Octuplets: Nadya thinks house is haunted

July 12, 2009

Updated list of octuplet posts

Hi Callie,

Here’s your Nadya update from radaronline.

She thinks her house is haunted by a child ghost because she heard a whisper saying “Mommy” and thinks the “ghost” lives in a room that’s being used only to store toys, which she describes as “unusually cold“. A nanny heard a noise upstairs and thought she saw a child that was not there. Another nanny said she saw some movement and a “white thing that was moving in the camera” because “it can pick up on orbs“.

And Nadya said a friend, while walking up the stairs, felt something pulling at her pantleg. Her friend perceives it as something positive – “that the spirit is looking over us.”

Some quotes:

There are no such things as ghosts, but that really did scare me.

People have told me they hear noises [in that room] late at night.

I never, ever, want to be alone really in this house. I don’t want the children alone, at all, in this house – ever.

This is something you’re not supposed to believe in if you are a believer in God. But it’s something — I’m a little worried about.

But when you’re not scared and you keep praying and you just ask it kindly to leave, politely, and pray, and hopefully that will work.

There have been – we have felt some energy here and I’d like to – it was blessed once – but I’d like to do it again. Just in case.

I want to place, maybe, up to 20 Bibles throughout the house, in different areas of the house and we have this sign: “Bless these Babies”.

Octuplets: Allred-Petersen court date changed to July 27th

June 26, 2009

Updated list of octuplet posts

Looks like Gloria Allred — Paul Petersen case requesting a fiduciary guardian for the octuplets has been re-scheduled. I couldn’t find anything on the court calendar but thanks to OCTORAZZI, who is still covering Nadya in depth – here’s the docket update. Allred/Deily filed an amended petition which set the case back.

To Octorazzi from Gloria Allred:

New proposed guardian and new information about the reality show. We did not request an extension. The court continues it when an amended petition is filed.

On May 4, 2009, Gloria Allred and her co-counsel John Deily, on behalf of their client, Paul Petersen, filed a petition requesting that the court appoint a guardian over the estate of Nadya Suleman’s octuplets. The court set a hearing date of June 22, 2009. Ms. Allred and Mr. Deily filed an amended petition in this case on June 8, 2009. The court has now set a new hearing date of July 27, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Department L-73, 341 The City Drive, Orange, CA 92868. The hearing date of June 22, 2009 has been taken off calendar.

I don’t know what the new info about the reality show is. As far as I last understood it – the show is not a show until somebody picks it up. Right now she has a deal with a production company – not a network. I scanned through Octorazzi’s most recent posts and it appears he doesn’t know either. He mentioned something about Nadya’s book (another post that went missing), which she keeps hyping but it’s unclear as to whether she has signed with a publisher. Octorazzi also mentions some folks meeting with Nadya for hours that could have been related to the reality show. If anyone cares – the grandmother has not been able to sell her house that was in foreclosure. Octorazzi also goes into detail on Radaronline’s fines as a result of the Allred – Petersen complaint. And because of the fines and the investigation, Radaronline has been filming only Nadya so there’s no way to know firsthand visually how her children are doing.

Octuplets: Allred statement re: child labor investigatio

Another missing post. The hearing was to have taken place on June 22nd. Must have been delayed. Will have to check.

UPDATE: Scheduled for July 27th.

Updated list of octuplet posts

June 16, 2009

Gloria Allred statement re: Nadya Suleman, Octuplets, California Labor Laws and her client Paul Petersen, President, A Minor Child, and advocate of child actors.

Allred, working on behalf of Petersen, requested a fiduciary guardian be named to safeguard the interest of the octuplets. They also requested aninvestigation into whether the proper child labor laws [the octuplets would be "working"] – laws brought about through the efforts of Peterson’s organization – were followed and will be followed during the filming of the “documentary”.

Check the previous posts for background – it’s all explained.

So the State of California did investigate and fined Radaronline.com, who had been filming her since the first octuplets were brought home, $3K – just for the first night becsuse the very stringent rules were not followed. It’s possible Radaronline could be fined for all that footage. Since the investigation they’ve concentrated just on Nadya.

I think they did a very necessary service by documenting Nadya’s madness and how the autistic child is neglected and smacked! smacked! smacked! right in the face with a book by his younger brother with mom standing by watching…right after Social Service left. And I hope whoever has to review all that footage has a conscience and some children.

So here’s Allred’s statement from her website. Follow update link above for video from that first night and whatever background needed.

GLORIA ALLRED:

On May 4, 2009, I announced at a news conference that I was filing a complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, requesting an investigation into numerous violations of California labor laws and regulations involving the filming of two of Nadya Suleman’s infant octuplets.

As a result of my complaint the State opened an investigation, interviewed witnesses and issued subpoenas. Today they took appropriate action based on the results of their investigation.

I filed this complaint on behalf of Paul Petersen, my client who is President of A Minor Consideration, a group dedicated to the protection of child performers. I took this action because of our concern about the need for protection for the rights of Nadya Suleman’s octuplets.

Labor laws in California are clear about the requirements that must be followed for the protection of minors who are filmed.

On the night of March 17, 2009, when the first two of Nadya’s premature infant octuplets returned home, many of the protections that the law requires for child actors (including infants) were not in place.

For example the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement found that no studio teacher was present during the filming of minors Noah and Isaiah Suleman in violation of Labor Code Sec. 1287. Studio teachers are required to be present for the protection of child performers while filming is taking place. It is their job to intervene and stop the filming if the filming would endanger the infants or is in any way in violation of the law. I was present inside of Nadya’s home when the first two infants came home on the night of March 17, 2009. It is clear the babies were in danger on that night and that if a studio teacher been present the babies would not have been endangered as I believe they were. The division also found that on that same night of March 17, that the infants Noah and Isaiah Suleman worked beyond the hours permitted in violation of Labor Code Sec. 1287. Infants of their age are not permitted to be filmed after 4:30 in the afternoon and during that time filming may only take place for 20 minutes. However these infants were filmed from 10:00 p.m. to approximately midnight, in violation of the hours permitted, and for almost two hours, far in excess of the 20 minutes permitted by law. Further the division found that there was no permit to employ the minors Noah and Isaiah Suleman as required by law and that no entertainment work permits were on file for them. As a result four citations were issued to the media entity with whom Ms. Suleman had a contract, Radaronline.com, and civil penalties were assessed for a total amount of $3,000.00.

