Family in octuplets case had financial woes
The family of octuplets born in Southern California this week has a history of financial problems, including a bankruptcy, tax liens and a foreclosure, according to court records.
The 33-year-old Whittier woman, who has not been publicly identified, gave birth to the octuplets at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Bellflower on Monday and already has six young children, including a set of twins, said her mother, Angela Suleman.
She lives with her parents in a 1,550-square-foot home in Whittier, where television trucks and camera crew continued to roam the quiet cul-de-sac Friday. This afternoon, the children's grandfather returned to the home with four toddlers and did not speak to the throng of media, other than to ask for privacy.
Last March, Suleman filed bankruptcy, claiming nearly $1 million in liabilities — mostly because of a bad house investment, her attorney said. Countrywide Home Loans approved a $492,000 mortgage for Suleman in 2006 for a second home she bought in Whittier for $615,000. In 2008, the bank began foreclosure procedures. The house was sold in August for $369,375.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times on Thursday, Suleman said her daughter did not expect to have octuplets, but that all the implanted embryos "happened to take."
She acknowledge that supporting a family with 14 children would be difficult, but that her daughter felt like she had little choice.
"What do you suggest she should have done?" Suleman said. "She refused to have them killed."
To help support the family, the woman's father works in Iraq as a contractor, where he earns at least $100,000 annually.
Fertility experts, including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, have raised concerns about the number of embryos implanted and whether it was within medical guidelines.
"I cannot see circumstances where any reasonable physician would transfer eight embryos into a woman under the age of 35 under any circumstance," said Arthur Wisot, a fertility doctor in Redondo Beach. "I cannot imagine that any of the mainstream practices in the Los Angeles area were involved in this. I would guess — and it's a pure guess — that she either went out of the country or went to a practice that flies below the radar."
The California Medical Board, which investigates doctors, and the California Department of Public Health Services, which licenses clinics and hospitals, said no doctors or facilities are currently being investigated regarding the births. A spokesman for the state health agency said there is no indication the implantations occurred at a facility they license.
--Kimi Yoshino and Jessica Garrison



And what is the best way to deal with financial problems? Have more children! That fixes everything, obviously. They are all complete morons. All of them.
Posted by: Elise | January 30, 2009 at 04:09 PM
This is the most criminal act in life.!!! you bring babies in this world and have no nessary means of support for them. the mother says she feels she would be killing them babies by eliminating them inside her. what is she thinking she doing more harm now. No money.costly medical bills maybe intentive care for brain damage if any, and maybe doing this because she knows she can get gifts and wic and welfare money because she is not going to work now since she has to say home to care for all those kids. People like these and those who have kids who have to depend on a hand out from welfare should not have babies. It is a cycle that needs to be stoped. Welfare was not intended for everyone it was only to be for women who husbads are over seas fighting. look it up and you will be angry.
Posted by: Richard | January 30, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Can anyone in the news room find out who paid for the womans fertilization procedures....Was it paid for by the bankrupt parents....the woman...someone else??? and if so....Who....and more importantly....WHY?? This is a very expensive procedure and it doesn't appear that they would have had the wherewithal to pay for it themselves.
Posted by: Beth | January 30, 2009 at 04:12 PM
I'd like to know how a person on welfare can afford infertility treatments. Think of the medical bils the taxpayer is liable for and now 8 more people will be on the welfare rolls. The doctor who do this should have their license to practice medicine taken away and the mother should have to pay all medical bills even if it takes her 50 years to pay them off. I wouldn't be suprised if she did this with the intent of becoming rich and famous from the stunt. It's disgusting and you and I have to pay for it.
Posted by: Tombo2 | January 30, 2009 at 04:16 PM
I'm trying to make some sense of this and the more I find out the crazier it gets. An apparently unmarried female who already has a half dozen young children decides to enlist the help of a fertility clinic to get pregnant--again? Six kids? Fertility clinic? Huh? Why? How fertile do you have to be? Isn't six kids ENOUGH? And now she ends up with EIGHT MORE! Let's see, six kids plus another eight kids . . . FOURTEEN! Of course, with little income she was buying not one but TWO homes for more than a half-million EACH. Ooops! Not enough money to pay the mortgages? Huh, who would've guessed THAT. And six kids is not enough so let's buzz on down to the fertility clinic to guarantee yet another pregnancy--as if she needed any help! I mean, puh-leeze, this is just insane irresponsibility. What motivates a rational person to do this? And Lord help those FOURTEEN kids. I cannot imagine the trials they are going to face. It would be interesting if some enterprising reporter would check back in a year or so to see if this fecund female is yet again--PREGNANT. I wouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: cody mccall | January 30, 2009 at 04:18 PM
What I don't understand is why a woman with six young children already needs to have another child and undergoes a fertility implant. What is wrong with these people? Having babies is not an answer to anything that's wrong with your life. Who's going to be responsible for all these children should something happen to her parents, or herself, god forbid? What is wrong with people in this society?
Posted by: Zoey | January 30, 2009 at 04:22 PM
'"What do you suggest she should have done?" Suleman said.'
How about NOT even have fertility treatment in the first place when the woman already has 6 kids? And has already foreclosed on a house (apparently right before getting the fertility treatments)? Now the rest of us will have to pay taxes to support this woman who is way over her head, and in over her head without the fertility treatments. Even getting fertility treatment for having one more child was not necessary when she already has 6. That is just irresponsible of both her AND the medical group that did this.
Posted by: SP Woman | January 30, 2009 at 04:24 PM
This article is very distasteful. Despite the mother's wishes for privacy, the author of this article (as well as other members of the media) have gone ahead and announced the financial history of this patient. I smell a lawsuit ahead, LAT. This is a shameful act.
