it.

      • TVarmy says:

        @scoosdad: ABC’s X-Treme Psychoanalysis! Brought to you by Pfizer…

        Seriously, why can’t we have that show? It’s something people actually need, and it doesn’t saddle people with something they can’t afford to own (I mean, I hope Pfizer does pay for the drugs…). Sure, we lose dr. – patient confidentiality, but then we also have plastic surgery shows with no blurring of the face or change of name, so it seems a lot of people are willing to trade medical privacy for national exposure.

  23. sumgai says:

    Her kids must be gay already. There’s a rainbow on the front page.

  24. gqcarrick says:

    I am sure the Obama financial team will bail her out.

  25. kaptainkk says:

    Sick f$%%^ing world this is! She has 6 kids and want have another and has to use fertility treatments and it so happens that she ends up with 8 more?! Her and her doctor should be sent to North Korea. The kids are really the only ones I feel bad for.

  26. econobiker says:

    I vote for the best tabloid nickname ever: “Octo-mom”

    (of course a James Bond film could give the other less printable reference)

  27. magstheaxe says:

    My heart breaks when I think of those kids and those grandparents. Ms. Suleman had destroyed her kids’ lives before they even got started, and I suspect she’s destroyed any hope her parents had for retirement.

    If she genuinely can’t see the inherent difficulties of raising fourteen kids (at least three of them disabled (according to media reports) by herself, she needs to be committed and the children fostered out.

  28. TheFuzz53 says:

    And these are the people that Obama wants to help.

    Eff them. Let people get kicked the hell out of their houses. I’m tired having my money support idiots.

    Mike Judge wasn’t far off. Idiocracy here we come.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      @TheFuzz53: No. You’re jumping waaaay off into conclusion land.

      This lady is irresponsible, stupid, and down-right selfish. We have absolutely no reason to help her out (after they take her children away of course).

      Its people who are actually trying their ASSES off to pay on their reasonable mortgages but lost their jobs due to no fault of their own that we need to help.

      I agree that welfare seekers who do nothing to improve their situation need therapy or get kicked to the curb. Especially ones who do nothing but pop out babies for benefits.

  29. SoCalGNX says:

    A California psychiatrist has made a formal complaint to Child Protective Services (listing 24 reasons why the children need to be removed no less). I hope that someone follows thru and removes them. Any parent can tell you that one newborn can be a struggle in that you get little sleep due to feeding etc. Can you imagine how much care 8 will get with this woman? There is something mentally wrong with her.

    • DeeKey says:

      @SoCalGNX: and lets not forget that these 8 and at least 3 of her other children are all “special needs” and will need specialized medical and theraputic care for most or all of their lives.

      Hello handouts and gov’t asst.

      Most people struggle with one or two special needs children, this woman has at least 11 now, and no way..just no freaking way any one person can handle that.

    • scoosdad says:

      @SoCalGNX: I hope she gets some help. Her kids will thank her when they’ve grown up, no matter where they end up.

  30. jcargill says:

    Is it me or are her collagen-inflated balloon lips absolutely repulsive to the rest of humanity?

    She should have saved the money from her IVFs and plastic surgeries to buy herself instea a few years in therapy and a tubal ligation.

    BTW: where is her ex husband? I would LOVE to hear an interview with him!

  31. idip says:

    Just wondering. If i donate, can I claim it on my taxes as a charity donation?

    I mean… not that i’m going to… but just wondering

  32. Joyce Godsey says:

    if I prayed, I’d pray that the state children services takes her children. she is NOT responsible for ONE child never mind 14.

  33. heyimbobo says:

    Noticed that their “leave a comment” link is broken. Can’t imagine why…..

  34. Saboth says:

    Always makes me think everyone should be sterilized at birth, then have to pass a wide range of tests in order to have their “children blocker” removed. Proof of income, at least complete high school, show good judgement, pass some basic psych tests, etc.

    Just think how many billions we would save on welfare, and crime.

    • ogremustcrush says:

      @Saboth: Doesn’t sound like too bad of idea to me, but it would never fly. Beyond the religious arguments, there are too many ways that some sort of discrimination could be fostered, and discrimination in reproduction is pretty much eugenics. It could work in a totalitarian regime perhaps. Although on the topic, you should read Brave New World, the government controls the production of children in its dystopia(or utopia, depending on ideology.)

