She wouldn’t stop having babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

In a perfect world the well being of the children (who are now 2 years old and call the foster parents mom and dad) would be the most important consideration. The children have a family already. Ripping them away from the parents they know would be horrible for them. Fraudulently contracting for a surrogate to birth children does not override the consideration of what is best for the children.

Imagine a world where children are ripped from their actual parents and given to whatever people (richest, WHITEST) a judge feels are most "fit." Are you sure YOU would keep your own kids under that system?

This woman isn't their actual parent. Their actual parents are the people who took them home from the hospital and have raised them for two years.

According to surrogacy laws, the older couple ARE the twins legal parents. The foster parents, who are fighting to maintain custody, are FOSTER parents. Who have had them for 2 years while a state goes rogue.

Yes, the lady is a nut. She’s committed crimes. Lots of parents commit crimes and get custody of their kids back. Worse than forgery crimes.

Except that she violated the laws that would have allowed her to take the babies and therefore forfeited that right. Regardless of the letter of the law, these children belong with the foster parents and that's what the court should enforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13 kids used to be common enough.

The mother's stopped giving birth in their 40s, around menopause. My great-grandmother had 16, the last at 45, not 63. There is a difference.

My stepdad, now 82, was near the youngest of 13 kids that survived infancy (2 died in infancy and there were a couple of still births, IIRC). The story I was told is the doctors gave her a hysterectomy without informing her or her husband or obtaining consent while she was recovering from her last delivery, because the last 3 pregnancies/deliveries had nearly killed her. This was in rural Ohio in the 1940s. She was in her early 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

I disagree. It sounds to me like the foster parents became foster parents to “foster to adopt” and now they have the perfect children - white, healthy, no drug history, no mental health concerns.

Foster parenting should be undertaken with the goal of reunification with the child’s parents - not adoption out of foster care.

These foster parents should go rescue kids who actually need rescuing - from parents who are not fit to parent. I agree these folks are crazy. Crazy doesn’t mean the children are in actual danger.

Fostering is really complicated and one of the most difficult things a person can do. I look down on anyone who looks down on foster parents. You have no idea what these foster parents were thinking when they brought these kids into their home. They have had them in their home for two years based on court decisions, and they seem prepared to send them away forever with a day's notice. Nothing else but caring for the twins were their decisions...but they seem to have taken good care of the kids in a situation that was never permanent.

The foster parents are fighting for custody and have retained their own lawyer to that end (in the article).

If they were pro reunification they wouldn’t be fighting to maintain custody.

This is pretty common in foster care and shouldn't be allowed as they are not a party to the case.

It can get complicated if the foster parents have a reason to believe it would be harmful for the kids to go back to their biological parents. It is not uncommon for parents to eventually forfeit parental rights, and I've seen enough firsthand not to have the knee-jerk reaction that it's a tragedy when this happens.

Family law is really complicated and broken in this country. Decisions should be first-and-foremost in the best interest of the child. I understand the history for why reunification is considered the default outcome the system seeks...but that doesn't mean it's always best for the child.

TBH, there isn't enough information in this article to make any judgments about what's best for the child. The article is both sympathetic to the bio parents and also judgment, and few alternative perspectives are presented. Presumably the situation is complicated enough that the judge has set another court date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

I disagree. It sounds to me like the foster parents became foster parents to “foster to adopt” and now they have the perfect children - white, healthy, no drug history, no mental health concerns.

Foster parenting should be undertaken with the goal of reunification with the child’s parents - not adoption out of foster care.

These foster parents should go rescue kids who actually need rescuing - from parents who are not fit to parent. I agree these folks are crazy. Crazy doesn’t mean the children are in actual danger.

Fostering is really complicated and one of the most difficult things a person can do. I look down on anyone who looks down on foster parents. You have no idea what these foster parents were thinking when they brought these kids into their home. They have had them in their home for two years based on court decisions, and they seem prepared to send them away forever with a day's notice. Nothing else but caring for the twins were their decisions...but they seem to have taken good care of the kids in a situation that was never permanent.

The foster parents are fighting for custody and have retained their own lawyer to that end (in the article).

If they were pro reunification they wouldn’t be fighting to maintain custody.

This is pretty common in foster care and shouldn't be allowed as they are not a party to the case.

It can get complicated if the foster parents have a reason to believe it would be harmful for the kids to go back to their biological parents. It is not uncommon for parents to eventually forfeit parental rights, and I've seen enough firsthand not to have the knee-jerk reaction that it's a tragedy when this happens.

Family law is really complicated and broken in this country. Decisions should be first-and-foremost in the best interest of the child. I understand the history for why reunification is considered the default outcome the system seeks...but that doesn't mean it's always best for the child.