Because Nadya Suleman has chosen to commercially exploit her babies by allowing them to be filmed, she and those with whom she has contracts must follow the law which exists for the protection of these innocent babies.

I am very pleased that the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement is doing its job in protecting these infants and in doing so is sending a message to others that babies have rights, and that if their parents and the media do not protect them that others will.

The entertainment industry, the media and Nadya Suleman are now on notice that the health, safety and welfare of these babies is paramount. The message has now been sent loudly and clearly that babie’s rights may not be sacrificed or violated simply because others wish to profit.

Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
representing Paul Petersen
June 16, 2009

Octuplets: Nadya officially signs TV deal

Updated list of octuplet posts

May 31, 2009

According to US Magazine, it was a done deal as of Thursday. It is in conjunction with Eyeworks – the same company mentioned previously. Jeff Czech, Nadya’s lawyer doesn’t give much info other than it would be a “documentary series” and a “quasi-reality TV series”. Quasi-reality describes Nadya. Declined to state the specifics of the contract such as what she is getting paid and how long she signed for.

JEFF CZECH:

[Nadya and the producers] are hoping to have an arrangement whereby several events in the children’s lives would be filmed in a documentary series.

One of the events in the children’s lives might be their first birthday.

They might be several shows aired during a year. There are all kinds of possibilities. It really depends on what the networks want.

Her television program will not be like the Jon and Kate Plus 8 show.

[Nadya] is looking forward to providing her side of the story.

Octuplets: Kaiser Permanente Bellflower fined $250K

(5-15) Updated list of octuplet post

May 15, 2009

Well the folks who got caught improperly accessing Nadya Suleman's medical records were punished. Now it's the hospital's turn. Kaiser Permanente's Bellflower was fined $250K for failure to safeguarding patient confidentiality. Nadya was asked if she was going to sue Kaiser and she said, Why? She thinks they were looking for the name of the sperm donor, which she says is not written down anywhere. She said she made her doctor "shred his records". The initial firings were in March. I'm not positive but I think for some reason 8 more

Octuplets: Nadya: “I am not on any government assistance”

May 8, 2009

(5-8) Updated list of octuplet post

I really don’t know what to think about this one. Octorazzi is a reliable source of information but it stretches the imagination to believe that Nadya is off all government assistance. I have to wonder if in lieu of suing Kaiser for the employees who illegally accessed her records she got health insurance for all of them. Is she planning on paying back the hospital bill as well?

Where is she getting the cash and what is she doing to get it?

Anyway here’s OCTORAZZI’s report.

NADYA: How can babies make money? I am not doing any reality show and if the babies are accidentally on the film maybe it’s five minutes. There’s no filming for more than like five minutes.

Is this in the future or now? It’s all Radaronline has been doing is filming the kids and for a lot longer than 5 minutes. If she is getting paid for the video footage of her children they are “working”. She can’t qualify for WIC because she’s made too much money

NADYA: I am not in any government assistance. A hundred percent done.

They are off Medi-Cal, they have no Medi-Cal. I’m paying (Insurance) premiums.

I’m paying a hundred percent of everything. Food, formula, everything is outrageous, so everything.

No help, no WIC. No Nothing.

I’d like to ask how many single moms can survive.

People should go give those moms more attention, not me. Because I am doing everything that I’m supposed to do.

I think that’s what makes people angry – that I’m doing everything I’m supposed to do.

Octuplets: Nadya responds to Allred’s court petition

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 4, 2009

I have no clue who she is referring to.

And why does she hold the baby like it’s a thing? I can’t watch it without thinking the baby is going to make a sudden move or startle and she is going to snap his/her neck or choke his/her to death. All these videos are hard to watch after seeing that defenseless autistic boy getting SMACKED! SMACKED! SMACKED! in the face with a book by his little brother while his mom say Oh. Oh. and never puts down the plate of food in her hand. Clearly she has witnessed such behavior before as it didn’t even faze her or even embarrass her. It’s why she didn’t think it necessary to call the teacher.
——-

——-

NADYA: I’m sure there’s gonna be a lot of lawsuits against me. Am I going to acknowledge these lawsuits against me - probably not. There’s no grounds for anything.

If anyone wants to do that…feel free to try.

Again, I’ll reiterate, people want a piece of the situation, a piece of my babies, a piece of me and they’re not gonna get it.

People are opportunists and they just want to be in the spotlight.

How ironic is it that that people who don’t want it, are thrust into it overnight, and others are just foaming at the mouth for it don’t get it and have to go through extraordinary lengths to get some form of attention.

Did she enter into a reality show with Eyeworks?

As far as I’m concerned, I haven’t entered into anything.

I haven’t signed anything. I haven’t signed anything at all.

My head is blank right now.

I feel like as though many, many, many, many people in this society are trying to distract me from taking care of my babies. And I’m gonna continue to live in my baby bubble with my kids. And whoever wants a piece of me or the babies, keep on trying.

That’s all I have to say.

How can she possibly say she was thrust into it and doesn’t want it?

She chose to have 14 children, she chose to get the media involved, she chose to talk to RadarOnline for money just as she is doing now. Her words are rehearsed little sound bites that have no basis in reality. And nobody wants a piece of her - they want to make sure the octuplets have their fair share of what she is making off them.

And as far as Eyeworks?

Here are her exact words as said to Life and Style Magazine (April 15th article)

Yes, it is official. I’m going to be doing a show, but it’s not a reality show.

What I’m doing with this TV show is basically creating documentaries about the lives of my children.

It’s going to be an ongoing thing, and it will follow them from now until they are 18.

It’s being done by Eyeworks; they’re in the UK. It will air in the UK and then we’ll see if the US is interested.

Video courtesy RadarOnline

Octuplets: Allred re: autistic child’s safety

May 5, 2009

I see this never got included with the appropriate video, which was posted earlier. I’ve had enough of this woman. I don’t want to document her madness anymore but I don’t have a choice. I wish I had never seen the autistic child being SMACKED! SMACKED! SMACKED! in the face by his little brother while Nadya stood by. I wish I could forget the sound of that undefended flesh being smacked, the bewildered look of the smackee and the gleeful face of the smacker.