Posted by: RJSUSC111 | January 30, 2009 at 04:27 PM
This is terribly unethical from a medical standpoint, and almost seems like it should be illegal. Questions:
Why did this bankrupt woman with 6 children who is living at her parents' house want more children?
How did it come to be that this doctor disregarded his professional duties and society guidelines to provide this aggressive level of treatment when she is only 33 and already has 6 kids?
How did a bankrupt woman manage to pay for fertility treatments and artificial insemination?
What is this all going to cost us as taxpayers? I doubt the hospital bills will be paid, and that is only the beginning...
Posted by: John | January 30, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Divide the number 14 by the number of Californians, say 40,000,000(40 Million): You get this equation: 14/40,000,000 = X.
X = the dollar amount per CA resident that we can now deduct from our tax forms for 2009.
x = $00.00000035 - WHAT A COUNTRY ! I can't wait to get my refund for my new baby dedcution !
Congrats to all Kalifornyans !
Posted by: Baby Tax Me | January 30, 2009 at 04:46 PM
As more details come out about this woman I am becoming more andmore disgusted with this woman.
This is just plain selfishness and irresponsibility. She obviously needed money and here was a way to get it.
Sick
Posted by: Totally Sickened | January 30, 2009 at 04:56 PM
this woman has a sick need for attention (like people with Munchausen Syndrome)--just like that wacko jesus-freak woman who's had 18 kids and still plans on having more. this one probably is counting on TLC to come knocking to do a similar show. ugh. where's the baby-daddy? her own father has to support them while the entire litter lives in his house? she can't even provide for the six she already had and she wanted more? all the kids are going to be in need of serious therapy when they grow up.
Posted by: cinderella | January 30, 2009 at 05:07 PM
REALLY you have 6 kids and you feel the need the create more, thats just what California needs right now. 14 kids and your 33. Have you ever heard of Birth control. Now I suspect that she will be applying for state assistance so the tax payers can feed her 14 children. This is criminal!!!!!!!
Posted by: Charles Katz | January 30, 2009 at 05:12 PM
This irrresponsible behavior makes me sick. It is one thing to have children if you can afford them. Six children, the parents and her parents living in 1500 sq ft?Animals by law are given more living space. Who paid for all these doctors, nurses, months at the hospital before and after? And what doctor is involved here? Is is a way to get out of debt?
Maybe we should just wait for PEOPLE magazine to find out.
Posted by: karen | January 30, 2009 at 05:13 PM
This is...perfect. This article was lifted from The Onion, right? The family is precisely what 98% of us imagined it would be--in our worst nightmares. Bankruptcies, implanted embryos for a mother six, etc, fantastic.
Long live the welfare state!
Posted by: JD | January 30, 2009 at 05:23 PM
I think it is disgusting that an unmarried woman with six children to feed, no home of her own, and no discernable source of income would seek the implantation of any embryos...much less eight. It is equally disgusting and should be illegal that a doctor implanted the embryos into this woman. The state of California is going to have to commit one part time social worker just to oversee this family. These people clearly do not have the resources or the proper sense of responsibility/judgment (bankruptcy, foreclosure, creating children in the absence of a stable family situation) to raise these babies without serious state intervention. Someone better keep an eye out that these people haven't arrived at the idea of human trafficking as a money making venture.
Posted by: kgk | January 30, 2009 at 05:36 PM
I AM HAPPY TO SEE MY TAX DOLLARS USED TO SUPPORT THIS IDIOTCRACY.
Posted by: TIM | January 30, 2009 at 05:47 PM
I am trying to do this math - she filed for bankruptcy in March of '07 - before she had eight embryos implanted. What did she pay for it (a not inexpensive procedure) with? And she already six living children and is living with mom and dad? Where and who is the sperm donor? I notice there is no mention of that lucky guy. What reputable fertility practice would perform such an operation given this set of circumstances. Where are the ethicists in all this?
Posted by: gwatts | January 30, 2009 at 05:51 PM
Why in the world would any SANE woman with 6 children under the age of 7, including a set of twins, want to have additional children unless it were for financial gain, welfare perhaps? Especially considering the financial status of her family, I am sure she is not gainfully employed. Not to mention that there is no 'father' to help in raising the children or support them. I would bet that the expenses are being paid by the good citizens of Caifornia and that the bill will be in the millions. Considering the financial situation, the cutbacks, layoff's, etc. how this woman could have done this is unbelievable. She is being selfish, there is no other way to describe it. Can you imagine her parents? At their age, her father having to go to Iraq to work inorder to support her and the children! Good grief!!! If I worked and lived in California I would be outraged! I am sure the woman is counting on political correctness to avoid criticism and I am sure she is counting on the financial assistance of Caifornia's citizens and the kindness of others. I hope CPS gets involved! They need to.
Posted by: Wilma | January 30, 2009 at 05:53 PM
Although it is none of my business how many children a particular person may choose to have, bringing 14 children into the world without a father and the financial means to support them becomes my business. The woman lives in our state. The kids will take up 14 seats in our already crowded classrooms. Preemies and mutiple-birth children suffer more ailments than other children, including autism. This means special education and health care in our state. Her delivery alone is calculated at over $800,000. Who is Kaiser billing for that? This woman needs to contact a reality show producer and get something lined up pronto before she is tarred and feathered by folks in California who are not the least bit amused by her irresponsibility.
Posted by: maggie | January 30, 2009 at 06:00 PM
So are we suppose to feel sorry for her now? Why would she want to get pregnant again when she already has 6 kids?? (Hellooooo) All this time I thought these 8 kids were her first......No wonder she wanted privacy. After these breaking news, the reporters and tv stations should ignore this lady and leave. She has no repect for Enough is enough......