      • Saboth says:


        Might have to check that out. I don’t trust the government as far as I can throw it, but…on the other hand we have situations like this, and people having 5 kids just so they can watch Maury all day on a 50 inch plasma while the rest of us bust our humps 50 hours a week.

      • DaoKaioshin says:

        @ogremustcrush: think of the horrible consequences! a race of responsible, intelligent, healthy, outgoing people

        the madness!!!

    • CrowMignon says:

      @Saboth: Not that I don’t understand your feelings, but you just recreated eugenics. Who gets to determine where those lines are drawn? I think most of us agree that this case is extreme and she should in no way ever reproduce again. Fine, I’m with you on that.

      But completing high school? There goes the Amish, they stop at 8th grade.

      Show good judgement? In whose estimation? Would the test require great success, or is not failing enough?

      Proof of income is fine, children certainly require resources, but, again, who determines how much is enough?

      Basic psych tests? No offense, but how many people’s religious beliefs would get them committed? (Do you believe in any unseen entities that watch over you and intrude on and affect your daily life?)

      Because of all of these sorts of issues, and because of everybody’s unique outlook on life, there is no group that every other group would entrust its reproductive rights to.

    • TVarmy says:

      @Saboth: Let’s just apply these restrictions to IVF. It’s highly unregulated as politicians are afraid to touch it, but it’s clear that some people are getting away with a lot. Perhaps even just a restriction saying that unless a person can show proof of a reliable income source at the time of IVF (shit happens, people get laid off, husband dies, etc so at the time of birth doesn’t count), the children will not be eligible for child support government benefits unless they are turned over to foster care/adoption.

      It’s a tough call, but IVF is probably the most deliberate forms of pregnancy there is. I can understand child support for accidental pregnancies, and it’s hard to prove whether or not a natural pregnancy was accidental. However, IVF is an expensive and deliberate process, calling on specialists. Clearly, there should be some regulation-backed ethics on who can and cannot have access to the procedure, as it will become a strain on public resources otherwise.

  35. vliam says:

    Angela bought the home in March 2006 for $605,000, the New York Daily News reported. Her mortgage is $435,750.

    According to the documents, Angela Suleman has made no payments on the house since last May.

    The kids were born at 30.5 weeks. A little math shows that she was implanted around June 30th. Apparently, she had that mortgage payment earmarked for something else.

    This calls for a good, old-fashion stoning.

    • K-Bo says:

      @vliam: Angela is the mother;s mother, who claimed to beg her not to have more. More likely that’s the time the mother started neglecting her kids so she could save money to have more, and grandma had to step in and keep the current ones alive. To me that’s even worse.

  36. Xerloq says:

    I’m conflicted about this whole matter. On one hand, we’re free to have as many kids as we please, and to be as irresponsible as we want. It’s an individual choice, but it makes me very sad that she chose to act this way because it affects the life of the kids. I think the kids need a better home, definitely.

    On the other hand, the foster care system is not the place you want kids to end up. If you think this woman is irresponsible, you should see some of the deadbeats that populate the foster care system – all the benefits of welfare (and more, sometimes) without the pain of labor. And if you don’t like the kid, you can usually kick them back to the state. I wrote a research paper on the foster care system 12 years ago, and was horrified at the “failure rate” of the system. The percentage of kids who are incarcerated or commit suicide are much (orders of magnitude) higher than kids who come from a dual (or single) parent household. The offspring of foster care kids have it worse off. Lots (not all) of the foster-parents take on more kids than they can handle to get the government benefits, social workers are too sparse to review all the parents/kids on a timely basis, so violations can go unnoticed for years.

    Ultimately, I have no idea what to do, but I don’t think the kids should go to the state. I hope and pray that this lady’s family can support the kids… it’s far better than the alternative, IMHO.

    • floraposte says:

      @Xerloq: Yeah, this is what worries me. If the babies removed immediately and rights are severed, they’re probably pretty good adoption candidates, but any removal later on down the line is tremendously traumatic for the kids even without the utter crapshoot that is foster care.