It helps knowing that Gloria Allred is pursuing it. Say what you want about her - she is speaking for a child who has been given up on. A child who was abused right in front of his unfazed mother who then blamed him for causing his own injuries. A child whose black eye and human bite wound were not concerning enough for his mother to call his teacher.

So Allred is just fine by me. She can have all the press conferences and TV appearances she wants or whatever else she needs to get that boy protected from his own family. In all the footage I have watched, I have not seen any of these “meltdowns” he supposedly has. How often is the inciting event seen?

Here Allred talks with RadarOnline about the same child. There’s no video - just text. It’s dated April 3oth - the day after the police and CPS were at Nadya’s house.

From RadarOnline:

GLORIA ALLRED: I am shocked by Nadya’s reported response to Aidan’s black eye that “he’s autistic, he bumps into things,” and that he has bite marks as well. It is important for the authorities to determine the cause of the child’s injury and to make sure that the injuries did not result from abuse or neglect.

I guess she didn’t see the video because it was indisputable evidence of abuse - both active and passive. Maybe she needs an email.

Because X, age 3, is autistic, and has special needs, he is in need of special monitoring and protection by Nadya so that he will be protected from himself and others, who may not understand his behavior and how to react to it in an appropriate manner.

As one of 14 young children X appears especially vulnerable and particularly in need of trained, experienced individualized care.

My client, Angels in Waiting and myself have been concerned from the first time that we met Aidan that he was in particular need of professionals trained and experienced in autism and that because he was not adequately supervised by such trained professionals he would be exposed to a high risk of bodily and emotional harm.

It appears he has exposed to it for a long time. How much is his behavior and withdrawal due to the abuse and maternal neglect?

AIW brought this issue of trained providers knowledgeable in autism behaviors to Nadya’s attention, but it appears that the child has now suffered an injury which might have been prevented.

We plan to provide Children’s Services and law enforcement with evidence of our suggestions to Nadya of ways to teach and protect this child, and her reaction to these important suggestions.

Octuplets: Petitioner Paul Petersen's statement

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

Paul Petersen, a former child actor (Mouseketeers and Donna Reed Show) has dedicated himself to protecting the rights of minors in the entertainment industry - mainly from their parents. His focus is making sure the child actor’s money goes to them and them alone so that it is there when they turn 18. He is President of the foundation: A Minor Consideration, But he is not acting in that capacity - he is acting as a “Man, a Father, and a product of a life lived in full public view.”

He is petitioning the Court to have a fiduciary guardian appointed on behalf of the octuplets. He also wants to ensure that whatever their involvement - the octuplets “employment” follow California child labor laws both of which exist through the efforts of his foundation.

Here’s a portion of his statement. It is a well-written from the heart statement from a man who has been through it all and is using his experience to help children that are in the position he was in.

One would be hard-pressed to find an ulterior motive in bringing this legal action. It is exactly what his Foundation is set up for and they helped get the laws in place.

Something I did not know is children in the entertainment business are exempt child labor laws. But not California law, which his foundation and his wife helped draft and get passed. He discusses two laws that apply to all 14 children, which is the basis of his concern.

———————-Paul Peterson Statement——————

[...][emphasis added]

Money is being exchanged. Rights, copyrights and even trademarks are being negotiated for access to these helpless and vulnerable babies who were born into a family that we know is even now dependent on public assistance.

In short, these 14 children are dependent on us, the tax-payers, even as they adjust to a newly purchased home, a home acquired by means unknown.

A rational person might ask, “Where are the laws that protect these infants?” who are trapped in a situation they cannot possibly comprehend. They are now, I believe, working in the entertainment business yet they cannot walk or talk…and like all children in the Entertainment Business they are exempt from federal child labor laws. Let me repeat that: Kids in the Entertainment Business are exempt from federal child labor laws and have been since 1938 and the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

But they are not exempt from California Law.

The Preemie Law was passed in 1998 by a unanimous vote of the legislature and signed into Law on August 3rd 1998 to protect against Hollywood’s growing practice of hiring premature, multi-birth babies. The Law states that an infant must be full term and full birth weight, and approved for very limited work activity by a licensed doctor’s written declaration, and may then be employed fifteen days after their Due Date.

I know this Law intimately since the former kid stars who belong to A Minor Consideration, founded in 1990, drafted the legislation with the help and support of my wife, Rana Platz-Petersen who is both a Registered Nurse and the head of IATSE Local 767, Studio First Aid, which supplies all the union nurses and first aid personnel to the Eleven Western States on union productions.

There are, in fact, Laws, Regulations and Guidelines for even the youngest child employed in the entertainment business here in California, and we hold in this lawsuit that all fourteen children in the Suleman home are, in fact, employees in a commercial enterprise because of their continuing presence and utilization in that workplace. Photos-for-Pay have already appeared in the media well in advance of the “Due-Date plus fifteen days” provisions of the Preemie Law.

We are asking the Superior Court to judge whether the Suleman home is, in fact, a work site since the Department of Labor has been slow to intervene, and the Department of Social Services seems unaware of the statutes governing the employment of infants. We hold that the truth of the working status of these children is Self-Evident.

As employees these children fall under the provisions of the Revised Coogan Law which came into effect in the year 2000, thanks again to the efforts of A Minor Consideration’s members, the combined theatrical unions, and with the full support of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. The vote was unanimous and the Bill was promptly signed by the Governor. The main features of the Bill are these:

1. Children employed in the broadly defined entertainment industry now own the money they earn. Their income is their individual property.
2. All children must have a current State-Issued work permit.
3. A blocked Coogan Account must be in place for each child who works and a portion of their income, 15%, must be saved until the age of majority.
4. Infants below the age of six months may only work in two narrow time-windows…9:30 am to 11:30 am, and 2:30 pm until 4:30 pm…and must be attended by a welfare worker and a registered nurse…one each for every three infants under the age of six months.