Posted by: Maricarmen | January 30, 2009 at 06:02 PM
the reason she wanted so many children is for the money.
she knew people would be donating everything she will probablly be getting a fully furnished brand new house a van she will have so many donations not to mention diapers food cash
wow and just think how much her welfare check is gonna be each month !!!! including food stamps (when they begin food)for 14 kids itll be over 5 k a MONTH
she is playing up to the sympathies of kind people and she knows that she will end up being set for life
then theres the book deal magazines television the tv movie exc.. exc..
and in the meantime these poor babies will not get the individual one on one attention that each child needs and deserves
this is why the welfare system needs to have a cutoff if you are on welfare no more kids!
she should not qualify for more financial assistance
this was not an accidental pregnancy.
maybe then she will have them adopted to familys where they can get the proper attention love and
2 women just cannot care for 14 children under the age of 7 theres no way they will get the interaction that is so important
Posted by: jenny35 | January 30, 2009 at 06:11 PM
I really doubt that she has any true wish for privacy, maybe just until he can package the family prettily for its reality show a la "Jon and Kate".
Posted by: Laura | January 30, 2009 at 06:13 PM
What kind of vindictive reporter are you to go and dig up records like this. It's none of your, or anyone's business what financial problems they had in the past and it has NOTHING to do with this woman refusing to kill her unborn babies to please society. Futhermore we have NO REASON to believe they are on welfare or public assistance of any kind. For Godsake's the father works in Iraq - half way around the globe in a war zone, putting his life in danger every single day.
GET A LIFE and report on things that MATTER instead of speding your time digging up private citizens' pesonal and embarassing past histories. I've been following this story and in every article I've read it's maintained that THIS FAMILY HAS NOT ASKED FOR ANYTHING but to be left alone and YOU have gone to these dispicable lengths to drag them into the public eye and hold them up to ridicule. SHAME ON YOU and shame on the LA TIMES for publicizing this worthless crap.
If you have a problem with fertility treatments then by all mean, report on the countless number of embryos created and then frozen or destroyed, the barbaric practice of "selective reduction" (a nicer way of saying "selective abortion"), but for Godsakes leave this family who is doing their very best to care for all their children ALONE.
Killing human lives through "selective reduction" is no differnt than abortion or any form of murder. You do not know the medical history of this woman, what treatment she was on or why.
Posted by: Kathryn | January 30, 2009 at 06:14 PM
This is an attempt at getting both attention and money. I fear this fecund female wants everyone to donate cars, houses, baby stuff, appear in TV shows like that crazy show about a mega-family. People are inspired by TV and want their 15 minutes of fame.
In this case, 15 minutes of SHAME. I grew up in a very large family. Nearly everyone in my family grew up hating each other and few even talk and at my mother's funeral, my father did it secretly with only two brothers present out of a very large extended family and then scattered her ashes and disappeared, himself.
This woman is 10 times worse! A single mother? I raised several children and believe me, that was more than enough. I think this woman, who lied to the banks, should be investigated and then put in jail for fraud. She couldn't hold her 2 houses for even one year?
She is directly responsible for her little bit of the mortgage crisis. She helped wreck America and now wants us to babysit her and her immense brood. This is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
Well, like so many people who wanted to be in the news, she will now be in the news...in a very negative way and she deserves every minute of being investigated.
Posted by: ElaineMeinelSupkis | January 30, 2009 at 06:20 PM
RJSUSC111 Stated, "This article is very distasteful. Despite the mother's wishes for privacy, the author of this article (as well as other members of the media) have gone ahead and announced the financial history of this patient. I smell a lawsuit ahead, LAT. This is a shameful act."
Nah, remember all that information the reporter pulled was public information. There was no improper disclosure of patient records or privileged/private information. The reporter just did their job, investigated a story.
Posted by: Chris | January 30, 2009 at 06:51 PM
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure procedures are public information. How can you sue someone for disclosing her financial woes if it is public info?
Posted by: Itispublicinformation! | January 30, 2009 at 06:53 PM
Please read carefully, people. Nowhere in this story does it say the woman was/is on welfare. The person who filed for bankruptcy is the GRANDMOTHER of the octuplets, Ms. Suleman, not the mother, who hasn't been named. Nothing specifies the mother's financial status here except that she's living with her parents ... and that doesn't really mean anything.
Also, Kaiser Permanente is a private HMO which runs its own hospitals. They do not accept patients "off the street' -- they only accept those with Kaiser Permanente insurance. Most likely they will make up the expense by bundling it into the cost of insurance for Kaiser subscribers. The medical bills are not likely to be paid by taxpayers given Kaiser's structure.
I agree this story has its fishy elements, but please stick to the known facts and avoid rushing to judgment when the woman's name and personal circumstances have not been revealed.
Posted by: Katia | January 30, 2009 at 07:02 PM
Children are a blessing. I am happy for her.
Posted by: EricJ LA | January 30, 2009 at 07:07 PM
Simply put, this is sinful, and it should also be unlawful.
Posted by: Jim | January 30, 2009 at 07:09 PM
the reason she wanted so many children is for the money.
she knew people would be donating everything she will probablly be getting a fully furnished brand new house a van she will have so many donations not to mention diapers food cash
wow and just think how much her welfare check is gonna be each month !!!! including food stamps (when they begin food)for 14 kids itll be over 5 k a MONTH
she is playing up to the sympathies of kind people and she knows that she will end up being set for life
then theres the book deal magazines television the tv movie exc.. exc..
and in the meantime these poor babies will not get the individual one on one attention that each child needs and deserves
this is why the welfare system needs to have a cutoff if you are on welfare no more kids!
she should not qualify for more financial assistance
this was not an accidental pregnancy.
maybe then she will have them adopted to familys where they can get the proper attention love and
2 women just cannot care for 14 children under the age of 7 theres no way they will get the interaction that is so important
Posted by: jenny35 | January 30, 2009 at 07:12 PM
The children -- I really hope things work out for the kids --in spite of their stupid mother. Yes, I think the kids deserve to get Medicaid and food stamps if need be. But the mother deserves to get her tubes tied, the father a vasectormy, and everyone needs to be put on anti-psychotics. I'll bet she did go out of the country to have this procedure done.