TBH, there isn't enough information in this article to make any judgments about what's best for the child. The article is both sympathetic to the bio parents and also judgment, and few alternative perspectives are presented. Presumably the situation is complicated enough that the judge has set another court date.

+1 Yes to all you said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13 kids used to be common enough.

Because there was no birth control

No one wants 13 kids unless they are mentally ill

I grew up in a town where the average was 10 kids those mothers were forced to have those kids. 1960s Long Islabd Catholic dysfunctional homes physical abuse DV was common

+1
My great-grandmother had 17 kids of which 12 survived to adulthood. She was pregnant from age 16 when she got married until she finally had an emergency hysterectomy after her last child. Her doctors kept telling her to stop but her husband was relentless. It really scarred her daughters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

In a perfect world the well being of the children (who are now 2 years old and call the foster parents mom and dad) would be the most important consideration. The children have a family already. Ripping them away from the parents they know would be horrible for them. Fraudulently contracting for a surrogate to birth children does not override the consideration of what is best for the children.

Imagine a world where children are ripped from their actual parents and given to whatever people (richest, WHITEST) a judge feels are most "fit." Are you sure YOU would keep your own kids under that system?

This woman isn't their actual parent. Their actual parents are the people who took them home from the hospital and have raised them for two years.

According to surrogacy laws, the older couple ARE the twins legal parents. The foster parents, who are fighting to maintain custody, are FOSTER parents. Who have had them for 2 years while a state goes rogue.

Yes, the lady is a nut. She’s committed crimes. Lots of parents commit crimes and get custody of their kids back. Worse than forgery crimes.

Except that she violated the laws that would have allowed her to take the babies and therefore forfeited that right. Regardless of the letter of the law, these children belong with the foster parents and that's what the court should enforce.

It’s not more complicated than that. She violated laws, but not ones that would allow her to parent the children. She forged documents, yes, but without her forging those documents the kids wouldn’t exist at all. That doesn’t give the foster parents the right to adopt these twins.

And the children have a right to a relationship with their biological siblings, who are being raised by the older couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

In a perfect world the well being of the children (who are now 2 years old and call the foster parents mom and dad) would be the most important consideration. The children have a family already. Ripping them away from the parents they know would be horrible for them. Fraudulently contracting for a surrogate to birth children does not override the consideration of what is best for the children.

Imagine a world where children are ripped from their actual parents and given to whatever people (richest, WHITEST) a judge feels are most "fit." Are you sure YOU would keep your own kids under that system?

This woman isn't their actual parent. Their actual parents are the people who took them home from the hospital and have raised them for two years.

According to surrogacy laws, the older couple ARE the twins legal parents. The foster parents, who are fighting to maintain custody, are FOSTER parents. Who have had them for 2 years while a state goes rogue.

Yes, the lady is a nut. She’s committed crimes. Lots of parents commit crimes and get custody of their kids back. Worse than forgery crimes.

Except that she violated the laws that would have allowed her to take the babies and therefore forfeited that right. Regardless of the letter of the law, these children belong with the foster parents and that's what the court should enforce.

It’s not more complicated than that. She violated laws, but not ones that would allow her to parent the children. She forged documents, yes, but without her forging those documents the kids wouldn’t exist at all. That doesn’t give the foster parents the right to adopt these twins.

And the children have a right to a relationship with their biological siblings, who are being raised by the older couple.

This is a sad case all around, because the "bio" mom seems pretty nuts. But if not for overreach of a judge, the kids would have gone home with her. Now, however, they have been in the care of a different couple their entire lives which changes the decision-making of the judge. Maybe they are too young to remember the foster parents long term, but it's not clear whether this would be traumatic for them or not.

And having different adoptive or foster parents doesn't preclude having a relationship with siblings. It's very common for kids in foster care, actually, to maintain sibling relationships while living in different households.

(I guess not really bio mom, since it's a donor egg.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

In a perfect world the well being of the children (who are now 2 years old and call the foster parents mom and dad) would be the most important consideration. The children have a family already. Ripping them away from the parents they know would be horrible for them. Fraudulently contracting for a surrogate to birth children does not override the consideration of what is best for the children.

Imagine a world where children are ripped from their actual parents and given to whatever people (richest, WHITEST) a judge feels are most "fit." Are you sure YOU would keep your own kids under that system?

This woman isn't their actual parent. Their actual parents are the people who took them home from the hospital and have raised them for two years.

According to surrogacy laws, the older couple ARE the twins legal parents. The foster parents, who are fighting to maintain custody, are FOSTER parents. Who have had them for 2 years while a state goes rogue.