We have good reason to believe that these laws are not being followed, and are thus asking the Superior Court for the State of California to act expeditiously to protect the youngest of our citizens.

I am grateful to Ms. Allred and her firm for undertaking this difficult task. I have not taken this legal action as the Chair of the AFTRA Young Performers Committee, nor am I acting as the President and Founder of A Minor Consideration, which is in desperate need of your financial support if we are ever to make it safe for children no matter where they work, nor am I acting as an Accredited United Nations Delegate for the World Safety Organization, but I have acted simply as a Man, a Father, and a product of a life lived in full public view.

Thank You,
Paul Petersen

Octuplets: Gloria Allred petitions Court for fiduciary octuplet Guardian

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 4, 2009

Gloria Allred is back in Nadya’s sights and her lawyer, Jeff Czech, better get some help. He has proven he is no match. They both made a serious error in judgment when they decided to trash Allred after they fired Angels in Waiting. You don’t dis a high powered lawyer like that and get away unscathed.

Allred’s involvement now has nothing to do with Angels in Waiting, Child Protective Services, the custody of the octuplets or the older children. It pertains only to the financial interests of the octuplets and whether their “work” meets the requirements of California law.

Today she filed a petition in Orange County Superior Court requesting that a guardian be appointed to protect the “financial interests and opportunities” of the octuplets. She brought the petition on behalf of Paul Peterson, a former child actor (Mouseketeers and Donna Reed Show) who has since dedicated himself to protecting the rights of minors in the entertainment industry - mainly from their parents - so that when they reach 18 the money they earmed is still there.

He is President and Founder of “A Minor Consideration.”

“A Minor Consideration” is a non-profit, tax-deductible foundation formed to give guidance and support to young performers, Past, Present and Future. Child Stars must pick their parents with care. Family Education is the key ingredient to a productive future. The members of AMC are always “on call” to assist parents and their professional children on a ‘No Cost basis.’ By providing a strong emphasis on education and character development, plus helping to preserve the money these children generate, the members of AMC are always available to help with the tricky Transition issues that for many kid stars prove to be so troubling. We’ve “been there, done that.” Our lessons were earned, not imagined.

And that is what he is trying to do for the octuplets - at this point mainly preserving their money. He hired Gloria Allred because she is already intimately familiar with the case and the publicity she generates won’t hurt his cause since his foundation is run by donations.

Summary of points:

• No interest in the older 6 children.
• No interest in custody or custody issues of any of the 14 children.
• No interest in Child Protective Services or fitness of Nadya as a parent
• Has nothing to do with Angels in Waiting or the previous complaint Allred made to CPS.
• Focus is appointing a court-appointed Guardian who will work solely in the interests of the octuplets.
• Who will ensure that each child get their share of the profits derived from their images - video and photos.
• And to explore other options for the octuplets separate from their mother for which they would receive 100% and Nadya nada.

Their suggestion is Linda Rogers, a professional fiduciary, licensed by the State of California.

• Separate from the petition they sent a letter to the California Division of Labor Standards & Enforcement “requesting an investigation into whether or not there have been violations of California Law and regulations which are there for the protection of child performers (including infants).”

• Nadya states she has not yet signed anything.

When asked, she pretended not to know who Eyeworks was even though she came out and prematurely said she had a deal. [See update list.]

Octuplets: Jeff Czech prior comments on child labor laws

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 4, 2009

Part of Peterson’s lawsuit, which is being handled by Gloria Allred, is whether the filming of the octuplets and older children is subject to California child labor laws. One requirement the presence of a nurse and teacher on set.

Nadya and her lawyer say that they are filming her - not the children. Problem being they wouldn’t be filming her if the octuplets and the older children weren’t involved.

Octorazzi was all over the child labor law question when the reality show deal was first mentioned in early April. He even managed to get a comment from Nadya’s lawyer, Jeff Czech.

OCTORAZZI:

When asked by telephone about cash donations received so far, Suleman’s attorney Jeff Czech said that a trust fund is being set up for the children.

CZECH: I gave this assignment to one of my associates.

Czech also said that he is making sure that certain principal portions of child labor laws are being followed when the children are filmed “in case it’s (the law) applicable later.”

CZECH: We’re not trying to get any money out of the children. The contract is with Nadya. Any filming with the babies is secondary.

How can he say that with a straight face?
But it may explain why no deal has been made. Nadya said she has not signed anything yet.

Octuplets: Gloria Allred press conference (text)

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 4, 2009

Here is Gloria Allred’s statement as the attorney for Paul Peterson, a former child actor whose focus is advocacy for child actors — making sure the money they earned is still waiting for them when they turn 18 and not spent by their parents/legal guardians. And making sure the Caifornia law regarding child labor in the entertainment buisness is followed. In this case they want the Court to appoint a Guardian to look out for the fiduciary interests of the children.

• Seeking Court-appointed fiduciary Guardian
• Ensure the octuplets receive their fair share of income
  
• There is no mention of the older children.
• There is no mention or desire to seek custody of any of the children or remove them from Nadya’s custody.

Allred Statement from Paul Peterson’s website “A Minor Consideration“. His statement to follow. I cannot locate a video of the press conference. It takes a king time for stuff to show up on her website.

The hearing is set for June 22 @ 1:45, Dept L73, Orange County Superior Court. It’s not on the Court calender because it’s more than 6 weeks away.

——————Gloria Allred Statement—————–

Today we have filed a Petition in Orange County Superior Court on behalf of our client, Paul Petersen, who is President of “A Minor Consideration” (“AMC”). Our Petition asks the court to protect the financial interests and opportunities of Nadya Suleman’s octuplets by appointing a Guardian over the estate of these 8 infants. We are not seeking nor do we desire to have custody of these babies.

We have taken this action because we know that Nadya Suleman, as the mother of these 8 infants and their 6 siblings, has entered into contracts and received payments for still photos and videos of her octuplets and she has stated that she will have a reality show with her children produced by Eyeworks as well. She reportedly said “It is going to be an ongoing thing and it will follow them from now until they are 18″.