      (To be fair on the outcomes, though, it’s also quite possible that the parental dysfunction that leads to their losing their kids to foster care is biologically based, so it wouldn’t be surprising if their kids and grandkids had the same issues, foster care or no. But foster care is still inclined to suck.)

    • Anonymous says:


      “we’re free to have as many kids as we please, and to be as irresponsible as we want”

      That’s actually not correct. You have the right be irresponsible as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else. In her case, she has infringed on the rights of her children, her mother, and the U.S taxpayer. She has also committed banking fraud by directing monies from student loans to pay for infertility treatment. Her receipt of food stamps may also be in violation of the law, given the monetary resources she has had. She’s also already stated that she plans to get more student loans and use that money to support her children. Hopefully, no bank will lend her that money.

      Frankly, the taxpayers and gov’t should file a class-action lawsuit against her. That would be interesting.

    • Shrew2u says:

      @Xerloq: Excellent points about the foster care system. I got a hint of two facets of the system through my husband and best friend.

      The best side of the system was from my best friend: he wanted to eventually adopt a child, but trained to become a foster parent first. The day of his final training class, a caseworker pulled him out of class and offered a baby on the spot.

      I still remember his first phone call: he was at Target with his new son, going nuts buying everything he needed and talking a mile a minute. After a year, the “parents” had their rights terminated (non-compliant crack smokers) and my best friend immediately began adoption proceedings. His son is 5 now, sharp as a tack and thoroughly loved by his family. He’s one of the lucky ones – his involvement with the foster care system began and ended with someone who wanted to raise a child instead of obtain a cash cow.

      The worst side of the system is exemplified by things my husband told me about the legal arm of our county’s DCFS – their legal department is where they “dump” county lawyers a) instead of firing them or b) to hang out until the position the lawyer actually wants opens up. Those who actually have the calling and want to work in that department are dedicated but few.

      Historically, the DCFS legal arm was the red-headed step-child of the county legal department. It was actually set up as a private department (*not* part of County Counsel), and their lawyers received half the pay and fewer benefits than their County Counsel colleagues. When the DCFS legal arm was assimilated by County Counsel, they raised the pay and benefits but did nothing about quality control.

      So, when a child in my county dies because a parent or foster parent received/retained custody beyond all logical comprehension, I have to keep in mind that the guardian ad litems who are supposed to be representing the interests of these poor children come from the creme de la crap of the county’s legal system.

      • Xerloq says:

        @Shrew2u: I’m glad your friend was one of the positives in the foster care system.

        @floraposte: The studies I read seemed to indicate that it was nurture (more than nature) that causes the downward spiral.

        There are some good outcomes in foster care, but I don’t see adoption as an option in this case because the lady has 6 kids already who would be affected negatively to have 8 siblings removed.

        She probably shouldn’t have had one more kid, let alone eight, but the kids are here now and the best thing is for them to stay with their family. She has emotional issues and financial issues, but who doesn’t?

        Ultimately, I think there a tons of media sharks trying to bite off their 15 minutes from this woman’s (mis)fortune.

        • Xerloq says:

          @Xerloq: One more thing on the adoption note. I favor closed adoptions which would be nearly impossible with the circus surrounding the family.

          Too many open adoptions end up badly.

  37. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    This woman makes a good argument for forced sterilization.

    The thing with the baby-snatchers from DCFS (or whatever it’s called in your state) is that many of the people who have their kids taken think they’re fungible. They just have another to replace the kid that got taken, and then DCFS has to wait for the replacement kid to be neglected before they can take it.

    • K-Bo says:

      @segfault: That’s strange to me, seems like if you remove one you should remove all children from their on out, I mean someone who will do that to one child is unlikely to be any better to the next.

  38. prag says:

    Take away these kids and give them to people who can afford to raise them. What a leech.

  39. jessi5000 says:

    The sad thing about this is that there is probably going to be some rich douchebag who bails her out of the situation. What about the millions of Americans who are honest, hardworking, and responsible – and still fall short on their payments? Where is the reality show offer and donation website for them? :(

  40. Blueskylaw says:

    Nadya Suleman Bailout Package?

  41. HogwartsAlum says:

    The media needs to stop covering this and feeding this woman’s desire for attention.

