NICU nurse adopts mom of triplets

[bolt.]

44 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Ideally, sure. And I wish that were the case everywhere for everyone.  In reality?  What is *supposed to happen* doesn’t all the time.  There’s a significant number of unhoused people in Vancouver and as far as I am aware the problem is increasing steadily.  Seattle and Vancouver have very different governments but very similar housing crises.  Shelters and residential options for homeless families turn people away all the time.  Social work systems can and do only do so much.  People do fall through the cracks.  

Absolutely. I know that the ideal is not something that reality measures up to in a realistic sense. But a teen mom would be being followed by a social worker, and there would be at least attempts to get her connected with various resources and programs. Shelter (especially in centres that already have affordable housing crises) is the most serious problem.

At least getting her on a waiting list would happen. I'm not sure if the waiting lists are prioritized but 'single teen mom with three infants' might be a factor that could speed her progress (unfortunately) above other unhoused people in slightly less vulnerable circumstances.

If she couldn't be housed, I think the babies would at least be housed (unfortunately) apart from her, through foster care (hopefully just until she could be housed). That would be awful, but, to some degree maybe 'homeless with infants' is a harder life than 'homeless alone'? Or 'in separate foster homes'? It's tough, for sure!

[LucyStoner]

9 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Absolutely. I know that the ideal is not something that reality measures up to in a realistic sense. But a teen mom would be being followed by a social worker, and there would be at least attempts to get her connected with various resources and programs. Shelter (especially in centres that already have affordable housing crises) is the most serious problem.

At least getting her on a waiting list would happen. I'm not sure if the waiting lists are prioritized but 'single teen mom with three infants' might be a factor that could speed her progress (unfortunately) above other unhoused people in slightly less vulnerable circumstances.

If she couldn't be housed, I think the babies would at least be housed (unfortunately) apart from her, through foster care (hopefully just until she could be housed). That would be awful, but, to some degree maybe 'homeless with infants' is a harder life than 'homeless alone'? Or 'in separate foster homes'? It's tough, for sure!

Social work is one approach but it is an approach that comes with many challenges, including racism, classism, insufficient resources and turnover of staffing.  I admire the social workers I am friends with.  I also respect the reasons why my poor family members and friends regard the overall social work system with, at best, very cautious optimism and more likely with, absolute dread.  I’m not saying that there’s a better and realistic alternative but I do wish that more people questioned the assumption that there are always programs and resources and that programs and resources are inherently superior to human relationships and people just doing what needs to be done.  

I also think that once someone has become a mom, anything that keeps mom and baby (or babies) together and supported as a healthy, thriving family unit is a clear first choice over separating the babies from their mom.  Separating the family should only happen when there’s no safe way to keep them together.  However this situation came about, it’s a huge leg up to both mom and babies to be together and not parceled out to separate homes (which in the US could be a wildly different qualities- not all foster homes are safe places, that’s just a hard reality.)

Edited March 24, 2023 by LucyStoner

[bolt.]

18 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Social work is one approach but it is an approach that comes with many challenges, including racism, classism, insufficient resources and turnover of staffing.  I admire the social workers I am friends with.  I also respect the reasons why my poor family members and friends regard the overall social work system with, at best, very cautious optimism and more likely with, absolute dread.  I’m not saying that there’s a better and realistic alternative but I do wish that more people questioned the assumption that there are always programs and resources and that programs and resources are inherently superior to human relationships and people just doing what needs to be done.  

I also think that once someone has become a mom, anything that keeps mom and baby (or babies) together and supported as a healthy, thriving family unit is a clear first choice over separating the babies from their mom.  Separating the family should only happen when there’s no safe way to keep them together.  However this situation came about, it’s a huge leg up to both mom and babies to be together and not parceled out to separate homes (which in the US could be a wildly different qualities- not all foster homes are safe places, that’s just a hard reality.)

I totally agree.

[kbutton]

15 hours ago, Eos said:

Oh no, I hope you're not saying it's ok for the woman to be 14 if the male is too?  

I hope you're not blaming me for a societal lack of sufficient means to describe the reality of young teens having sex and insinuating that I think it's okay or desirable because I'm pointing out that young pregnant teens doesn't automatically equal abuse. 

 

 

[Eos]

20 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I hope you're not blaming me for a societal lack of sufficient means to describe the reality of young teens having sex and insinuating that I think it's okay or desirable because I'm pointing out that young pregnant teens doesn't automatically equal abuse. 

