SO, The world famous Suleman octuplets and their mother Nadya have once again become the topic of controversy amongst the American public, all because Nadya decided to terminate the involvement of Dr. Phil�s Angels in Waiting USA (AIW). However, I ask, was this decision really so wrong, or would the majority of American Families have done the same thing?

Personally, I believe that most American families would have given these �Angel�s of Death� the boot when they entered the scene with judgmentally clinched fists. But then, in Suleman�s defense I must say that would have been hard to do because she was ass end over a barrel; either she accepted �THIS� help or the hospital would refuse to release her children. Talking about bullshit, I do not think anyone should face a decision like this; esp under such stressful conditions. Which brings me to the AIW�s offer being accepted, and the impression they gave as they entered the scene.

The fact is that from the very beginning, the mere presence of these women gave me chills. First their website puts me in mind of a black market baby ring that removes society�s fragile youth and then places them with nurses instead of regular foster homes. Then if you listened to them, it was easy to hear the �greater than thou� attitudes as they continuously mock Suleman, and judge her as incapable of raising her children. Of course, this causes me to ask a number of questions. Such as, why do these women set a higher standard for the Suleman�s than would be expected for any other premie bearing family? I mean, is it �normal� for a gang of social workers to enter a parent�s home and give it the white glove treatment in order to decide if a home is fit for a newborn�s release? And, what was so wrong with Nadya�s new home that it would place her children at greater risk than other family�s homes? Personally, I think that Nadya�s house puts the majority of the homes to shame, and the remodeling process was uncalled for! I say this because from what I could see, the carpets weren�t filthy, the walls weren�t destroyed, and it appeared to be in excellent condition, which is more than I can say for most homes these days. (Then again, the donations ARE tax deductable, so they get the money back, right?)

My next question is, how can Nadya be so bad? After all, the other six children are for the most part healthy and happy. Surely, they would have shown signs of abuse or neglect if she was doing so much wrong, but they do not. Matter a fact, dr. Phil even said that there is has been nothing substantial enough to warrant the removal of these children. Therefore, it seems that Society is jumping the gun, which only stands to hinder any efforts made by Nadya, and creates a negative atmosphere for the children.

The fact is, when the AIW approached this situation they contaminated the scene with negativity. By doing so, they destroyed any chance of truly bonding with Nadya. After all, who wouldn�t become fearful and paranoid with the AIW pointing fingers and running to the state over every little detail? Such actions are not part of �Mandatory reporting"; especially when Nadya was obviously open to suggestions, and made efforts to change things before they reoccured. Then again, I believe that this organization was intentionally placed in the Suleman�s home in order to investigate and report her as unfit so that child services could remove the children, instead of to assist her attempts to provide a safe home for 14 children. This of course is another controversial topic, because some people believe that the reports were justified when I do not. For that matter, as a future psychologist, I would recommend against such reports, unless the allegations are part of a predetermined list. In other words, there needs to be changes made so that mandatory reporting has �guidelines� instead of being decided by a worker. I say this because it allows professionals to endulge in ethnocentric behavior.

For example: The way I see it, the AIW should not have been allowed to dictate who could enter Nadya�s home in the first place. They were there to assist not DICTATE! Of course, some one is going to say �But these babies are fragile.� Well ok, but the fact is that when any other child is released from the hospital, it is ALWAYS assumed that the child is �ready� to face the public. I mean, most parents do not lock their babies in a nursery, so why should Nadya? Most parents carry their babies around in public, and have unlimited guests. So why is it so wrong for Nadya to show these babies off? After all, Dr. Phil wants transparency, and how much more transparent can you be than to have camera crews recording the family�s every move? And as for the paparazzi and other trespassers, those people should have been arrested. That was not Nadya�s fault that was the �evil� of society!

Anyway, after following this story, I feel Nadya did the right thing, because the AIW cannot be trusted. Therefore, it is my hope that the hospital and public health nurses will continue to provide the positive interaction that Nadya needs in order to finally have all her babies home.

Of course, I am also hopeful that society remembers the AIW organization and quits supporting them. I would hate to think how many other families these women have attempted or succeeded in destroying.

You can read older entries by visiting the achieves on the right. Thank You For Visiting!