Now why would they not allow you to take your kids home?

[Grumpmeister]

Could it be the fact that you are a single mother living in your mother's home with 6 kids already perchence. If child services have decided that you can't take them home till you can prove you can provide for them then bravo. What the hell made you decide to take IVF when you already had 6 kids and were living in those circumstances?

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's octuplets mom has told television therapist Dr. Phil McGraw that she fears not being allowed to take her newborns home from the hospital until she proves that she has the means to care for them.

McGraw, host of a nationally syndicated self-help show, told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published on Wednesday that Nadya Suleman shared her concerns with him in a telephone conversation a day earlier.

Suleman has become a lightning rod for public ridicule since it was learned that she already was a jobless, divorced mother of six living in her own mother's three-bedroom house when she gave birth January 26 to octuplets conceived through in vitro fertilization.

Suleman, 33, also has acknowledged that she was collecting food stamps and disability benefits for three of her older kids, one of whom is autistic, and that a single "friend" was the sperm donor for all her children.

The public backlash grew so intense at one point that Suleman and her six older children, ranging in age from 2 to 7, went into seclusion because of death threats, according to a publicity firm previously hired by the family.

McGraw said Suleman called him on Tuesday afternoon, upset after she had spoken with officials at the suburban Los Angeles Kaiser Permanente Medical Centre where the octuplets, born 9-1/2 weeks premature, remain in a neonatal care unit.

"What she is telling me is that unless and until she has a better living arrangement, that they are not likely to release the children to her," the Times quoted McGraw as saying.

He added that according to Suleman, hospital authorities had some concerns about her "ability to care for the children," but he did not have details about those concerns or what standards she might not be meeting, the Times reported.

McGraw already had interviewed Suleman last week for two segments scheduled to air on his show this Wednesday and Thursday. A show spokeswoman said those interviews did not address the issue Suleman discussed with McGraw this week.

Kaiser Permanente officials declined to comment on Suleman's case, citing privacy rules.

[Nick]

She would have trouble keeping tabs on them. She'd have to be able to count to fourteen for a kickoff 

[Snoopy]

The age old question ~ at what point does the state have the right to interfere in a person's rights to bring up their children in the way they wish?
We elect these people to represent our views and argue on our behalf. When did we actually hand them the right to make decisions for us without first consulting us?
There is too much of this "Nanny knows best" about our elected representatives. They do not know best ~ they only think they do.
In this case the woman, quite legally it would seem, underwent IVF treatment with the full and active participation of her doctors who cannot have been unaware of her circumstances. Medical treatment in the USA is NOT free ~ she must have paid for this procedure and paid a lot if I know American clinics ~ so if she can afford the treatment then why must they now assume she cannot raise the children they so happily "gave her" and took her money for?
Or did they expect that the treatment would fail and they would pocket the money without any responsibility to ensure what they were selling had in fact a viable and realistic chance of working out and that the mother would want to take her children home.