  42. c_c says:

    It’s ok guys she said she’s going to provide for her kids using student loans….

    sheesh, I could barely provide for myself when I was living off student loans in grad school. This woman is certifiable.

    • Saboth says:


      Heh, I saw that. Apparently stealing tax money meant to better your education is acceptable as “income to feed your brood” now.

  43. ckaught78 says:

    The state should step in and give the kids to the Duggers.

  44. Anonymous says:

    I honestly do feel so sorry for these children being brought into such a situation, this girl is thinking of nobody, especially the children and babies, greed for herself. I think she has planned with her having the babies on using the goverment system, pay for all! The public in her stimulus package, would hopefully be full of having sympathy for her and pay for all her needs, using the babies. SAD! A free ride and secure life while the rest of us work and struggle with the economy in its worst possible, this was no problem for her, have more babies, get more money, etc…..? I hope our social services really thinks and investigates into managing our tax dollars. Free food, free medical etc..losing the house she lives in, free house someone going to throw in?……If this is the case of free money, etc. maybe we should all consider having babies to get us through the tough times and have free food, free medical etc…..I realize fully there are 14 little children here that have to be considered, but the mother made that choice, spent “extremely” large amounts of money to have these children and I believe she should “ALONE” be responsible completely for her actions, not the people!! She should of been working for her other six children not having 8 more! Our economy is where it is! I know this is only one area, but someone needs to get this girl in reality! Or maybe she is smarter than most of us trying to make ends meet and hang on to what we have worked so hard for, bring children into the world and have everybody else pay for everything and sit back and enjoy life! So many no insurance, no food, losing their homes, losing jobs etc… People are working and struggling to make ends meet and some having such a hard time doing that with hard work and going without so much and losing so much……….Why are we even giving her all this time and talk? This was not a tragedy, this was her decision and the money, unbelievable she spent to do this. Why didn’t she pay the mortgage instead for her other six children? Lets stop and let her live as she “payed for” and” planned for”! I know so many more that deserve time on shows and news media coverage, as these people did not pay for not having food, losing their homes, their insurance, cars, etc……they deserve the HEADLINES! Want to help? Help these people, honest hard working people for decades that are losing everything and have no help! Where is their free insurance, food, housing, etc.? The new stimulus package doesn’t provide that……….hers does!

  45. savdavid says:

    Obviously the kids were used for donations and a free house.

  46. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    The even sadder fact is that one of her older children has autism. He’s most likely going to need extra attention care, especially when he gets into his teens. She has NO idea what she’s gotten herself into if any of her new octuplets have major medical problems either.

    Damn woman is so self-absorbed. She could’ve quite reasonably had a selective abortion but noooo “god put these babies here”. Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. YOU, WOMAN put those babies there. YOU.

  47. Outrun1986 says:

    I read somewhere that she is supposed to be going to college to try and better herself. I would like to know HOW she is going to go to college and take care of 14 children. One newborn is enough for most parents as others in this thread have stated. I cannot imagine a single person caring for 8 newborns at once. The other children aren’t old enough (or able) to help out with caring for 8 new children.

    I don’t think the media is going overboard with this case, there haven’t been ANY donations of diapers, carseats or strollers yet from any company, as there were with the previous family that had octuplets.

    I don’t think its wrong to have 14 children, as my great grandmother had 12 children however urban America is not the place to have 14 kids. Its definitely not right to have 14 kids if you don’t have the income or means to support them as well. Raising kids is a lot different than it was in the 1920’s when my great grandmother had 12 kids, do you really expect a 5 year old today to be able to help out with the tasks of caring for younger siblings?

    • K-Bo says:

      @Outrun1986: See, that’s the thing, people are arguing that big families were once the norm, but they had them 1-2 at a time, so by the time #13&14 came along, there were a few who were at very least self sufficient, or possibly able to help. Before IVF, there was no such thing as a family with 14 kids under the age of 7 (I think that’s how old the oldest is) It makes a huge difference.

      • ZukeZuke says:

        @K-Bo: Not to mention those kids were usually working on a farm, earning their keep. Not sponging off the welfare system.