 

 

No, not at all blaming you, I apologize if that's how it came across.  I was not understanding how 13-year-olds were beyond the definition of statutory rape.  What I think you were saying, at least as Gardenmom pointed out, was that the law will not prosecute without a larger age differential.

[fraidycat]

11 minutes ago, Eos said:

No, not at all blaming you, I apologize if that's how it came across.  I was not understanding how 13-year-olds were beyond the definition of statutory rape.  What I think you were saying, at least as Gardenmom pointed out, was that the law will not prosecute without a larger age differential.

And it would be pointless to charge both parties as perpetrators. If both parties to the act are the same age or within the window of "acceptable age difference", what would be the point of bringing the legal system into it? Who would it help?

[pinball]

Thanks for the information @bolt. and @denarii

[LucyStoner]

46 minutes ago, fraidycat said:

And it would be pointless to charge both parties as perpetrators. If both parties to the act are the same age or within the window of "acceptable age difference", what would be the point of bringing the legal system into it? Who would it help?

Exactly.  Not all tragedies or very difficult circumstances are crimes.  It is true that a lot of teen moms were impregnated by adult men but that isn’t always the case, not by any measure.  

My friend and his high school girlfriend were parents before they graduated from high school.  Both sets of grandparents helped them out when their child was young.  They both finished high school. The relationship didn’t last but they co-parented ok.  He eventually got an associates degree and now works in IT, she’s run a small hairdressing shop for 20 years, a trade she learned from her family.  Their son is a young adult.  My friend married in his late 20s and he and his wife have two younger kids now.  

Nothing good would have come of prosecuting either of them for having sex when they were underage.  In fact, criminalizing one or both of the parents would have mainly punished the child.  

[Carrie12345]

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

and that programs and resources are inherently superior to human relationships and people just doing what needs to be done.  

There is, imo, nothing superior to healthy and stable human relationships.Sadly, they’re not as easy to come by for some as they are for others. And that is why we need social services.

[LucyStoner]

6 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

There is, imo, nothing superior to healthy and stable human relationships.Sadly, they’re not as easy to come by for some as they are for others. And that is why we need social services.

Having worked in and around the social services sector my entire career, I totally agree.  

See also: Having worked in and around the social service sector my entire career, I also know that the entire system is deficient and a social work approach, even when super well meant, can cause serious harm.  

People are disparaging this nurse as not having boundaries, being unprofessional and even insinuating she could be unsafe. That seems unnecessary and a bit of oblivious to the very real harm that could have come without the nurse, out of human connection, being willing to be a safe place for this young mom to land.  

Edited March 25, 2023 by LucyStoner

[Carrie12345]

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

Having worked in and around the social services sector my entire career, I totally agree.  

See also: Having worked in and around the social service sector my entire career, I also know that the entire system is deficient and an social work approach, even when super well meant, can cause serious harm.  

People are disparaging this nurse as not having boundaries, being unprofessional and even insinuating she could be unsafe. That seems unnecessary and a bit of oblivious to the very real harm that could have come without the nurse, out of human connection, being will to be a safe place for this young mom to land.  

I don’t know that I see it as disparaging exactly. I mean, SW code of ethics is being drilled into my head right now. Nurses have codes of ethics, too.  Sometimes life is messier than codes. Sometimes adults have nefarious intentions. Sometimes adults are incredible. I wish every teen (Not just children with babies) had trustworthy adults around to help them navigate how to know which is which.  

[sassenach]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t know that I see it as disparaging exactly. I mean, SW code of ethics is being drilled into my head right now. Nurses have codes of ethics, too.  Sometimes life is messier than codes. Sometimes adults have nefarious intentions. Sometimes adults are incredible. I wish every teen (Not just children with babies) had trustworthy adults around to help them navigate how to know which is which.  

As a nurse, I personally know 2 nurses who have foster-adopted former patients. Nurses do have professional boundaries but that doesn't mean there isn't a rare circumstance where something extraordinary happens. As long as these nurses are working within the system set in place, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Corraleno]

Really nice interview with this family on the Today show this morning. The teen mom has been accepted to college with an academic scholarship and hopes to become a social worker to help others.
 

 

[katilac]

There is a lot of conflicting information (and carelessness) in many of the articles. Synthesizing them, I think these things are most likely to be true: 

She adopted Shariya only. This is stated most often in mainstream media articles, and Mullen herself says on the GoFundMe page that the fundraiser is for her adopted daughter and her triplets. 

In various articles that use direct quotes, she refers only to Shariya as her daughter, and states that she is just backup for Shariya (regarding raising the triplets). This Today.com article has a good number of direct quotes.