Posted by: callie | January 30, 2009 at 07:12 PM
This woman needs mental analysis. She already has six children under 7 and still felt the need to be pregnant again. Apparently with no husband or boyfriend, she went to a fertility clinic to get pregnant. She definitely need to see a psychiatrist about her continual need to have a baby. And the fertility clinic that she went to should be investigated by the state and shut down. It is totally irresponsible on the clinic's part to help this woman get pregnant even with one baby let alone eight...
Posted by: CT | January 30, 2009 at 07:29 PM
Why is it ethical to provide a medical treatment for a problem the person doesn’t have? Maybe we should have some guidelines about legal use of a fertility treatment. I vote for not using artificially assisted fertility for people with 2 or more healthy children. I further vote for two or less embryos with any given implantation. The chances of premature delivery and other problems go up exponentially when there are multiples of three or more. The long term consequences of prematurity are much worse than people realize. What parent desperate for a child is going to choose death for one of her precious fetuses. Not many. We need to protect the rights of potential children to have the best chance to have the mental equipment necessary to live a functional, happy life. We cannot ethically enforce mandatory abortion of supernumery fetuses, therefore prevention is key; two embryos or less is the only logical answer. I see the mother’s choice not to abort some of the fetuses as profoundly unethical.
Posted by: mjs | January 30, 2009 at 07:30 PM
Why do all the Jesus-freaks get so freaked out at the idea of ending some of that litter when in utero?
The preganancy was abnormal - certainly not ever contemplated by their deity. It was msot certainly NOT an "act of god" - it was a test tube. Can't have it both ways - oppose managing ertility with birth control then live without the technology.
Posted by: Kate | January 30, 2009 at 07:31 PM
WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO GO TO A CLINIC SHE HAS 6 CHILDREN UNLESS ALL OF THE REALITY SHOWS HAS PLAYED A BIG PART IN IT WITH ALL THE MULIPLE BIRTHS AND ENDORSEMENTS AND SHE CAME UP WITH A WAY TO GET EVERYTHING A HOUSE CAR FOOD CLOTHES AND ETC. BECAUSE WHY WOULD ANYONE WHO CAN GET PREGNANT WANT TO GO TO A CLINIC FOR HELP
Posted by: VERNA | January 30, 2009 at 07:39 PM
This behavior should not be rewarded in anyway. I would encourage a boycott of any magazine, or company that pays these people for stories, pictures or commercials. I am fairly certain that this intense need for privacy may have something do do with the family's belief they can sell first pictures or their story for mega bucks.
Posted by: Betsy Strassner | January 30, 2009 at 07:42 PM
Well I am not happy with this news, but it seems to me that the bankrupcy and
other financial problems are based on the GRANDMOTHER's name, not the octuplets mother. It also seems that the grandparents just got caught in real state bubble like many other Californians. They do not seem to be on welfare at all. A nanny is taking care of the 6 children. Also the grandparents seemed to have put down over $100,000 on this second home, that ended up putting them in bankruptcy court. If this woman is living with her parents, she could easily afford the nanny and furtilty treatment with a man or herself working. It is the medical facility she went to for IVF that has me pissed. She either lied on her medical forms or the facility operated immorally to implant so many embryoes. I think it should be investigated.
Posted by: Heather | January 30, 2009 at 07:45 PM
Chris stated: Nah, remember all that information the reporter pulled was public information. There was no improper disclosure of patient records or privileged/private information. The reporter just did their job, investigated a story.
Exactly! And this fool mother ought to know if she has octuplets on top of having six children that this will garner media attention. She and her parents are all a bunch of lunatics! At least with the family in Arkansas, they pay their own way and are not into fertility drugs. Sure, they have a lot of children but they are married and can afford the children they have by living within their means. This dimwit in California must have an IQ in the negative range.
Posted by: Elizabeth | January 30, 2009 at 07:50 PM
With this controversy, hopes of more positive media exposure or a TV show are quickly dying. TLC might have been interested, but I'm guessing they'll stay far away from this story.
Posted by: LAT reader | January 30, 2009 at 07:52 PM
Does it occur it to anyone that she is breeding children for sale? How much is a baby worth?
Posted by: reality | January 30, 2009 at 07:57 PM
Last year, a boy in the Washington DC area died because of an abcessed tooth. The infection spread and killed him. His mother could not afford a visit to the dentist or doctor, and no dentist would accept Medicaid. There is something quite wrong with our healthcare system when a helpless little boy cannot get help for his rotten tooth, but a woman who already has 6 children 7 & under, can voluntarily become pregnant through artificial means, and then rely on others to pay the bills. This is everybody's business. This is an abuse of the system, and of the woman's own health. I hope to God that TLC simply ignores her. I hope no one pays her for any photos of her family (that is the most likely explanation for the news embargo).
Sickening, disgusting, and using small babies to make yourself a celebrity.
Posted by: Kate | January 30, 2009 at 07:58 PM
It's like the parade is over -- the media circus focusing their lens on this freakish event -- and now all that is left is the garbage and the elephant poop.
Posted by: russell | January 30, 2009 at 08:06 PM
If I had 14 kids, all under the age of 7, I'd want to go to Iraq too.
Posted by: P H D | January 30, 2009 at 08:12 PM
I hope I'm mistaken but I've heard that women who have this compelling need to be pregnant and mothering infants often neglect their school-aged children. If this is the case, I hope the grandparents are able to pick up the slack. Otherwise, I hope that social services places these children in a responsible homes. What a sad situation.