        Bulletin alert to Suleman: Food stamps ARE welfare. They come from the same pot and are distributed by the same local social service agencies. They’re just a bit more restrictive than straight $. Didn’t you learn anything in college?

  48. bbagdan says:

    Sell the kids for a couple grand each. done.

  49. LionelEHutz says:

    Can we please introduce this woman to the Norplant, now.

  50. Frank The Tank says:

    And I thought my mom’s second cousins were nuts with 15 kids….

    Oh wait. They have two houses (bought the second right before #8), and both work full time jobs. First house is a mother/daughter and second is 5 bedrooms….

    Did I mention that they did this over 25+ years and have two sets of twins?

    They also own a large van and large chunk of property between the two houses.

    Irresponsible? I don’t think so. They are all cared for. The living conditions are far from horrid. Would I question their reasons behind it? Yes. Something isn’t right with them. They are some of the nicest people you can meet though.

    The difference here is that this octomom is completely out of her mind. She has NO JOB, NO HOUSE…..what is she thinking? 17 people in what…a 3 bedroom home?

  51. baristabrawl says:

    I don’t understand why this woman has not been locked up. While it’s awful to separate children, this woman clearly needs medication and to have her uterus restrained. I can’t imagine that she wouldn’t do this again.

    However, with all of the media attention I can’t imagine that she’s not making some money. She should be able to get caught up on her mortgage. Who supports this woman? WHO?


  52. DaoKaioshin says:

    how can the woman be so reckless? several of her children already have developmental disabilities. so she decides to have more rather than focus on taking care of them?

  53. Ben Miner says:

    I would like to know what Jim and Michelle Duggar think of all this.

  54. SigmundTheSeaMonster says:

    Isn’t that the same amount she used on her nose job and lip work?

  55. JanetCarol says:

    sterilization – she needed it years ago

  56. discounteggroll says:

    can we make this post special and blame the “victim” without fear of reprimand?

  57. waltcoleman says:

    In addition, the hospital where she gave birth to the octuplets has contacted the state of Ca for financial assistance to cover the medical bills. California’s taxpayers will wind up footing the bill to raise these kids.

  58. cupcake_ninja says:

    What, you mean default on your mortgage, then conceive 8 children, on top of your current 6 in a strike it rich plan in hopes of being like the Duggars and the Gosselins is a bad idea? You don’t say.

  59. ZukeZuke says:

    This neurotic woman needs a swift kick in the ass, not sperm + eggs shoved up her va-jay-jay.

    Her story gets crazier every week!

  60. Maegan Anderman says:

    She also thinks that she’s going to put 14 kids in the university’s daycare. Aside from the fact that uni daycares have waiting lists YEARS LONG, they aren’t free. They’re usually somewhere around $20-$40 a day. Per kid. Even at just 2 days a week of classes, that is still thousands of dollars a month in daycare alone. Then you have to get them to daycare. Have you tried to fit 12 carseats and 2 boosters into any sort of vehicle?

    I mean, we all know she didn’t think this cunning plan through, but she’s still just running her flipping mouth and not thinking AT ALL.

  61. Elijah Perez says:

    I am furiously pissed at that woman. She puts me at a loss for words with her stupidity.

  62. consumerd says:

    If you do donate folks be sure it goes to the kids. They are the innocents and did nothing wrong but be born. Keep that in mind.

    Hopefully someday, someone will be kind and explain to these kids on what she did.

    It’s just sad to see stuff like this happen.

  63. KevinReyn says:

    Ok so we have vented and we all agree the woman is a whack job. Now lets turn our attention to the children, for they are the victims here. You dont get to choose your parents and these poor kids are in for a lifetime of “issues”. We at the consumerist have always be quick to jump in and help those wronged and i say drop the bitching about her and lets figure out a awy to help these kids that does not directly benefit the mother.

    I am going to throw a couple ideas out there and hope they get expanded on rather then shot down because these kids are going to need our help, they didnt ask for it but they will certainly need it.

    So how do we help them without getting mom rich off their exploitation?

    1. A trust fund for the children? Donations go to the fund and the monies are handled by a third party ensureing that the children are fed, clothed and given an opportunity to persue a higher education when they are older?
    2. Boycott any magazine or tv show that even mentions the idea that they will be interviewing the mother via a pay for appearance process unless the payment goes to the fund mentioned above?

