2009 Shows

Dr. Phil’s daytime exclusive with Nadya Suleman continues. The unemployed single mother of six who gave birth to octuplets answers the public’s number one question. Plus, Nadya’s mother, Angela, joins the discussion. How does she feel about her daughter’s decisions? Talk about the show here.

Find out what happened on the show.
Replied By: darlene1waters on Aug 6, 2009, 8:51PM - In reply to lovechevy
I say one word: EDUCATION
That's what Nadya is getting because, unlike you, she is realistic about what it takes to get a real job with a living wage; not a token, "I'm working, but not getting anywhere and am still on welfare..." office cleaning or babysitting job.
Replied By: darlene1waters on Aug 6, 2009, 8:43PM - In reply to juniper1234
All this hate that is being expressed in these forums, and all the hatemongers who are deliberately trying to eliminate any place where Nadya might go to live and raise her children and finish her education and get a job, and who are actually contacting companies that were helping Nadya and threatening boycotts so Nadya has even more stress and has to stretch herself even thinner to try to achieve a decent quality of life for her children are actually having an effect. The children don't have enough diapers or formula now. Are you happy? Nadya will probably not be able to get a job anywhere in the United States in the profession she's been training for because of your words. Are you all proud of yourselves?
Replied By: lovechevy on Apr 1, 2009, 1:41PM - In reply to tydajo54
The key is work. You mentioned that both parents worked along with the children. Nadya doesn't work, doesn't need a father for her children. She has always lived off of the taxpayers. I am all for her keeping her family together if she can work and take care of them. She planned this family and she should have put the money in the plan without expecting us to give it to her. We are not treating her poorly, she is treating society poorly. She knew what she was doing from day one and the first child.
Replied By: lovechevy on Apr 1, 2009, 1:17PM - In reply to darlene1waters
It has nothing to do with hate or prejudice. People should not be allowed to work the system. Women who have more than two children and are on welfare should be given a job to support them and birth control. There are many jobs that anyone can do. Some of them could work in pre-schools and watch children while the others are cleaning office buildings. Get them off their behinds, away from their TV's and force o hem to be responsible. No Work! No Pay! The rest of us get up every day and go out and earn a living. Anyone can cook, yard work. There is a lot of things that need to be done. We are already giving away the money. Why can't we demand the work. Nadya doesn't seem to want to watch her 14, she wants nannies. Let the nannies to her work and she can go work to pay them.
Replied By: weirving on Mar 31, 2009, 10:06AM - In reply to dgerbil
I disagree about your characterization of Ms. Suleman as a "pathological liar." On one level, I suppose I am not qualified to disagree, because I am not a trained mental health professional, but as far as I know, this term is a lay term, not a clinical one, so essentially it means whatever we say it means.

I have known people for whom lying is like breathing; they do it just as reflexively and unconsciously. They literally make up their "reality" as they go along, telling whatever "truth" seems to suit their current circumstances, to the point where even they themselves have trouble sorting out what is objective history and what is their own fiction.

We are all guilty of this to a degree. Everyone knows of the experiment where a circle of people is isolated and a story is told to an arbitrary "first" person who is told to pass it on and to tell that person in turn to pass it on, etc., until the story comes full circle back to that original first person, who is invariably shocked to discover how totally distorted the story has become in its travels. We don't distort history because we like screwing with people. Most of us don't, anyway. We do it because our memories are imperfect and we feel the need to tell the story; so we fill in the blanks with... STUFF. As I understand it, this behavior becomes pathological when there is always more "stuff" than reality, when the person feels the need to make up their world from whole cloth. They tell lies fluently because they prefer their fiction to their reality and in extreme cases, actually LIVE in their fiction. Their fiction is just as true to them, if not more true, than everyone else's objective reality. They really are not living in the same world as the rest of us. In a sense, they are psychotic, or even sociopathic. These people can often pass polygraph tests while telling bald-faced lies, because their lies are often more real to them than the truth.

I may be wrong, but I don't see that in Ms. Suleman. To the extent that she is lying, I think she is doing it with full awareness and calculation of a desired aim to be achieved by her deliberate deception. That makes her not a pathological liar, but simply a con artist working a scam. The former is a mental illness, the latter is a crime. While I don't think she is a "pathological liar," I do agree that her worldview and reasoning processes are odd, to say the least. In some sense, she is definitely playing with "a few strings short of a guitar."

As for her lips, you are joking.... right? Irony and sarcasm do not always translate well to print.

I saw her pictures as a high school student and as a younger woman and my thought was, "Gee.... If I were 30 years younger, I could picture myself asking her for a date." But she has seriously had some alterations done. This is not just my opinion. Every plastic surgeon who has been asked has agreed that she has definitely had work done. I don't know about whether she has an Angelina fetish or not, but the work was botched regardless. She was an attractive young woman when she sported the face God and her parents' genes gave her. Now, thanks to ill-conceived and/or outright incompetent human intervention, she is a walking talking freak show. Such a shame. The result of her surgeons' handiwork is simply jarring to me - like going to Florence's Galleria dell'Accademia to see Michelangelo's David and finding it there - altered - with Homer Simpson's head on it. YIKES!! ... HOLY MOLY!!... and GODFREY DANIEL!!

