Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Well, well, isn't CA a little late to the ballgame?

Octomom may have committed welfare fraud. No shit??? Hasn't that been known since she had all those kids?

What the hell is wrong with the folks in California?

by Anonymousreply 2803/20/2013

And what state are you from, OP?

by Anonymousreply 103/20/2013

What does it matter R1? It's been known for years she's committing welfare fraud. Why did it take them so long?

by Anonymousreply 203/20/2013

TMZ says she made nearly $200,000 in 2012. Her neglected kids should have been removed from her household years ago.

by Anonymousreply 303/20/2013

Just what I thought. Some irrelevant fly over state.

by Anonymousreply 403/20/2013

No R4 but why are you taking it so personally? Do you not agree that CA dropped the ball on this grifter?

by Anonymousreply 503/20/2013

It's easy for an economy to "grow rapidly" when it was barely on the radar to begin with. ;)

by Anonymousreply 603/20/2013

Again R4/6 why are you taking this so personally? Do you or do you not think they dropped the ball? She should have had those children taken away years ago when it became apparent that she had used "disability" to pay for plastic surgery and embryo implantations.

by Anonymousreply 703/20/2013

I find your California bashing inane, especially when you aren't willing to share what state you are from. It comes across as petty jealously, which wouldn't be surprising coming from a member of an irrelevant fly over state. ;)

by Anonymousreply 803/20/2013

You're simply a troll R2/4/6/8.

I'm not bashing CA I'm questioning the decisions of the CA bureaucracy.

Would someone else like to elaborate? Did they not want to deal with this woman and her 14 fucking kids with health problems or what? She's had numerous brushes with child services.

by Anonymousreply 903/20/2013

Whoa! Whose taking something personally here R7? Why did a silly comment about CA cause you to become totally unhinged? Do you always become completely unglued if people don't genuflect at every mention of California?

And why has Calif. been so lax in looking out for the welfare of that bitch's children?

by Anonymousreply 1003/20/2013

For those of you bashing California's late response, you should bother yourselves to read at least the first sentence of the TMZ article which contains this phrase:

[quote]e after a complaint was lodged that she committed welfare fraud

A complaint had to be made before an investigation. Why not earlier, you ask? She made made $200K in 2012 which ended only two and a half months ago. That's $71K more than permitted to receive welfare benefits for a family of that size. That's pretty quick if you ask me. Witnesses have been interviewed already.

by Anonymousreply 1103/20/2013

It would not be the California bureaucracy, OP. It would be her local county Child Protective Services social workers and staff making the decision whether she's adequately taking care of her children, and her county Department of Human Services staff deciding whether she's committing welfare fraud.

These are not decisions that rise to the state level -- anywhere.

If you'd like to criticize the various county workers for being asleep at the wheel -- well, I'd likely agree with you, except that they're way overworked now that county budgets around California have been repeatedly slashed. Simply put, they may have more significant cases to deal with than the Octomom.

by Anonymousreply 1203/20/2013

So basically this thread is an epic fail. Bravo, OP. $18 well spent.

by Anonymousreply 1303/20/2013

R11 there have been complaints about this woman from the nannies the state hired and then she later fired. There have been numerous complaints lodged before. There have been numerous videos of her completely overwhelmed and throwing bottles into cribs the children were basically locked in and she'd also lock them in their room.

I get that this was a welfare fraud call even though it was obvious that she was committing welfare fraud the whole time but where were the child welfare people earlier?

by Anonymousreply 1403/20/2013

It's California's non response to the welfare of the children that matters.

by Anonymousreply 1503/20/2013

R14 - that has nothing to do with this welfare fraud case. Unless it's not being reported for some reason, there's no evidence of welfare fraud prior to '12. Since there is now, it's being investigate.

The issue of child neglect of endangerment resides at the county level and I think R12 has covered it.

by Anonymousreply 1603/20/2013

Thank you for the intelligent answers R12/15/16.