“A Minor Consideration” is an organization, which for many years, has been actively working to advance the interests and rights of child performers. They have been successful in lobbying for laws which require that the earnings of children of all ages be protected and not spent or wasted by their parents or third parties; so that when the child reaches the age of majority (age 18 in California) they will be able to have access to and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

In the case of the octuplets, rather than choosing to provide her children with a normal life their mother, Nadya Suleman, has chosen instead to commercially exploit them, and it appears she plans to continue commercial exploitation of them in the future as well. Since she has chosen this path, we believe that the babies are entitled to remuneration, since much, if not most, of the compensation appears to be for the use of their images, in print, on television and on the internet.

Our goal in seeking the appointment of a Guardian is to be sure that the babies receive their fair share of the payments under the contracts which have required that their images be shown, and that payments under those contracts be placed into separate accounts for them and preserved for them as required by law .

We also believe that a Guardian can and will seek to hire a professional agent for the babies different from the mother’s representatives to be sure that commercial opportunities are explored, even if the mother will not benefit from those opportunities herself.

Most important, however, the Guardian will assure that the childrens’ compensation is fair and that their money is segregated and supervised. In other words, professional management will help to safeguard the babies’ separate interests and rights.

The Guardian we have respectfully suggested be appointed by the court is Linda Rogers, a professional fiduciary who is licensed by the State of California, and who is known and highly respected in Orange County, where the infants reside. She has agreed to assume the role of Guardian of the octuplets’ estate if the court decides to appoint a Guardian, and if the court wishes to appoint her to assume that important responsibility.

The court has given us a hearing date of June 22, 2009, @ 1:45 p.m. for Case #30-2009-00265518-PR-GE-LJC in Dept. L73 of the Orange County Superior Court, Lamoreaux Justice Center, 341 The City Drive, Orange, CA, for the first hearing in this case. We look forward to that hearing, but it can be avoided for Ms. Suleman if she agrees with us that appointing a Guardian for the estate of the octuplets to represent and protect their interests is a good idea. Ms. Suleman should realize that for the purposes of some commercial opportunities she may have a legal conflict or an appearance of conflict with her children.

Our plan will assure that there will be no question in the future that the babies’ interests will be advanced and safeguarded because a Guardian for the octuplets will provide independent management and independent accountability.

When the octuplets reach the age of majority they will know that not one penny of earnings to which they are entitled has been spent by their mother or anyone else.

In addition to filing the Petition with the court today, we have also sent a letter to the California Division of Labor Standards & Enforcement requesting an investigation into whether or not there have been violations of California Law and regulations which are there for the protection of child performers (including infants).

It is our belief that any number of California Labor Laws and/or California regulations regarding children may have been violated by Ms. Suleman, potentially endangering the health, welfare and safety of her children.

For example, the law requires that when filming/photographing of children takes place that a nurse and a credentialed studio teacher must be present at all times for infants 6 weeks to 6 months old. (8 CCR 11760, 11755.2). My clients, Angels in Waiting (AIW) and I were present when Ms. Suleman returned from the hospital on March 17, 2009 with two of her premature infants who were less than two months old. Filming of these infants by media who had contracts to film and video took place inside Ms. Suleman’s home on this date, but no studio teacher was present. AIW nurses were also present on other dates when the infants were filmed, but no studio teacher appeared to be present.

An important role of the studio teacher is to assure that the filming location is safe for the child performer and that all laws for their protection are being followed. That is the reason that the law requires that a studio teacher be present on the workplace set (in this case the infants’ nursery).

Further, there are additional concerns regarding whether Ms. Suleman has complied with the state mandated hours that a child can “work.” Specifically, children ages 15 days to 6 months may only “work” two consecutive hours, between 9:30 am. and 11:30 a.m. or between 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. (8 CCR 11764). According to state law, actual work may not exceed 20 minutes under any circumstances (8 CCR 11760). On March 17, 2009, AIW and I were present when two of Ms. Suleman’s premature infant octuplets, born on January 26, 2009, came home from the hospital. We personally witnessed them returning to Ms. Suleman’s home with her at approximately 10:00 p.m. and from that time until 11:50p.m. they were filmed continually by an entity with whom Ms. Suleman has a contract and others in violation of work hour regulations previously cited.

I commend Mr. Petersen for all of his important work in the past to protect child actors. He has benefitted so many child performers in the past and once again he hopes to confer a benefit on these precious little infants by asking the court to protect their financial future.

Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
representing
Paul Petersen
May 4, 2009

NOTE: Co-Counsel in this case is the DEILY LAW FIRM. John Deily and his partner Cynthia Roehl are prominent experienced and highly regarded probate attorneys in Orange County and we look forward to working with them on this case.

Octuplets: Nadya reacts to Allred's reemergence

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 5, 2009

Nadya’s reaction to the news Gloria Allred is back. This is not in reference to the Petition Allred filed on behalf of Paul Peterson. It involves documentation regarding the care and treatment of the autistic son. Nadya’s left hand up around her collarbone, neck and cheek is her major tell when she prevaricates.

Mentioned also is 9 more Kaiser Permanente employees have been fired or quit for snooping in her files. And she says that there is no record of the sperm donor anywhere. I hope she has the information in Jeff Czech files in case God forbid something happens to her and the kids need their medical history. I wonder if he would have any legal obligation to care for the children.

Octuplets: What is your definition of child abuse?

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 4, 2009

Hello:

If you are someone who still thinks Nadya is a “good mother” and “obviously loves her children” — or someone who feels that the “public should just leave her alone” because she is “doing the best she can” — or someone who believes her when she says the “older children are transitioning well” and that the “allegation of child neglect is unfounded” — or if you are someone who thinks people are “just picking on her” and that cameras should not be in the home — please read the following posts and watch the videos.

See for yourself whether Nadya has an understanding of the present situation and whether she has the parenting skills to cope with the older children and the octuplets even while she has 24/7 help.

Watch her interaction with her children and make your own judgment as to whether the older ones are transitioning well to the octuplet’s and the nannies’ presence.

Make a determination whether any of it meets your definition of child abuse/child neglect/child endangerment.

And then decide for yourself whether Child Protective Services’ investigation was warranted, whether they need to continue investigating, whether they need to proactively intervene or whether they should just leave her and her kids alone.