Posted by: Carol T. from Burbank | January 30, 2009 at 08:14 PM
To EricJ LA,
I wonder how many of those abused, neglected or murdered children felt like they were a blessing?
Posted by: DJ | January 30, 2009 at 08:18 PM
I totally agree with a comment I saw elsewhere, this should be illegal. Nobody, that already has more than a couple of healthy kids should get fertility treatment. We're already having population problems, and they will only get worse. Think traffic is bad now, wait 20 years of people having 3-5 kids, think we're using too much space? wait awhile, there won't be any green left. We really need to think about this, I'm not saying people shouldn't have kids, but we should try to limit it to 1-2, so 14 is just crazy. Some of you seem to think that this is Gods will, it isn't. God created a beautiful natural world to nurture us, but also for us to appreciate and take care of. If he'd wanted us to have 14 kids we would NATURALLY!!!
Posted by: Susan | January 30, 2009 at 08:34 PM
This woman has chosen to have IVF when her last set of IVF twins were about 16 months old. She has made choices that had to have been enabled by her parents. If the rumors are true, then she has chosen IVF for eight years, almost once yearly in order to have multiple children. That must have cost somewhere in the order of $200,000. Where did she get that money?
If she has enough money for yearly IVF, why doesn't she have enough money to pay for a decent home for 6 children? She doesn't seem to have a problem with 6 children and 3 adults living in 1,500 sq ft. Why didn't she provide for the existing large family? There are some serious psychosocial issues here with her and both her parents.
Posted by: e | January 30, 2009 at 08:58 PM
Having six kids - even if you can afford them - is irresponsible in today's realm of overpopulation. Having eight more is criminal and this woman and her doctor should be prosecuted.
The consequences of this lady's irresponsibility will last a lifetime, and the taxpayer will bear most of the burden (i.e. for medical care, sustenance, education, traffic congestion, water supply, sewage treatment and habitat destruction - yes, these are all some of the impacts of overpopulation).
Hopefully, the outrage this case will engender will make its way to Capitol Hill; fostering new legislation to prevent such a scourge on taxpayers in the future. This lady's state-of-mind reeks of Bible-thumper mentality, and she will surely have religious-right whackos supporting her. These kinds of folks are driving this country into the ground. Maybe the Nov 2010 election will dispose of more of them.
Posted by: KC | January 30, 2009 at 09:09 PM
Katia,
Every hospital has to render aid to any patient that walk through its doors, its the law. If you're not insured or covered, you just get stuck with a rather considerably large medical. And the fact that Kaiser will render in excess of $1M in "charity care" as they call it does affect everyone. First it effect the policy holders of the Kaiser HMO since the Company will have to raise premiums to compensate for the cost of this woman's care. If you're receiving your insurance through your employer, then the insurance payments are considered a "pre-tax" expense and therefore your taxable income will decrease...causing the government to lose tax revenue. Furthermore, since Kaiser will take a financial hit, it will also lower their profits and thus, the amount of taxable income they are liable for. So, yes...this does effect all of us. Oh, let's not forget to point out all the continuing care (on the state of course) these children and their mother must receive. There's a high likelihood that one if not more of these children will have some sort of medical ailment (I pray not...this wasn't their fault) that will require long term treatment...paid by: us. They'll have to be educated...public school most likely....so you can count on an increase on your property tax tab. Just think of it this way....she has enough kids for at least 7 families. Ugh...
Posted by: Chris | January 30, 2009 at 09:28 PM
Well folks, I had to surf over the pond to England to find out the story in this story, but I am sure there is much more to come. Go to www.dailmail.co.uk/news. Basically, the mother, Nadya Suleman, is described as a 33 yr old divorcee living at home with her 6 children and her parents. The only "male" seen around the premises in the past two plus years is her father. She is studying for a masters degree in psychology having previously worked up to 2002 as a psychiatric technician. Wonders of wonders, everything seems to be falling place don't you think. I would like the investigative reporters to stop selling us "this is a miracle" crap and start getting real. Like start telling us the truth instead of some newage liberal huggy/feely crap. Does anybody realize just how much money, food stamps and medi-cal this woman would be eligible for? When I left the employ of the District Attorney-Child Support Division 12 yrs ago, a woman and one child received approximately $450/mon cash plus, food stamps and medi-cal. Further subsidies if any of the children are handicapped; school subsidies for herself and her children; childcare if she should get a job, housing assistance; utility assistance. Do the math folks. I would venture to bet that this woman with her 14 children just earned herself in excess of a $100,000/yr job. Like they say, "work harder, many on welfare depend on you". This story has got to be the sickest most obscene thing I have read in a long time. It is about time that the practice of having children as a means of employment be stopped. The US of A's government breeding program has become the laughing stock of the world.
Posted by: Kim, Idaho | January 30, 2009 at 09:31 PM
You lucky Californians get to pay for this idiocy. I'm glad I moved to Nevada when I retired.
Posted by: Duane | January 30, 2009 at 09:37 PM
"What do you suggest she should have done?" Suleman said. "She refused to have them killed."
Ummm....how about trying to do a decent job of raising and educating the six she already had, instead of having more?
Posted by: h | January 30, 2009 at 09:56 PM
The grandfather is going to Iraq as a translator or truck driver where he makes approximately $100,000, a mere drop in the bucket for a family of 17. The father has not been named, but according to some new sources the sperm is all from one donor who may not be aware he is fathering another eight children. According to a neighbor the daughter is a career student and unmarried.
I say if she cannot afford to raise them without public assistance adopt them out to two parent homes who can afford to raise a child. I hope and pray that no one donates any money to her, because that seems to be the motivation behind having eight more children. and I agree with those on here who say the Jesus freaks all come out of the woodwork when you mention selective reproduction, but I guess you fully support a single mother bringing another eight children into a home without both a mother and a father. These children will suffer greatly due to their mother's idiocy and possile mental problems.