    Come on guys and girls there are some very smart people on this site, there has to be a way that we can care for these kids through the generosity in our hearts without putting the burden on the state and without directly benefiting the puppy mill that is their mother.

    • TopcatF14B says:

      @KevinReyn: “we can care”” ??? are you a damn nutjob…why the hell shoudl WE care for her kids? This is HER problem let her deal with it, if the kids die from having no food how is that OUR problem…Most kids can’t afford college today but you want to give her kids a free ride? get cancer asshole.

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        @TopcatF14B: ‘We’ doesn’t have to include you. If people want to step in so the kids aren’t on welfare that’s their business.

      • ailema says:

        @TopcatF14B: Some people have hearts and would like all people to have a fair chance at life. I’m sorry your life is so bad that you can’t understand the concept of caring about other people, especially children who had no choice in their situation. I’ve been through some incredibly rough times and I would like to help keep other people from suffering the same. You can continue to let children ‘die from having no food’ and I will continue to help out so that my children will understand compassion and will never turn out like you.

      • KevinReyn says:

        @TopcatF14B: Get cancer asshole?

        Wow your a piece of work and are obviously no the kind of consumerist poster I was speaking to. But since you decided to share your two cents thank you, while I dont necessarily share your sentiment I do value the time you took to tell me how you feel about it.

        However next time you decide to post you opinion, put down the crack pipe at least 45 seconds before you start typing. I would love to resort to flaming you as you chose to do to me unprovoked but alas I simply cannot find more articulate words then nutjob nor can I come up with a more fantastic wish for another human being then to wish that they get cancer. I feel such sorrow for you at the moment that you cannot find it in such a broken heart to care about the lives of children who were born into the life of of a woman so completely twisted mentally. Well I guess maybe when you look in the mirror you might find you have lot more in common with her then you would like to admit.

        May you find peace in your heart before your time on this earth has past.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @KevinReyn: I think the best way to make sure donations help the kids would be to send it to the grandmother or have her be the third party handling the trust. Also, sending goods or gift cards instead of cash: diapers, clothing, etc. The gift cards should be store/use specific: grocery store cards, medical gift cards, etc.

      I don’t know how anyone would convince her to do it but what would really help her kids is if she got some therapy. (That’s not bashing; if the state doesn’t step in then it’d be best for them if she worked on whatever problems prompted her to do this in the first place.)

      • K-Bo says:

        @Rectilinear Propagation: I don’t think the grandmother is the answer. She talks a good game, but she’s done nothing to stop this, and I don’t really feel she has the spine to stand up to the mother. I think it needs to be a non-family member who does things like this for a living (lawyer,Guardian ad Litem, ect) someone who answers to the people donating, not the family.

    • DaoKaioshin says:

      @KevinReyn: my solution: take all the kids 3 and under away. they’re prime adoption candidates. everyone’s problems are solved.

      • KevinReyn says:

        @DaoKaioshin: I agree that ultimately that may be the end solution. Though the children will still require support either through state support in the foster system or hopefully through a family that chooses to adopt. Unfortunately I doubt many will want to adopt them for fear that when the mother is deemed fit (potentially) that she may come back after them regardless of the length of time they had been with the new parents. Not to mention that the child with autism will require a truly special family to take on that challenge. Either way I dont see an easy life for these poor kids and she will be the cause of most of their grief.

  64. onlysublime says:

    So does anyone know how an unemployed woman who lives at home can afford IVF when the cheapest possible price is $15000 and usually is $20K+?

  65. ironchef says:

    maybe she needs to hit bottom first.

  66. DoctorMD says:

    I heard but didn’t confirm the doctor did it for free as a publicity stunt. He had a low success rate. Although I don’t know if this lady even had a fertility problem.

    The difference with the family with 18 kids is the older kids take care of the younger ones (not fair to the kids who are conscripted to raise children instead of having a childhood). And the kids aren’t f’ed up prematures with lifelong problems.

  67. jeandelli says:

    she needs to be thrown in jail

  68. kwsventures says:

    Since Obama doesn’t care about personal responsibility. Maybe Ms. 14 kids can ask him for a bailout.