No, R13, as long as I've gotten some good answers it is not an "epic" fail. Take some meds for that chip on your shoulder.

by Anonymousreply 1703/20/2013

[quote]that has nothing to do with this welfare fraud case.

True BUT we're saying that her situation goes FAR BEYOND welfare fraud and that it should have been resolved a long time ago. She's living in the state of California so it is people working in the state of California who are neglecting the welfare of those children.

It doesn't matter if they are city, county, regional, or state employees, it's people in California who are negligent in watching out for the welfare of those children -- even though it doesn't apply to the TMZ story. The fact that they have budget problems right now doesn't apply. Her neglect of her children should have been resolved several years ago.

by Anonymousreply 1803/20/2013

[quote]so it is people working in the state of California who are neglecting the welfare of those children.

Not to mention paying for her plastic surgery, gym membership, nail salons, Starbucks trips and MAC cosmetics and high end boutique trips. I doubt very much if very much of her money goes to those kids.

by Anonymousreply 1903/20/2013

Do you know for a fact that the county DCFS workers have been negligent, R18? How have they been negligent? Did they fail to show up to the home when alerted by the nurses? Do you know exactly what they saw on these visits? Do you know what they reported from the visits or what their recommendations were? Do you know if they followed up or not?

The thousands of city, regional and California state employees you are trying to implicate as negligent have nothing to do with Nadya Suleman's case and bear no responsibility whatsoever for the children's welfare. My neighbor works for the Franchise Tax Board as an accountant. Should he hop in his car, drive to So Cal and check it out?

by Anonymousreply 2003/20/2013

The reason for the slowness is that CA is over-run by Welfare, Section 8 and Workers' Compensation fraud. Literally, the Courts are back-logged months and months behind, and with the cut in jobs/funding, they'll be even more back-logged.

Not a republican nor crazy fundie, but I've worked for CA law firm and have personally seen how inefficient the State and County Services have become.

by Anonymousreply 2103/20/2013

Stop with your silly claim that we're implicating every employee in the State of California.

Let's look at NYC. If she lived in NYC and it was so obvious that she's got those kids living in cages, if the local welfare people did nothing, Bloomberg would kick their butts and Cuomo would make sure they were out of a job.

by Anonymousreply 2203/20/2013

Well, then, don't suggest it, R22.

[quote]It doesn't matter if they are city, county, regional, or state employees, it's people in California who are negligent in watching out for the welfare of those children

Easy enough. You sound like a dizzy frau.

by Anonymousreply 2303/20/2013

DCFS is loath to remove children from parental care unless the children are being actively harmed or are at imminent risk (i.e., physical/sexual abuse, drugs, etc.). Studies have shown that even bad parents are better for children than foster care or orphanages.

She might be a shitty parent or overwhelmed but she is providing at least minimal care, food and lodging. To take them away from her or split up the children would be more damaging to them.

So if you know someone whose children have been taken away they really have fucked up a lot.

by Anonymousreply 2403/20/2013

It is not in the children's best interest to agressively pursue this case of welfare fraud. The manwoman is a pathological spendthrift, the kids are lucky if she spends any of that money on food for the kiddies, so as long as they're in her custody cutting back on her income is going to result in greater hardship for the children.

They should have been taken away at birth and put up for permanent adoption, that was their only chance for a normal life. Leaving them in the overloaded hands of the CPS wasn't a good move.

by Anonymousreply 2503/20/2013

Is welfare fraud a felony?

by Anonymousreply 2603/20/2013

[quote]They should have been taken away at birth and put up for permanent adoption,

There's no law in the books that would have permitted this. Not in CA or anywhere else unless she'd abused drugs and then probably only if she'd already been in the DCFS system.

by Anonymousreply 2703/20/2013

"The manwoman is a pathological spendthrift,"

Shit, I meant to say MADwoman! Damn, that's a hell of a typo.

by Anonymousreply 2803/20/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!