To my eyes and ears, the psychopathology is clear, the neglect obvious and the impending crisis easy to predict. Nadya is not in touch with reality, the older children’s needs are not being met and the lack of communication and maternal authority has lead to aggressive and violent behavior, which will continue to escalate unless intervened on.

To my mind, the only uncertainties at this point are: what the crisis will be, who will have instigated it, which child(ren) will have been injured by it and whether the resultant injuries will be permanent.

Thank you.

(4-27) Octuplets: Nadya discusses her son’s autism
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya visited by Social Services
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya jokes about being a “biter”
(4-29) Octuplets: UPDATE: Social Service visit
(4-30) Octuplets: Nadya discusses Social Services visit
(5-2) Octuplets: Thanks, but no thanks
(5-3) Octuplets: Biter at work

Octuplets: Biter at work

(5-3) Updated list of octuplet posts

May 2, 2009

If you don't know, biting seems to be a Nadya family tradition. One she speaks of fondly in her a RadarOnline video [see link below] with her children standing right in the vicinity. In it, she says she couldn't resist little babies' "juicy" cheeks and would bite them to the point of drawing blood. She said she "mellowed out" around three and stopped doing it. She then said she had "one" biter and pointed to her 7 y/o boy.

She did not at all seem concerned or even embarrassed that her oldest child - one who can speak, reason and grasp that what he is doing is wrong - needs to bite another human being in order to get her attention. She smiled as she said it and he closed his mouth over his teeth while trying not to smile.

The oldest daughter was there too. She's always there, looking up like a puppy, hoping her mom will notice her instead of concentrating on the boys. Hoping that her mom will say something than other smile for the camera. Hoping that just once her mother might tell her how proud she is of her for not biting.

She is the most neglected of all. Has anyone asked her how she feels now that the octuplets are home? When first asked, she said she didn't want them because their crying would stress out her mother. And now, when she sees all the attention and care they are being given by the nannies and she's told she's the "big girl" who can do everything by herself?

It's hard to believe that a mother would reject an offer of help extended to all 14 of her children when the older ones already show signs of neglect. Why else does a 7 y/o, who can speak and communicate, still need to bite and throw tantrums to express himself?

In her video, Nadya made no mention of the 2 y/o male twin and 3 y/o autistic boy, who as it turns out also bite. Perhaps because of their age and her personal history she didn't find it out of the ordinary.

Here's a photo from Octorazzi showing the little brother protege hard at work. This was Monday the 27th. Two days later Social workers were knocking on Nadya's door to inquire about a bite on her autistic son's back, which Nadya nonchalantly said was caused by the 2 y/o.

The same angelic-looking 2 y/o who stands smacking his defenseless autistic brother, whose hands are at his sides, directly in the face with a book. SMACK! SMACK! SMACK! as Nadya whispers the words "allegation of neglect" and responds with an unalarmed Oh. Oh. Followed by Gentle. Gentle. Show me gentle, as the smiling and grunting 2 y/o uses the same book to SMACK! SMACK! SMACK! SMACK! the camera. To which she explains to the camera that this one is aggressive and that she needs to start doing time outs - the subsequent "time out" consisting of a hug, a kiss, some water out of a bottle and some food.

And as the autistic child wanders off, after she gave him a distracted one-handed squeeze, never putting down the plate of food in her hand or making eye contact or explaining anything to him, she goes into a complicated explanation of how he might have gotten his black eye by throwing a fit and hitting his face on a desk.

A week or so earlier she had told the camera that he really doesn't like physical contact and that he may never talk - never putting together the fact she has no interest in comforting him or talking to him to translate into his world why his brother has no problem - and seems to take pleasure in - hurting him to get his mother's attention.

The little brother who sits contented and victorious on the bed as the abused autistic brother, with the black eye and human bite wound on his back - that didn't even merit an explanation to the teacher - wanders off into the safe world inside his mind.

What are the chances he will ever be guided out of his safe world?

What are the chances he will ever become verbal when no one bothers to try and engage him with words or eye contact?

How many of his "meltdowns" are preceded by his brothers' unprovoked violence? His mother's neglect? Because no one is taking the extra time to communicate with him because they have "accepted" that he never will?

What are the chances the 2 y/o will learn to speak - he is nonverbal - when he is able to communicate through unprovoked violence?

What are the chances he will stop biting when he watches his oldest brother do it with success?

And what are the chances the octuplets will be his next attention-getting victims - especially when he heard his mother smile and laugh as she explained to the camera how much pleasure she took in biting little babies "juicy cheeks"?

(4-27) Octuplets: Nadya discusses her son’s autism
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya visited by Social Services
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya jokes about being a “biter”
(4-29) Octuplets: UPDATE: Social Service visit
(4-30) Octuplets: Nadya discusses Social Services visit
(5-2) Octuplets: Thanks, but no thanks
(5-3) Octuplets: Biter at work
(5-4) Octuplets: What's your definition of child abuse?

Octuplets: Thanks, but no thanks

May 1,2009

Video and transcript provide by Octorazzi (aka Raul Roa). He questions Nadya about her 3 y/o’s injuries and she has a most curious response. Also, he inquires as to the older children’s clothes sizes because someone wanted to donate some new clothing. She refuses the donation right after she talks about how expensive private schooling will be. She also refuses canned food.

How happy do you think the oldest girl would have been with a pretty new dress or skirt to wear to school? Or a cool new pair of jeans and t-shirt she could wear to her friend’s house? Something special just for her like the octuplets have been getting?

And how do you think she would feel knowing mommy said yes to things for her new little sisters and brothers and said no to something new and special just for her?

———————————

OCTORAZZI (RAUL ROA): How’s — doing?

SULEMAN: He’s fine

OCTORAZZI: [Spots him in the backseat.] Oh there he is! The CPS people, did they come for his black eye or his bite marks?

SULEMAN: No, the bite mark. One bite mark. There’s one bite mark. My two year old.

OCTORAZZI: How did the teacher see it? Did she lift his shirt up?

SULEMAN: No, I don’t know. You know when they change them.

OCTORAZZI: Oh, they change them at school?

SULEMAN: And I wrote a note - what happened. It’s mandated by law to report anything like that. So that’s normal. That’s fine. But they were actually surprised at how everything was super super clean…Everything is fine, he missed the bus. (As she points to — in the back seat) So I gotta drive him to school.