    • ironchef says:

      @kwsventures: way to bring Obama into the mix on a completely unrelated topic.

      Maybe it was Bush’s fault. Like the economy, the problems started during the Bush admin.

  69. batsy says:

    I love how her other 6 kids aren’t even on the front page.

    The wording on the site doesn’t even make sense – “Click here if you would like to make an online donation and thank you for your support.” Why would I want to thank me, aren’t you supposed to be thanking me?

  70. Blue says:

    Its being reported today that she has been seen shopping in Nordstroms lately!!!!!

  71. Erica Larson says:

    sure…she can afford to take care of them….

  72. madanthony says:

    If you go to adopt a cat from pretty much any respectable shelter or rescue group, you will generally have to fill out an application asking about past pet ownership, number of current pets, financial situation, living situation, and a number of other things to make sure you are fit to care for a cat. Some even require references and home visits.

    If you want fertility treatments, not so much.

  73. Cat_In_A_Hat says:

    Well if she enjoys being pregnant so much she should just become a professional surrogate mother and make money that way ::runs from the bricks being thrown at her:: i hope someone finds the sarcasm and humor and in my comment. :)

  74. morganlh85 says:

    She’s like those 12-year-olds on Maury who want nothing more than to have a baby so someone, anyone will love them. She must have had some strange kind of childhood to turn out like this.

  75. MoebiusSK8 says:

    The leave a comment link doesn’t work, but the donation one does. Sic

  76. MoebiusSK8 says:

    Since the State is going to be paying for these kids they should come in and take them all and put them in foster homes.

  77. KevinReyn says:

    How about the doctor that performed the IVF the second time? He should lose his license and be stoned in the center of town by all who want to cast stones

  78. ngth says:

    The comments section appears to work on that website.

  79. blazenbu says:

    Clown car uterus + state of California = the highest taxes in the nation! Congratulations!

    As of July, the county of LA will pay 9.75% in sales tax plus a surcharge tax on the state tax already withheld due to the budget passed today. Promised to last two years many know it won’t go away, we are still paying a sales-tax increase due to the San Francisco earthquake so the city could rebuild…in 1989!

    Is it surprising they all happened a week apart? See the possibilities for you in the Golden State!

    As the Eagle’s sang in “The Last Resort”, “Once you call a place paradise, you can kiss it good-bye.” Sad buy true. How can anyone live with taxes, traffic, and the ever increasing border drug-wars intruding further into the state?

    Key West, I’ll be seeing you before retirement. Maybe there a few 3rd graders who would like a teacher from one of California’s top school district. If not, I’ll sweep the floor of the bar. Anything is better than feeling like a prisoner in the state you never dreamed of leaving since birth. It’s no longer desireable.

    Holy Cow!

  80. Robert Isbell says:

    anyone that supports that cow and her herd of idiots, needs to be removed from the gene pool immediately.

  81. Anonymous says:

    Last night they said Octo-mom is shopping around for a new house. She has an appointment to go see one house with a $1,250,000.00 list price. I guess she expects the tax payers to provide her with a million dollar house. Either that, or she’s raking in some serious bucks from that stupid website of hers.

  82. tworld says:

    The one thing I keep wondering . . . . where are all those people who march around with banners against abortion?

    Shouldn’t they all be over at this nutty woman’s house helping out by buying food and paying her mortgage so all those kids that didn’t get aborted have a nice place to live and some nice healthy meals?

    Oh well, maybe their too busy making banners.

    • Jordan Brill says:

      For real! Isn’t that hilarious. Protect life, save the children!! Oh they weren’t aborted and made it into the world? Sorry thats not in our department.

    • Xerloq says:

      @tworld: I’m too busy sending my money to help fight malaria in Africa.

      I don’t make banners.

  83. Jordan Brill says:

    Is there no daddy for any of the children?

  84. liesandslander says:

    can we PLEASE just start referring to her as CC, Clown Car? reading these through fark.com with her referenced as that makes it so much more entertaining.

  85. Steve Walker says:

    1. Don’t pay for fertility drugs when your morgage is due…dummy.

    2. Won’t they looks so cute in their 8 lil matching cardboard houses?!?! = )