Yes, the lady is a nut. She’s committed crimes. Lots of parents commit crimes and get custody of their kids back. Worse than forgery crimes.

Except that she violated the laws that would have allowed her to take the babies and therefore forfeited that right. Regardless of the letter of the law, these children belong with the foster parents and that's what the court should enforce.

It’s not more complicated than that. She violated laws, but not ones that would allow her to parent the children. She forged documents, yes, but without her forging those documents the kids wouldn’t exist at all. That doesn’t give the foster parents the right to adopt these twins.

And the children have a right to a relationship with their biological siblings, who are being raised by the older couple.

This is a sad case all around, because the "bio" mom seems pretty nuts. But if not for overreach of a judge, the kids would have gone home with her. Now, however, they have been in the care of a different couple their entire lives which changes the decision-making of the judge. Maybe they are too young to remember the foster parents long term, but it's not clear whether this would be traumatic for them or not.

And having different adoptive or foster parents doesn't preclude having a relationship with siblings. It's very common for kids in foster care, actually, to maintain sibling relationships while living in different households.

(I guess not really bio mom, since it's a donor egg.)

It’s actually extremely uncommon for siblings placed in different homes to maintain meaningful relationships with each other. Some families try, but the system doesn’t care at all and often those relationships don’t receive enough support to be meaningful.

And, I disagree that a judges overreach should preclude the children from returning to their family of origin. It should be corrected ASAP. Judges don’t get to screw up people’s lives because they have a bias, or because the overreach happened so long ago that now the circumstances are different. Making bad decisions permanent is not good precedent.

[Anonymous]

When one of the "Originals" confided with her siblings that "this wouldn't end well" [meaning more babies for the hoard], she wasn't wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

100% this woman is mentally unwell.

However, there is exactly ZERO mental health bar for becoming a parent. Lots and lots of mentally ill parents that are parenting today.

In the perfect world these two would wake up and allow the foster parents to adopt while keeping the kids in the siblings lives. But she's still mentally unwell so nothing less than owning the children is acceptable.

In a perfect world the well being of the children (who are now 2 years old and call the foster parents mom and dad) would be the most important consideration. The children have a family already. Ripping them away from the parents they know would be horrible for them. Fraudulently contracting for a surrogate to birth children does not override the consideration of what is best for the children.

Imagine a world where children are ripped from their actual parents and given to whatever people (richest, WHITEST) a judge feels are most "fit." Are you sure YOU would keep your own kids under that system?

This woman isn't their actual parent. Their actual parents are the people who took them home from the hospital and have raised them for two years.

According to surrogacy laws, the older couple ARE the twins legal parents. The foster parents, who are fighting to maintain custody, are FOSTER parents. Who have had them for 2 years while a state goes rogue.

Yes, the lady is a nut. She’s committed crimes. Lots of parents commit crimes and get custody of their kids back. Worse than forgery crimes.

Except that she violated the laws that would have allowed her to take the babies and therefore forfeited that right. Regardless of the letter of the law, these children belong with the foster parents and that's what the court should enforce.

It’s not more complicated than that. She violated laws, but not ones that would allow her to parent the children. She forged documents, yes, but without her forging those documents the kids wouldn’t exist at all. That doesn’t give the foster parents the right to adopt these twins.

And the children have a right to a relationship with their biological siblings, who are being raised by the older couple.

This is a sad case all around, because the "bio" mom seems pretty nuts. But if not for overreach of a judge, the kids would have gone home with her. Now, however, they have been in the care of a different couple their entire lives which changes the decision-making of the judge. Maybe they are too young to remember the foster parents long term, but it's not clear whether this would be traumatic for them or not.

And having different adoptive or foster parents doesn't preclude having a relationship with siblings. It's very common for kids in foster care, actually, to maintain sibling relationships while living in different households.

(I guess not really bio mom, since it's a donor egg.)

It’s not common at all to maintain sibling relationships post adoption.

[Anonymous]

Yet another cautionary tale about surrogacy.

[Anonymous]

Melissa Brisman is very well-known and a prominent lawyer in the surrogacy field. I’m surprised she got snowed by her client.

[Anonymous]

Among the many other questions this article brings up, a logistical one - how does one carry a baby themself at the age of 62?? Surely she would be menopausal by then?

[Anonymous]

No one has mentioned that it is also criminal (iMO) for the courts to take 2 years to resolve this. The legal system and courts are broken and children suffer. We all suffer.

[Anonymous]

The interests of the children should be given the highest priority when deciding where the children should remain. And the highest interests of the children in this case is staying with theri foster parents. Taking them away und sending them to a crazy mentaly ill old woman ist not in the highest interests of the children.