OTORAZZI: The police say anything?

SULEMAN: No, not really, they were really nice.

OCTORAZZI: So you think the teacher reported him right?

SULEMAN: I don’t know. Someone. It’s normal, I mean mandated.

OCTORAZZI: Triandie (Child specialist) what does she do for you?

SULEMAN: No, I’m not supposed to talk. She’s really really great though.

OCTORAZZI: Real quick. Is the school expensive for you?

SULEMAN: Majority… I’m gonna have all my kids in private school. The majority of my money that I earn will go to private school, but it’s worth it.

OCTORAZZI: Last quick question. Someone wants to donate clothes for children.

SULEMAN: Oh, they don’t have to do that.

OCTORAZZI: They want to know the sizes.

SULEMAN: The kids (octuplets) are so huge I’m donating already.

OCTORAZZI: No-no-no the older children.

SULEMAN: They don’t need to do that.

OCTORAZZI: To the older childeren?

SULEMAN: I’m actually going to weed through their clothes and donate them. (the clothes)

OCTORAZZI: Canned food or anything?

SULEMAN: No.

Octuplets: Nadya discusses Social Services visit

April 30, 2009

Not interested in discussion - scroll down to the video.

Social Services (SS) and Police Detectives made an unannounced visit to Nadya yesterday to investigate “an allegation of neglect”. Nadya thinks her autistic child’s teacher called because the 3 y/o son showed up at school with a black eye and bite marks on his back. Nadya blamed it on the 2 y/o twin boy. Nadya had to know the teacher was going to want an explanation because they, like Angels in Waiting, are mandated to report anything suspicious. And if they do not and it is proven they has a suspicion and did nothing they can potentially be prosecuted.

They are, however, protected if such a report is submitted in good faith and is subsequently determined to be unfounded. All done to put the child’s interest first. Same is true with else abuse, which is more rampant than ever reaches the general public. Many times the first second or third is determined to be unfounded but eventually their suspicions are born out. These folks have good instincts - especially mothers. AIW had good instincts and it has already been born out with this and most especially with the security issue.

The car seat that was thrown through her vehicle was on her front porch. Whoever it was could just have easily broken into the house. 14 innocents are depending on her judgment and that is frightening.

Watch Nadya’s explanation. Does it ring true? Judge for yourselves. Your here watching it for a reason. She said the teacher sent home a note in his backpack and she only just noticed it.

Why does she need a teacher to call home about her child’s obvious injuries? An autistic child no less?

Why wouldn’t a mother want to make sure - if as she later claimed - the child is not being hurt at school and the teacher can watch him more closely?

Nadya should have, at the very least, called and explained the injuries. Some autistic children have decreased sensation to pain or diminished awareness of pain and can develop infections and even fracture bones without outward signs.

If she truly believed the child was injured at school, would she have not made that call?

And she knows she is already on file for the octuplets. Why would she give them any small opening to go in and assess the octuplets at well?

According to Nadya, SS inquired as to the number of nannies and her disciplinary methods. Spanking was brought up.

That is Nadya’s version. SS are held to strict confidentiality and could have walked out of there intent on something further. Only they know. They do not have to share with Nadya until the investigation has been completed and they are satisfied the children are not at risk. Nadya has concluded that is already the case - it may well be. Time will tell. If the 7 y/o is still biting, chances are SS will be back. From her interaction with the children, they most assuredly will be back.

I wonder if they took pictures of the bite marks. 2,7 and 33 y/o teeth are very different. She didn’t mention the 2 y/o on the “biter” video. Her words:

I have one biter - right there. [pointing to the 7 y/o]

Perhaps he developed the habit in the interim.

She also must not realize that as private citizens, the Social workers are able to see all the videos, just like the rest of the world. They are able to watch her interpretation - whether she understood their conversation and how it translated. They are also able to watch this interaction precise interaction between the 2 & 3 y/os.

Listen to how shaken the RadarOnline reporter is. Something happened to spook her. And they made sure to document the bruising around the child’s eye. I hope they filmed the bite mark as well. It’s clear by now through their editing, questions and filming that they realize their footage will eventually be subpoenaed by the state.

This is such a tragic, tragic situation. And it didn’t need to happen.

Who is paying attention to the oldest girl?

According to RadarOnline Nadya thinks he sustained the black eye at school. One wonders why doesn’t she know exactly where, when, why, how and by whom her child was injured? Is that considered neglect in itself? And the fact she hadn’t looked in his backpack?

Nothing jives.

Why two explanations for his injuries?

She describes in the video how he injured himself and why - and then claims it happened at school?

On a different note, what do you assess the autistic child’s chances were before the octuplets?

And now?

How much would those 6 months of intensive intervention with Angels in Waiting had made at this point in his development - when he’s only been alive for max 47 months? Now is the critical time for verbal communication?

It is sad.

The negatives consequences of Nadya’s selfishness and perverted desire to amass human beings will multiply exponentially as the octuplets grow and show signs of neurological and/or physical limitations and as the older children’s jealousy and resentment festers to the surface.

Here in this short video - even as she speaks - the kids are hitting each other in the face. The 2 y/o twin with the angelic face starts hitting the camera lens. Nadya mentions he is “aggressive” and that she has to start doing timeouts.

Most troubling - her bizarre laughter that defies description.

RadarOnline asked Nadya how the child sustained his injuries. Watch her hand motions when she mentions the throwing doen. Does it look like a child falling to the ground or someone throwing him to the ground? And her little slip up - listen to it several times.

NADYA: Well he has meltdowns - it’s normal to have meltdowns. He throws himself down…so in the process of throwing him in - throwing himself down on the floor, he hit his face on the desk.

It ws my fault. I didn’t respond quickly enough.

Watch how she ticks down the list like a robot. I couldn’t hear what she was saying. Then she said they said spanking was ok. What?

Her affect her is quite bizarre. Note how she seems removed from her surroundings — separate even from the filming, as she looks back to the camera to ground herself. See how she ignores her children crying for mommy - any wonder they hit kick and bite? And how just the two seem to completely overwhelm her.