Posted by: Kay | January 30, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I think this was her way of getting funds and attention. She had the babies so she needs to take care of them like everyone else without any donations.
Posted by: Susan | January 30, 2009 at 10:40 PM
first, how can she be doing it for the attention if she doesn't want her name revealed?
second, maybe i missed it, but where does it say she is taking public assistance?
why does the whole world get to weigh on in this? I don't think 14 kids is a great idea either, but they aren't my 14 kids, and there are plenty of other public causes I'm not thrilled to contribute my taxes to either. I really think it is shameful that the LA time and other news sources continue to go after this story.
Posted by: erin | January 30, 2009 at 11:04 PM
There are laws in this state about how many people can live in a house or apartment according to the square footage. I am sure that it's not legal to have 17 people living in a 1500 square-foot house.
Posted by: Maryanne | January 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Its the parents who filed for bankrupcy, not the woman herself. And tax and bankrupcy records are public record arent they?
Now I wonder if this case will cause a new law to be passed, making it illegal for multiple embryos to be implanted.
What will everyone think if it turns out the mother is a lesbian and simply wanted a large family? And moved in with her parents because of the number of babies she was carrying and as such wanted help with her other children.
And how do we know that state money and not her own insurance isnt paying the bills?
And lots of people have had to let investment property go back.
Now lets see if the folks who brought us John and Kate Plus 8 will now pay her BIG bucks to follow her life.
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth | January 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I just googled octuplets and came up with an ABC news story that identified the mother and also stated that she is unmarried. She was married for a couple of years but divorced in January 2008. All 14 of her chikdren were born out of wedlock. As additional information comes out, this story becomes more and more disgusting.
Posted by: Betsy Strassner | January 30, 2009 at 11:42 PM
I wish the news media would focus more on the issue of who is paying for this? With no biological father to pay child support, is there any liability on the part of the fertility clinic? Normally, if a woman applies for public assistance, the state seeks payment from the father. Will the state seek payment from the clinic?
Are her medical expenses covered by Medicaid? Or does she have health insurance? The doctors involved in the delivery all seem so pleased with themselves, did they donate their services?
Posted by: Anne | January 31, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I agree that this is a sad case. This is not the fertility treatments that many people pursue, transferring 8 embryos. I think whatever doctor (and I would guess she quite possibly went out of the US to do this) provided the treatment was irresponsible in transferring so many embyos.
Posted by: Michell | January 31, 2009 at 12:51 AM
What kind of ignorance leads a broke person with a BK, who already cannot afford the 6 kids she has, to want even MORE kids?!
This is so irresponsible and should not be applauded. In fact, if she continues to have financial woes she should give the children up for adoption so that they can have a chance to break her cycle of ignorance and selfishness. People this dumb should not get any extra government aid for these extra children. They are a part of the problem of the financial woes of our country, as the responsible people get stuck footing the bill for the irresponsible.
Posted by: Where has common sense gone? | January 31, 2009 at 03:13 AM
I suggest someone start a fund for this mother to be sterilized........let's see how much money it takes for her to agree to that.......
Posted by: Logic | January 31, 2009 at 04:06 AM
WHY does a woman with 6 children go to a fertility clinic in the first place?
She's obviously NOT infertile and had no right to such a procedure. This is a travesty and an abuse! And now there are 8 more little lives in jeopardy. Maybe there's a nice family out there who would adopt them all?
Posted by: Another Susan | January 31, 2009 at 04:09 AM
The press should exploit a deserved title for this situtation as "The Human Litter".
Posted by: GMJ | January 31, 2009 at 05:19 AM
Come to the UK, you'd have good health care and get enough money from the gov to support your kids.
Posted by: Totoro | January 31, 2009 at 05:19 AM
"I am fairly certain that this intense need for privacy may have something do do with the family's belief they can sell first pictures or their story for mega bucks. "
i definately agree with you on that. what she has now is a buisiness and the goal of any buisiness is PROFIT.
and to the lady who commented about how she can afford a 'nanny' i think this nanny is probablly someone who is volunteering their time OR some organization or even the hospital is paying for the nanny
i myself will definately boycott any magazine or program which encourages other "baby mills"
Posted by: jenny | January 31, 2009 at 06:10 AM
I would have nothing to do with doctors or a health plan who call this miraculous. This case can only be viewed as tragic or sick.
The government should provide absolutely no funding for fertility treatment.
Posted by: Susan B | January 31, 2009 at 06:32 AM
And I think the LA times was very responsible for this reporting. Thank you!
They can't have it both ways, requesting privacy and then expecting the public to raise these children.
Posted by: Susan B | January 31, 2009 at 06:38 AM
I don't think you all get that this is none of your business. It's not your problem, it's not your concern, it's not your issue. You have nothing to do with the decisions she makes and you have nothing to do with the reasons, wants, fears, hopes of this woman. Stay out of her life. Restricting childbirth is unconstitutional and you're all idiots for making judgements and telling people they can or can not have babies. I REPEAT: THIS IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM. MYOB.
What are we all, like, 10? Srsly.
Posted by: Tyler | January 31, 2009 at 08:49 AM
Who cares what the financial situation is with this family? It only matters to people who worship money. I suppose only rich people should have children? The level of stupidity in this country is frightening. Mind your own business.
Posted by: truthstands | January 31, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I'm sorry, but this is where I draw the line and now completely support abortion. The sadest part is now there are FOURTEEN children who will suffer. This woman needed MAJOR mental health treatment. Nature made it impossible for her to have children and now we know WHY.
Posted by: James Moore | January 31, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I smell a freak show
Posted by: Spokalou | January 31, 2009 at 10:41 AM
GUTIERREZ, NADYA S (Age 33)
Posted by: Outrage about LA | January 31, 2009 at 11:07 AM
What is with this "Shut up and pay attitude" of some people. There is no evidence that this woman can afford such expenses and therefore taxpayers should have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. If one costs the public money then the public has a right to know otherwise it is taxation with representation.
