Octomom & Angels In Waiting: The Update

 

On March 9, 2009, Nadya Suleman and Angels in Waiting USA (AIW) agreed to work together.  Both parties signed the Declaration of Principles, developed to protect Nadya’s babies and other children.  Nadya also agreed to the principle of transparency.

Nadya has violated a number of those principles. 

In one of the Declaration’s principles, I stated that the best interests of Nadya’s children—who are, after all, high-risk, premature babies—should, at all times, be the paramount consideration with respect to all decisions made concerning their health, safety and welfare. 

Nadya announced to the public and the media when the first babies were coming home. As a result, a foreseeable frenzy of media and onlookers came to her home.  At one point, Linda West-Conforti—a registered nurse and founder of AIW—tried to rescue one of the babies in the garage and remove the infant after paparazzi swarmed the car. A loud noise that sounded like a gunshot went off.  Instead of being permitted to rescue the infant and being thanked for putting herself in peril, West-Conforti was told to “get out of the shot.”

    Not only did this chaotic situation endanger the babies outside the home, but Nadya and her attorney also permitted a dangerous, unhealthy environment inside.  Nadya let the news media set up dirty camera and light equipment, electrical cords and audio equipment inside the very small nursery.  The babies’ nurse had sanitized the room for the babies, but the reporters, producers, cameramen, audio personnel and others changed the nursery immediately and for the worse. 

    The loud noises and shouting increased the babies’ risk of harm, both emotionally and physically. So did the decision to have on-air talent hold and feed the babies. Nadya’s other children were permitted to touch the new babies without sanitizing their hands. Many of the numerous other people allowed into the nursery had not sanitized themselves, either. When one infant regurgitated some milk and needed suctioning, a nurse was temporarily blocked from assisting the infant to prevent the taping from being interrupted.

    Jeff Czech, Nadya’s attorney, made the situation worse.  He entered the house like a raging bull—screaming, pointing and waving his finger about one inch from the face of AIW’s nanny and myself.  He yelled obscenities at the nanny, stating “get the f— out of here, you are fired.”  He then hit his hand hard against the nursery’s outer wall.  This violent  atmosphere and loud noise had a negative impact on the babies, who had just come from a quiet hospital. 

    The violence and threats of violence deeply troubled the AIW personnel.  One of the AIW representatives was crying.  As for myself, I told Jeff not to touch me. Linda told him that she would “deck him” if he did.

    Nadya is responsible for the dangerous environment, which she permitted and even encouraged by allowing the media inside.  She appeared to treat the babies as props.  Nadya handed them off to the nurse to care for them, while she slept all night.

    The nurses were concerned about (among other things) Nadya’s minimal involvement or even apparent disinterest in the babies unless cameras were rolling.  For example, AIW spent 102 hours in the Suleman home. Out of this time, Nadya spent only eight hours in the nursery. Much of the time, she was out shopping. When she returned, she often did not stop to see the babies or inquire about how they were doing.  AIW personnel encouraged her to feed, hold, change and bathe the babies herself, but she rarely did.  One baby went for days without being bathed.  Finally, the nurse did it when Nadya continued to give excuses as to why she could not.

    Nadya did not provide security for the babies. After March 17, two intruders entered the property.  Even though Linda and I asked for security measures, Nadya never provided appropriate security for the babies, nannies and nurses.  In addition, AIW had a major concern about the nannies that Nadya had obtained to care for the babies.

    Finally, I asked Jeff to arrange for a meeting among AIW, Nadya, Jeff, myself and Dr. Phil McGraw to address our concerns about the babies.  Jeff never agreed to such a meeting.  Instead, he kept insisting that AIW agree to a non-disclosure clause and non- transparency.  He also insisted that I was not permitted to speak to Nadya about our concerns or about anything else.

    On Sunday morning, March 22, I sent an e-mail to Dr. Phil, stating that under the circumstances we could not continue working with Nadya.  On Sunday afternoon, Jeff sent an e-mail terminating AIW.

    The law requires AIW to file a complaint with Child Protective Services if AIW personnel believe that babies or children are endangered. AIW did so, and Nadya knew about the complaint.  We believe that the complaint may have been the reason why she and her attorney terminated AIW.

    We are now concerned about the children’s future.  Nadya has decided to have Kaiser Permanente care for her babies.  In other words, she has apparently made a conscious decision to put the burden of her babies’ care on the taxpayers.  (Jeff has conceded publicly that Kaiser nurses will most likely have to bill Medi-Cal.) 

    No doubt Jeff and Nadya will stop Kaiser’s nurses and doctors from speaking publicly about the care that Nadya gives her babies or fails to give them.  The public will learn only Nadya’s side and will not get all of the facts.

    What are Nadya and Jeff trying to hide and why?

    Our concern is the babies.  If the past week is a predictor of the future, we are not optimistic.

    We wish the best for Nadya and her babies, but we can now only pray that Nadya’s poor choices will not result in irreparable harm to her children.