Octorazzi ALSO asked Ms. Allred if she plans to appear in the SULEMAN DOCUMENTARY being filmed by EYEWORKS and this is what she had to say about it:
"I have no comment on Eyeworks except to restate what I said yesterday which I am attaching for your reference."
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.
Finally, we do plan to appear on August 20, 2009 to argue against Nadya's motion to dismiss our case. We believe that we have strong arguments to make in opposition to her motion.
Thank you Raul.Your info is just what we need to hear. Can you tell us more about the babies and older kids. Are they still in Tae kwon Do? Can the babies sit up on their own yet? Hows Grandpa? We need some sweet info here.
ADMIN NOTE: Tae Kwon Do - I don't know, but will try to find out. Babies - some crawl a bit now and can sit straight in their stroller. MOST turn over completely already as well. Grandpa is still packing and throwing OUT A TON of stuff. Angela, well her story is COMING UP! Elijah IS AT DISNEYLAND RIGHT NOW on his SPECIAL DAY!!!
Does anyone disagree with any of the following statements?
- If the children are in front of a camera they are, in effect, working. That is true even if they are only playing.
- It is best for the children if their working time is kept at a minimum because living in a fishbowl can have seriously damaging outcomes in the future.
- The rate per hour they earn for their work time should be maximized but never at the expense of their general well-being.
- Whatever funds they earn should be put aside for them until they are 18.
- The family's initial fame is due to the octoplets being born and all surviving.
- It is Nadya's responsibility to support them herself with or without government assistance.
So does everyone agree with the above?
Looking at this definition I am more concerned then before; This particular sentence is what bothered me;
What types of cases require a Guardian ad Litem?
Cases in which children are under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family, and involved in court proceedings require a Guardian ad Litem
These children are not, to my knowledge under the supervision of family services, I have worked for years with GAL's in my role as Manager of a State Adolescent Psych Unit and these were the kind of kids that had a GAL and needed one. They had been removed from the custody of their parents and in their case placed in our facility because of mental and emotional issues. Others requiring this service are children who have been placed in foster care. This is not the case with the Suleman children.
Having said that, I do like the idea that the children have someone working in their best interests. However, I would hope that the person would attempt to become familiar with the family other than just through media reports and what has been submitted to the courts. As the description Razzi gave us states, he needs to meet with the family and get to know them. I don't see how he can do that in just over a month and also look through all the financial records.
in my divorce, there was a custody battle. The courts appointed a guardian ad litem for my son. He met with me a couple times, my son a couple times, my ex once, but he stood up the guardian 3 times after being the one to request. You can guess how that turned out.
A guardian takes their job seriously and is intelligent enough to be able to look at the big picture. A month if utilized properly should be enough time to determine if there is a need to have a long term guardian appointed. (unless someone is continually fighting against the guardian)
and most guardians are not just anybody, they are well respected attorneys.
This GAL appears to be well qualified according to his experience
Info, I don't see anything to disagree with in your comment. Now, where were you going with it?
Sweet! Glad to hear some good news about the kids. Fit some in every now and then. TY.
For the "what we agree on" post I mainly want to point out that we are all on the same side.
My perception is that we actually agree on a lot about the children and about Nadya.
- We agree that even *if* she was technically entitled to all the benefits she collected, morally the benefits are intended to be temporary props to help people over a bad spot. They were not intended to support people for years on end while they deliberately have one baby after another while living on various government programs.
- Even though Nadya shouldn't have deliberately had even one child with no father and unable to support herself most of us could understand and forgive one or even two children if she was afraid to wait due to possible infertility problems farther on.
- Six children under the circumstances was outrageous and wrong. At that point she was unable to care for them properly and were it not for her parents putting a roof over her head and her mother's unwilling help she never could have done it. Maybe she was convinced that once she had her masters she would be able to support them. It's a stretch, it's outlandish, it's extreme, it's abuse of the system, but such is the cost for living in a free society. Again we understand in the sense that it doesn't necessarily call into question her sanity and her last pregnancy resulted in twins not that there is a huge difference between deciding to have a 5th child and ending up with a 5th and a 6th. On top of all of this several are special needs children.
- Having yet another pregnancy, even if it had resulted in one more child, under those circumstances it is just incomprehensible. It's not even about abuse of the system at this point. Even if we agree that fertilized eggs are "children" her situation was so extreme at that point that it's hard not to question her sanity. At the very least her sense of judgement is so seriously in question that we had to wonder if the children were safe with her. Not in a harsh "shes a bad person" way, but from concern that her behavior is so extreme that it put her mental health in question.
I thought we might be able to have less hostile discussions if we acknowledge that we actually agree on a great deal.
The discription provided by Razzi was general and in layperson terms not legal speak so it is referring to the usual situations which would normally concern custody.
The judge was very specific as to the duties of this temporary GAL. The purpose is to ensure that the octoplets are not exploited by the media.
Gloria's email stated the octoplets, not the children. As she is a lawyer that probably wasn't a slip of the tongue. She also specified "under the contracts which have required that their images be shown".
So, if Nadya was nursing a baby in one of her video diaries but that wasn't a condition of the contract then it doesn't come into play. It appears the other children are not part of the GAL's assignment but even if they were if the contract did not require the kids to be running about in the background then that won't come into play either.
From Gloria's description, only the contracts that specifically required the octoplet's images will be evaluated. If payment for those images is within industry standards and the money is in the appropriate accounts I think the judge will be satisfied.
Thank you Info... I believe what you stated is what everyone is in agreement on. I know I am totally in agreement with your post.
I think where some of the problems exist is when we get into the "what if", or "suppose". If we could keep to the facts (or evidence - e.g., videos, printed quotes, etc.) we might have a better relationship between all of us.
Thank you for posting that.
It could be that someone might know the truth and tries to post it without actually saying where they got the info. So we may say, What if..... suppose... etc. like the starbucks drink, maybe someone bought it for her and delivered it.
Sandee, if "someone" knows the truth, then why not just come out and say it? Why suppositions? A lot of posters just go by what they see and hear.
Thanks GrandmaB.
"I think where some of the problems exist is when we get into the "what if", or "suppose". If we could keep to the facts (or evidence - e.g., videos, printed quotes, etc.) we might have a better relationship between all of us."
I agree. I think we will continue to have clashes but I hope it might help if we remember that frustration with the underlying facts of the situation is behind the strong emotions for all of us.
I rem' not long ago someone said we need to put "in my opinion, "I believe" in our sentences.
Got it.