She wouldn’t stop having babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13 kids used to be common enough.

Um, no. There is nothing common enough about having kids well into her 60s.

[Anonymous]

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.

No. This results in kids being put back in families that are highly destructive. As a society, we should be quicker to terminate rights, not to give dysfunctional parents unlimited chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

The woman wants to change the kids’ names. They’re more than 2 years old! She’s nuts. I hope sanity will prevail here but doubt it will. Those poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

[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.

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.

You can’t reunify people who have never met in their lives.

[Anonymous]

Obey laws, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Our special ed classes and supports reflect the difference.

How do you feel about the pediatric death rates of that era?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

[Anonymous]

It is truly bizarre someone is arguing Mary Beth at age 68 should get custody of the twins. She also faces a year in jail so in the short term she might not be around to raise them but long term with certainty she won’t be around to raise them.

Is it fair to the twins to be raised by a mother who is 84 or 85 (if she is still alive) at their high school graduation? And realistically she expects the older siblings to raise them. Instead of ensuring for her children’s financial future she has spent over half a million dollars to get selfishly try and have her 14th and 15th child.

Mary Beth’s mother died of a sudden stroke in 2010. So there is a chance she will suddenly pass away as well.

Her husband wasn’t even consulted when she had their 13th child.

“In fact, the pregnancy surprised him too. MaryBeth had gone behind his back and secretly implanted two more embryos, with one taking. She had waited (and waited) until he was in a good mood, finally telling him at 12 weeks. “He originally signed for all this stuff,” she says, citing Bob’s purchase of the embryos three years earlier as tantamount to his consent. “But he wasn’t thrilled, let me put it that way.”

The oldest siblings nicknamed the original were upset as well.

“Liz, then 31, was furious. For the Originals, the arrival of more siblings had gone from a joy to a stretch and finally to the breaking point. She felt increasingly pushed aside. Her sister Marissa had it worse: She lived at home during college to help with day care pickups, bath time and nighttime tears — and promptly failed her classes. A few of the older sisters even delayed having their own children in part to help MaryBeth. And now she had gone and unilaterally signed them all up for another tour of diaper duty.”

Absolutely no way is she a fit mother.

[Anonymous]

^ forgot to add that Bob is 70. The twins will be having to help him by the time they graduate from high school since he will be 88 if he is even alive!

[Anonymous]

This story is so disturbing. No one should be providing IVF services to a woman over 60, and the fact that she committed fraud in order to create the newest twins should be enough to terminate her parental rights to those children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legally speaking, they have no biological connection to the children, documents were forged and there is zero arguing those people are good for them. Other than money exchanged I don't know how legally or morally one could argue the Lewis' should be the parents.

Do you want a world in which children can be taken from their parents and biological siblings and given to whatever strangers a judge feels are "more fit"?

The twins belong with their parents and bio siblings. Any trauma they suffer from leaving the foster family is the result of a judge making a bad decision years ago.

Can you explain why you are identifying those people as “the parents” of the twins? What, specifically, makes them the parents?

They exist only because of this woman. She meticulously selected the egg and sperm donors, as well as the surrogate, at great financial cost. She had every intention of mothering these children until they were stolen from her because of bigotry. They were created to be her children.

All she did was special order human beings. That doesn’t make her the mother any more than me ordering a Ferrari makes me a race car driver.

How is this different than any same-sex couple that has a child via IVF? For gay male couples, at least one partner has no biological connection to the child. And for lesbian couples, unless they do reciprocal IVF, the same still applies. One of the parents is neither the carrier nor the bio parent.