And when she lies about it, denying that she has had any plastic surgery, I get a little pissed off, because she is insulting my intelligence. No one possessing the brains God metes out to  the average mud-dwelling invertebrate could agree that her face as an 18-year-old could morph to her present state by any natural process.
Replied By: weirving on Mar 24, 2009, 9:16PM - In reply to newtsmom
I don't know the precise language of the rules governing use of loan funds. As I understand it, if one borrows an amount of money for school, and uses it for school tuition and other things. And then, say, one finishes the term with money left over that is unspent, one is encouraged, but not required, to return the unused portion at that time. If you keep it and spend that remainder after the school term, of course you must pay it back and it becomes part of the loan principal. You are encouraged to return unused funds simply because it means there would be that much less money to pay back.

If one borrows money for school - at least in my case - the university takes the tuition right off the top. I never saw that money. If I were to drop out or cancel my enrollment, the tuition money would have been returned directly to the source, not to me. And I would have been required to return the remainder. I don't know the exact circumstances of Ms. Suleman's case. But I do know that such blatant fraud as you suggest is not possible unless the system in her case just totally broke down. It is set up to prevent what you suggest happened in her case. Somehow, I don't think we know the whole story.
Replied By: weirving on Mar 24, 2009, 9:04PM - In reply to gingirl
I don't know how bad Ms. Suleman's back is. Nor can I get inside the head of whatever bureaucrats decided her SSDI case. But my hackles raised at the implication that disability insurance is an easy thing to collect, and that there is something somehow dishonorable about collecting it at all. And I wanted to dispel the notion that student loans are a zero-sum proposition - that the only way a person gets a student loan is if someone else DOESN'T.

I don't approve of Ms. Suleman's behavior - indeed, I am appalled. But so far, I am not convinced she has committed any fraud. I don't have enough credible information.
Replied By: edforchild on Mar 24, 2009, 5:40PM
I am just in shock over this 'mother'.  As a foster mother of numerous premature babies & acute medical fragile kids over the past 20 years,  it is unbelievable that this mom has refused the help. PLEASE.  I am all for children remaining with their parents, but how can she take care of 4 premies, plus her other six?  Her mom left, according to the news.  She fired the helpers, which she was getting for free.  Am I surprised? No.   It is all about her.  Not the children. This person lives in a fairy land where she is the queen.  What she says & does & wants is impossible.  Any half-competent mom would realize that she needs help & accept it & work out any problems with the people who want to help & are willing to go the extra mile with her. Wish I had some of that assitance over the years.  Sometimes the best help is no help at all & maybe she'll hit bottom, however, their are the children & this family is in a very dangerous situation & needs some intervention.  It would be great if all the children could stay together if they had to go to foster care, but let's be realistic that no foster mom can do it all without assistance either & the state sure doesn't give the support to foster parents that are given to birth parents.   
Replied By: larissalu on Mar 24, 2009, 4:02PM
LA HABRA, Calif. — The octuplets' mother has fired the nurses who offered to give free care to her children, just five days after the first babies came home, her attorney said Monday.

On Sunday, mother Nadya Suleman dismissed the four nurses from Angels in Waiting mostly because one filed a report against her with Child Protective Services said Jeffery Czech, Suleman's attorney.

Enough already, those babies need a HERO and Nadya is not it.Someone needs to stepped up and take those babies away, ADOPT THEM OUT TO ONE FAMILY they are not safe and now the Angels are gone.Those babies need protection before something goes bad.Nadya never did have a clue and never will I think she has proven that plenty in the last almost 2 months since the 8 were born.PROTECT THE INNOCENT.

OH and the only UNFAIR TREATMENT GOING ON is of the children, Nadya is incompetent. She was offered help and what she fires them. Get real.Oh and for large family my grandmother was the oldest of 15 I can go on and onbut they all have and had parents that WORKED, not live off the tax payers.NO sympathy here for her.
Replied By: tydajo54 on Mar 23, 2009, 9:37PM
Dr. Phil,
I have watched with extreme anger, disgust, and sadness over the treatment of this young woman.  I am the oldest of 7 children.  My mother was the youngest of 13 children.  Although she had 2 parents, they were uneducated, farmers who would pack up their old truck on a whim, and move to Arkansas, or back to Colorado, or then back to Missouri.  Times back then were much more difficult.  Food was difficult to come by.  Work was difficult to come by.  There were no backstabbing organizations such as "Angels Wings", or lawyers like Gloria Alred who, because they have never done what this mother has done, decide they don't have enough problems in their own life so they need to get into other peoples life's.  Why is it so unfathomable that this many children can be happy together or that they will not have the moral support they need.  Neither of my parents graduated from high school.  They both worked at what they could and we got to work along side them.  We had great times and tough times like anyone else.  My mom's brothers and sisters still have big family reunions each year for the ones still alive.  They were all close.  Many of them were successful.  From what I can see, this mother has more care and compassion for each of her children, than most do for the 1-2 children they have and may be abusing.  That love and compassion will long stand to build a more solid family unit than many others in our society.  Will her road be easy?  Not at all.  Will she possibly reap greater rewards through a strong family unit later in life while others sit alone?  I don't know.  I just feel she is being treated very unfairly.
Showing 1-10 of total 3140 Comments