Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jaad jaad (New Member) New Member

'Octomom' Charged With Welfare Fraud in California

Politics   (1,079 Views 16 Comments)
8,297 Visitors; 803 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

This woman could be facing up to 5 years in jail.

Already had 6 children, then gave birth to 8 babies.

I'd like to know what rights you believe this Mother should have and which rights should be taken away.

If she gets out, do we allow her to stay on welfare?

Should she get her kids back?

Should she be forced to be on birth control (if we had a choice) if she requests to get on welfare when she gets out.

Chances of her finding a job to support these kids?

Nadya Suleman, who gained fame as "Octomom" after giving birth to eight babies, has been charged with welfare fraud after failing to report $30,000 in earnings while she collected public assistance, authorities said Monday.Suleman, whose real name is Natalie Denise Suleman, was ordered to appear in court on Friday, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office said in a statement. She was not immediately taken into custody.

Suleman was charged Jan. 6 with one count of aid by misrepresentation and two counts of perjury by false application. If convicted, she could face up to five years and eight months in jail.

Since their birth, the single mother has tried to support her huge family in a variety of ways, including endorsing birth control for pets, making a pornographic video, posing for semi-nude photo shoots and participating in celebrity boxing matches.

Last year she spent several weeks in a rehabilitation center for what her former publicist said was anxiety, exhaustion and stress

Efforts to reach Suleman for comment through recent associates were not immediately successful. There is no telephone listing for her in Orange, where she most recently lived.

Suleman, 38, was already the mother of six children when she gave birth to octuplets at a California hospital on Jan. 26, 2009.

All 14 of her children were conceived through in vitro fertility treatments.

As they approach their fifth birthdays, her octuplets are the world's longest-surviving set. Suleman has shielded them from much media attention, but occasional video and print articles seem to indicate the children are growing up healthy, even though they were born nine weeks premature.

The smallest of the eight, who weighed less than 2 pounds at birth, didn't go home from the hospital for nearly three months.

Suleman's other six children range in age from 7 to 12 and include one set of twins. One of the older children is autistic.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/octomom-suleman-charged-welfare-fraud-21517867

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This woman has something seriously wrong with her. The sad thing, it is her children who will bear the brunt of her actions. When she applied for assistance, how is it that no one looked at her finances. She has been all over the media, and it would seem apparent that she is making money doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is a piece of work. I agree, her children shouldn't be punished for her actions, but she certainly doesn't deserve to be rewarded for them. This has been a sad story from day 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She is a piece of work. I agree, her children shouldn't be punished for her actions, but she certainly doesn't deserve to be rewarded for them. This has been a sad story from day 1.

Do you think she should have the right to get back on welfare if her children were out of the picture?

Do you think we should have the right to give her a birth control shot if she needs assistance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think she should have the right to get back on welfare if her children were out of the picture?

Do you think we should have the right to give her a birth control shot if she needs assistance?

No, I don't think she should be given assistance once she defrauded the system, but her children aren't out of the picture, so what do you think we should do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is a sad situation. Those kids did nothing wrong, yet they will bear the brunt of her actions.

While we can deny assistance to mom, the children still qualify and I believe one of the children is disabled. The children could be taken away and placed in foster care. I don't think separating them from each other is the best thing for them. Of course if she lands in jail, this is what will happen.

If for some reason they decide no jail time, I think a condition of her release should be that she can receive benefits only if she agrees to birth control. Should she get pregnant or "forget" to get her shot, she would lose all benefits and the children will be taken away. If she can't show some personal responsibility for herself, I question her ability to make good decisions for her children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't think she should be given assistance once she defrauded the system, but her children aren't out of the picture, so what do you think we should do?

If the woman is in jail. The state would get the next of kin or foster care for the kids. Those poor kids. They have a very good chance of growing up just like the example they've been given.

What if the mother blames her abuse on mental problems. Would you deny her welfare?

If we did have the right to "vaccinate" her with a shot of birth control, would you be for or against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for those on here who have said they are "proud to have a bleeding heart" does the bleeding come to a halt when there has been abuse of the system?

If you saw this woman on the streets, after denying her government assistance, you would deny her food stamps and allow her to go hungry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is, there's probably no way for those kids to stay together. I hate the thought of separating the, but when there's 14 kids in the picture, there may be no other option. I have mixed feelings about imposing birth control. If you want to do that, then I think it should also be mandatory for men who father children with several different women, and don't pay child support, or any man who doesn't pay child support for his children. Vasectomy or give them female hormones so they don't have the urge to have sex. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trouble is, there's probably no way for those kids to stay together. I hate the thought of separating the, but when there's 14 kids in the picture, there may be no other option. I have mixed feelings about imposing birth control. If you want to do that, then I think it should also be mandatory for men who father children with several different women, and don't pay child support. Vasectomy or give them female hormones so they don't have the urge to have sex. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

I would 100% agree! I think men get away with even more sometimes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, don't necessarily believe in imposing birth control on all women who receive public assistance. However, in a case I like this I would make it a condition of receiving assistance. This would not make it mandatory, the choice is still there. Situations like this really are a case to case situation.

Several years ago there was a man who had fathered quite a few children that he did not pay child support for. The court ruled that he had to have a vasectomy. I believe this decision was later overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too, don't necessarily believe in imposing birth control on all women who receive public assistance. However, in a case I like this I would make it a condition of receiving assistance. This would not make it mandatory, the choice is still there. Situations like this really are a case to case situation.

Several years ago there was a man who had fathered quite a few children that he did not pay child support for. The court ruled that he had to have a vasectomy. I believe this decision was later overturned.

That double standard kills me. Perhaps less government assistance would be needed if the sperm never got close to the egg. Putting the entire burden of birth control on women is unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.