Posted by: Louis HR Muller | January 31, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Humm..more likely WE all paid for her fertility and care one way or another... She more likely receives Food stamptsfor the other 6 kids....and one of the 6 is autistic..which qualifies him for state permanent disability for the child/family$$$, ...She is going to school, Cal State Fullerton for a master program in Psychology!!!!...so you and I paid for her Student grants..and more likely scholarships for Single Moms ..and i bet she apply for student loans i bet she will never be able to pay..and more likely help her pay for her In vitro procedures..since her Medical HMO/kaiser can not cover.. !!..now...this is just the beginning of a very expensive and irresponsable wanna be psychilogist....She is NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Frank | January 31, 2009 at 01:57 PM
Obama will take care of them!!!! Ask Joe the plumber!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: steve rodriguez | January 31, 2009 at 02:45 PM
Maybe next year she will have some more children who knows?
Posted by: steve rodriguez | January 31, 2009 at 02:48 PM
I hope the child welfare agency will keep close watch on these children!!!!!
Posted by: steve rodriguez | January 31, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Hey truthstands - if you bring a child into this world you should be able to financially provide for them!
Posted by: steve rodriguez | January 31, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I find it amusing that for all of the outrage, there are only three or four deluded Jesus freaks who are belittling those who don't want to end up paying for her lifestyle for the rest of their lives. No, she may not be on welfare now, but come on, be realistic. She lives in CA, which is conducive to reaping wild welfare benefits AND she has 14 children. Unless someone supporting her is making WELL over $100k per annum, she will be either panhandling, turning tricks or going on welfare. The latter is the only one in which she will not need to find a babysitter.
Posted by: Pasty White Passion | January 31, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Part of the reason I left the U.S.A and California two years ago, and haven't looked back since. The level of irresponsibility borders on criminal negligence, seriously...charges should be brought. Actually, It's not just the welfare costs involved.....it's all the other unseen costs incurred by everyone else, ie. the teacher who has to deal her childrens behavioral problems, the police officer who has to do the same, and perhaps "the incarceration?!" The one consistent theme I see in the previous comments is there is "no father." The one common variable I saw in all the children with behavioral problems as an educator (12 years)....was suprise! No father.Rant Over.
I'm going to go back to not paying taxes for this woman in the foriegn country I live in
Posted by: joe | February 01, 2009 at 05:04 AM
This has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard of. The doctor needs to be in jail and the mother in a nut ward. The doctor needs to be the one paying all these medical bills and supporting them.
My daughter has 4 children ( by her ex husband! ). She works and supports them with no help from her ex or the state. Because she has decided to work instead of lay on her butt, she don't qualify for any assistance.
I can't get insurance because I can't afford $500-$600 a month for it, so I have to do with out medical. If she can recieve MILLION's of dollars for this,free medical and the works, you can bet If I get ill and have to go to the hospital the government will recieve the bills!!
Has anyone considered maybe the doctor is the father of these 14 vitro babies? It happened some years back when a doctor implanted 50-100 women with his own sperm.
Posted by: cynthia | February 01, 2009 at 10:17 AM
For the person who wrote they smell a lawsuit coming because of information about the financial situation regarding the bankruptcy. As I know the law as it stands, bankruptcy is public records and runs in the newspaper when you file. All public records are just that, open to the public!!!
I have no pity on the Mother or Father either, they allowed her to have 6 kids,no Father, no job before these 8. They supported her with a free home and babysitter. I would have kicked her out after 2. If anyone remembers the first report on the news about these babies was from the Grandmother, she was all gung ho and seemed so happy with them. Now that her background is coming out she is crying the blues and saying she didn't support her daughter. Thats a crock!!
That whole household will benefit from this and be more than happy to collect our tax payers money. The money from TV and media will pay for a new home and all the trimmings. This was all planned by the Doctor and family!!!!!
Posted by: cynthia | February 01, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I've been reading a few other articles on this mess and there are a few to add. First, in regards to the "baby daddy" - he's basically out of the picture on this. From what I understand, Nadya Suleman (the mother of the octuplets) does not have a boyfriend / husband / "baby daddy" in the most common usage. She is a single woman who's children (all 14, it appears) have been fathered via sperm donation by an "acquaintance" who, in all likelihood, signed away any parental rights to the children in exchange for being relieved of any parental obligations. As far as I know, that's pretty much the standard arrangement a man agrees to when he donates sperm to a sperm bank, and it doesn't appear that his relationship with Nadya is such that there was ever any intent for him to be a part of the babies lives. According to one neighbor, however, the donor had gotten married after Nadya had her first 6 children and had asked her not to use his sperm for any future children, but she apparently ignored that request.
Second, it's not the father of the octuplets who is planning to return to Iraq to work, but rather it's Nadya's father.
Third, as to where she got the treatments or how she afforded them, I haven't read anything specific, but reports I've read have said that she worked as a psychiatric nurse until she was injured (which happened prior to the birth of her eldest children) and it's also been reported that she worked at an infertility clinic. If this last part is correct, it could explain who did the treatments and how she was able to afford them, though at this point, it is still speculation.
Last, the TimesUK is reporting that she's asking for $2 in interviews and sponsorships, and hopes to have a career as a TV "childcare expert." Whether she came up with that idea and then had the octuplets, or it was something she came up with *after* she got massively pregnant, I have no clue and the article didn't say, but either way, she's hoping to cash in on the kids.
Obviously, we're not dealing with complete information at this point, but from what I have read, it sounds to me like this woman is doing her children - all 14 of them - a horrifying disservice. What's going to happen if she doesn't get the money she wants? Will she be able to make the sacrifices personally that it'll take for her to support her brood? I hope that if she plans do fall through that she wont' end up resenting the kids for it.