Mothers - does she look capable and in charge?

Does she look like she has been in the trenches for eight years?

Or like an overwhelmed babysitter who doesn’t know what to try next?

Would you let her babysit your child?

How about all 14 of them?

(4-27) Updated list of octuplet posts

(4-27) Nadya discusses her son’s autism
(4-29) Nadya jokes about being a “biter”

(4-29) Nadya visited by Social Services
(4-29) UPDATE: Social Service visit
(4-30) Nadya discusses Social Services visit

(4-1) #3 & 4 home, enraged grandmother - Nadya, older kids flee
(4-19) What is in a tantrum?

Octuplets: Nadya jokes about being a “biter”

April 29, 2009

I find it interesting that the more Nadya talks about her children, the more she reveals her own mental health issues. Here she says she was a “biter” and mentions that her children do also. Biting in children past the age when they can communicate verbally is usually a sign of anger overload. Very good article about it by David Gottlieb, Ph.D., “Anger Overload in Children: Diagnostic and Treatment Issues“.

Issues that would have been sorted out for the six older children had Nadya accepted Angels in Waiting offer and gone to Arrowhead. In 6 months, the tantrums, kicking, biting and hitting might have been addressed and perhaps even gotten under control.

What happens when 8 octuplets are added to an already volatile situation?

Radaronline gives no-so-subtle hints as to what goes on in the house. They have to cover themselves as “eye-witnesses”. Make sure to listen to the very end of the video.

April 23rd

RADARONLINE: What were you like as a kid?

NADYA: I wasn’t a very nice one. I was a biter. Now I have one biter - right there. [She points the the oldest who closes his mouth.] He bit so much when he was little we’d like have to quit pre-schools.

Matter-of-fact with no concern that an almost 8 y/o still bites with 8 new bite-sized octuplets in the house. And she says the following with her kids standing right there listening.

NADYA: When I was little, my mom and dad paid at least 12 doctors’ bills because I would lunge on top of babies and not only bite them - I would bite them until they bled. I don’t know why.

RADARONLINE: Until you were…

NADYA: …until they bled. Oh, just until I was three and then I kinda-I kinda mellowed out a bit. I remember they were like juicy and I just wanted to bite their cheeks. I remember there was a nurse who said to my mom ‘Get that monster out of the doctor’s office!’.

She talks about the photos she found of herself as a kid and remarks on how she looks like Aiden at that age. Then, off camera:

NO! You cannot hit your mother!

Sounds just as scary as the grandmother screaming just after #3 &4 came home, which caused Nadya and the kids to flee the house.

(4-29) Updated list of octuplet posts
(4-27) Nadya discusses her son’s autism
(4-29) Nadya visited by Social Services
(4-1) #3 & 4 home, enraged grandmother - Nadya, older kids flee
(4-19) What is in a tantrum?

Octuplets: Nadya visited by Social Services

April 29, 2009

This was deleted as was the next post on biting and I don’t know why. It’s getting ridiculous.

UPDATE 9:30 pm

This is weird. I was looking for the video where Nadya reveals more of her mental health history - she said she was a biter - and I ran across this reported by CHRISA from RadarOnline, who does all the in-home videos. One would expect that what they report is credible especially when there are quotes - I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Evidently an “Orange County Social Services Agency-Children and Family Services and two La Habra detectives” stopped by Nadya’s house to speak with her.

Of the two detectives, one came from the general investigations unit while the other was a corporal (who refused to comment) from the homicide/sex crimes/child abuse unit.

As you know, her 3 y/o son is autistic and also a “biter” but I didn’t know the other kids were. This is what Nadya told Chrisa:

Suleman told RadarOnline.com that she suspects a teacher of her son Aiden placed a complaint after he came to school with a black eye. She downplayed the injury explaining “he’s autistic, he bumps into things.” She also mentioned that he had bite marks and her other children bite sometimes (Suleman recently revealed that she would often bite as a child).

And then Chrisa adds this:

“Always our goal is for families to stay together,” Terry Lynn Fisher, spokesperson for the agency. “Because of issues of confidentiality, state law precludes us from confirming or denying.” But Fisher did confirm that for the agency to make a home visit, a call must have been made regarding a possible abuse or neglect claim.

TRAGICJO44, I am getting the video you asked for right now.

(4-27) Updated list of octuplet posts
(4-27) Octuplets: Nadya discusses her son’s autism
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya visited by Social Services
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya jokes about being a “biter”
(4-1) #3 & 4 home, enraged grandmother - Nadya, older kids flee
(4-19) What is in a tantrum?

UPDATE: Nadya visited by Social Services

April 29, 2009

This is an update to a previous post - links below. Rather than just add it to that I’m posting it separately - the previous post already disappeared once.

Radaronline supplied the following update. They had reported earlier that Nadya had gotten a visit from the Orange County Social Services Agency-Children and Family Services as well as two La Habra Detectives concerning bruising and bite marks on her 3 y/o autistic child. See the “biting” post to get a glimpse of the family history of “biting”.

Evidently all is well - words from Nadya. Note the location of the bite mark(s) - someone inflicted them - he did not bite himself.

[Emphasis added to both updates.]

RadarOnline:

UPDATE: After a forty-five minute visit, the social services agency left Suleman’s home “impressed by how organized everything was” according to the mother of fourteen. Suleman admitted to RadarOnline.com that the visit was her fault after she missed a note from her son’s teacher asking about mysterious bite marks on his back. Asked if they would be returning again for further investigation, Suleman quickly said, “no!’

Huffington Post has follow up from the La Habra Police Department:

On Wednesday, April 29, 2009, La Habra Police personnel were requested to assist Orange County Social Services involving a matter pertaining to the Sulemans. As is customary, the department routinely assists other agencies, when so requested. However, the La Habra Police Department is not involved in any ongoing investigation pertaining to this family.

========================

(4-27) Updated list of octuplet posts
(4-27) Octuplets: Nadya discusses her son’s autism
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya visited by Social Services
(4-29) Octuplets: Nadya jokes about being a “biter”
(4-1) #3 & 4 home, enraged grandmother - Nadya, older kids flee
(4-19) What is in a tantrum?