What a mess.
Posted by: kriselda jarnsaxa | February 01, 2009 at 04:19 PM
One other comment - I noticed one responder who said she had no right to infertility treatments because she's not infertile. There are a few situations in which someone who is not infertile will make use of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, in particular, single women who haven't found the "right" man and aren't willing to "settle" for just any old guy simply because they want to have a child. Others include lesbians and gays who want to have children but don't want to have sex in order to procreate. And while some may argue that these people don't have the right to have children either, but in my opinion, as long as the prospective parents - regardless of whether they're a heterosexual couple, singles who want a child without a partner, or a gay / lesbian couple wanting to start a family - as long as they can afford to support the kids they have, then more power to them!
Posted by: kriselda jarnsaxa | February 01, 2009 at 04:30 PM
the news media is bidding with eachother for the first pictures and story
oct mom will not take less than 2 million $
http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8335763&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Posted by: jenny | February 02, 2009 at 04:20 AM
"This article is very distasteful. Despite the mother's wishes for privacy, the author of this article (as well as other members of the media) have gone ahead and announced the financial history of this patient. I smell a lawsuit ahead, LAT. This is a shameful act."
how is this shameful or distateful when the author is stating FACTS OF PUBLIC RECORD, which is what happens when you default on your financial obligations. Mortgages, bankruptcies... all of this is public information. How about having 8 babies throgugh IVF when you already have 6 children you clearly can't afford?? I think that is pretty distateful and shameful!!
Posted by: Erin | February 02, 2009 at 06:50 AM
and now she is going to try to see her story on TV
Posted by: Lisa | February 02, 2009 at 06:54 AM
STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT. What happened to innocence before proof of guilt ? And there are more involved here than parents, grandparents and Grt.grandparents. Eight tiny babes are still fighting to live, regardless of whether an uninvited audience decide they should be here or not. When these babies have grown and they google their births, how do you think they are going to react to all these atrocious comments on their viability. I agree that it all looks pretty weird, but NOT ONE of us bystanders know the full truth, and until that's out, these babes are going to need all the help they can get.
Posted by: Patricia | February 02, 2009 at 09:31 AM
If the mother was a "Pro- Choice" liberal, those babies might all be dead now!!!!!!
Posted by: steve rodriguez | February 02, 2009 at 04:43 PM
Totally disgusting. This woman has now had the equivalent of 7 families' children. She is selfish and has hired an agent to make big bucks.
Problem is, most people are totally turned off by this event, and she will wind up on the dole with California taxpayers paying for her kids and their medical ailments throughout their lives.
This woman should have her tubes tied. A law must be passed against public financing when some idiot does this (NO public funds, not one dime, should go to this family). Some drs. should be in jail.
In fact, why feritility clinics exist when there are too many people, so many kids for adoption, is beyond me.
But this woman's irresponsible, self-centered behavior is just nauseating.
Posted by: Clem | February 03, 2009 at 06:54 AM
It may be satisfying to sit in judgement of this woman, but ultimately, where does it get any of us? I would venture that a woman who is in good health and seeks to have 7+ children through in-vitro fertilization is probably trying to fill a void in her life. I am not defending her decision, but I think it is just too easy to complain about the possible social assistance that this family may or may not consume. If our mental health system in this state were not so abysmal in terms of access (those who can pay get fine care, for the most part), perhaps this woman might not be having these children. Sure, I cannot say for sure that she is suffering from any mental illness, but where there is smoke... If our overall health care system were better funded, things like this might be headed off earlier.
As for the Kaiser doctors, they all did a fine job given an unenviable situation. Selective reduction would have been preferable, but at the same time, her choice to have or not to have children has to be respected, less we want government even more involved in such decisions than it already is.
Posted by: Sam | February 03, 2009 at 08:48 PM
LA Times you are going a great job reporting this but can you follow-up with these questions please...
- is the woman an American citizen or an illegal alien?
- if she received $165,000 from disability payments for a back injury, is this being investigated for fraud? It seems her back works well enough to have 14 children.
-who is paying for the hospital bill? Does she have insurance to cover this?
This is an unbelievable disgusting case and this mental case woman gets no sympathy from me.
Posted by: Liz | February 06, 2009 at 05:55 AM
I am a neonatal nurse practitioner. I am single and never was able to have children(when I was married) I paid over 20,000.00 dollars in taxes this past year so I was just wondering since it is obvious that the tax payers are paying the bills for this woman and her multitude of children. Is it possible that she could give me one of the eight since I will be paying for them the rest of my life anyway.
Posted by: Carol | February 06, 2009 at 04:25 PM
Nadya Suleman went on workers compensation disability back in 1999 (at age 23) due to a work-related back injury and collected $165,000 in disability payments between 2002 and 2008. She told a workers’ compensation Judge in 2001 that she spent most of the day in bed and had been unable to care for her first child. For the past 10 years though she’s been receiving disability payments and is unable to work (or even get out of bed), she’s been able to endure several IVF treatments and have 14 children.
This woman has been living off the system for most of her adult life and will continue to do so at taxpayer’s expense.
Posted by: jillian | February 07, 2009 at 11:03 PM
If Angelina Jolie wants thousands children people are applaud.
If this poor woman has the same disire the same people are disguised!
What's wrong with being/staying human and lend helping hands??!
Shame on this hypocrite society!
Posted by: Angelina | February 19, 2009 at 07:50 AM
If Angelina Jolie wants thousands children people are applaud.
If this poor woman has the same disire the same people are disguised!
What's wrong with being/staying human and lend helping hands??!
Shame on this hypocrite society!
Posted by: Angelina | February 19, 2009 at 07:51 AM