There's a cute adoption day photo of Shariya smiling and holding a sign that says "finally adopted after 688 days" and nothing to imply that the triplets were also adopted. 

 Baby boy went to the hospital for failure to thrive. He had digestive problems from birth, formula changed, still problems, Mullen seems to be the one who encouraged Shariya to up the level of treatment, but he was already under a doctor's care for these issues. CPS was notified bc of the failure to thrive diagnosis. They were living with relatives, Shariya slept on the couch and the triplets in a playpen. Based on available information, that is what triggered the "unsuitable" finding. 

On 3/23/2023 at 1:36 PM, TechWife said:

it’s hard to know how this would have played out otherwise. 

I don't think it's hard at all to know how it would have played out. State would have taken custody, mom and babies would have been separated, babies would have been separated for at least a few months and possibly forever, mom would have eventually lost custody of the babies that were 

 

On 3/23/2023 at 5:01 PM, BandH said:

My assumption is that she was already in foster care, because TPR just doesn't happen that fast in my experience.  

My biggest concern is with the fact that the adoptive mother adopted the triplets too.  

I don't think she did; see above. 

On 3/23/2023 at 5:15 PM, Faith-manor said:

I my state, minors are not emancipated just because they become parents or get married.  

Your state is wack. Particularly the married part - the law allows them to get married, but not to act as adults?? 

On 3/23/2023 at 5:54 PM, TechWife said:

Some medical reasons for admission are caused by the adults in the child’s life. 

In case anyone misses it above, it seems like he was admitted due to failure to thrive. 

On 3/23/2023 at 6:45 PM, TechWife said:

She crossed many ethical boundaries.

Can you state a few specifically? I know that doctors are not supposed to provide care for loved ones, but I'm not aware of similar policies regarding becoming friends with patients. I mean, pity the doctors in rural areas if that were the case, lol. 

And a nurse may provide care, but they are not diagnosing, they are not making treatment decisions. 

 If she did cross ethical boundaries, then I thank God that she did, because no one else was vying to fill that role. 

On 3/23/2023 at 8:21 PM, thatfirstsip said:

I would guess that in most states, a pregnant 14 year old is an automatic report to CPS by any mandated reporter, but maybe not. 

I don't think this is actually true, not just because they're pregnant. Shariya appeared to have some family support, and she had housing. I don't doubt that she and/or the relatives exaggerated the state of readiness for the triplets, but I would do the same to keep my babies from going into foster care. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by katilac

[pinball]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

Your state is wack. Particularly the married part - the law allows them to get married, but not to act as adults?? 

Her state might be *wack* but married minor are emancipated.

relevant law:

STATUS OF MINORS AND CHILD SUPPORT (EXCERPT)
Act 293 of 1968

722.4 Emancipation by operation of law or pursuant to petition filed by minor with family division of circuit court.

 

Sec. 4.

  (1) Emancipation may occur by operation of law or pursuant to a petition filed by a minor with the family division of circuit court as provided in this act.

  (2) An emancipation occurs by operation of law under any of the following circumstances:

  (a) When a minor is validly married.

  (b) When a person reaches the age of 18 years.

  (c) During the period when the minor is on active duty with the armed forces of the United States.

  (d) For the purposes of consenting to routine, nonsurgical medical care or emergency medical treatment to a minor, when the minor is in the custody of a law enforcement agency and the minor's parent or guardian cannot be promptly located. The minor or the minor's parent shall remain responsible for the cost of any medical care or treatment rendered pursuant to this subdivision. An emancipation pursuant to this subdivision shall end upon the termination of medical care or treatment or upon the minor's release from custody, whichever occurs first. 

  (e) For the purposes of consenting to his or her own preventive health care or medical care including surgery, dental care, or mental health care, except vasectomies or any procedure related to reproduction, during the period when the minor is a prisoner committed to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections and is housed in a state correctional facility operated by the department of corrections or in a youth correctional facility operated by the department of corrections or a private vendor under section 20g of 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.220g; or the period when the minor is a probationer residing in a special alternative incarceration unit established under the special alternative incarceration act, 1988 PA 287, MCL 798.11 to 798.18. This subdivision applies only if a parent or guardian of the minor cannot promptly be located by the department of corrections or, in the case of a youth correctional facility operated by a private vendor, by the responsible official of the youth correctional facility.

  (3) An emancipation occurs by court order pursuant to a petition filed by a minor with the family division of circuit court as provided in sections 4a to 4e.

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

 

 

I don't think she did; see above. 

Your state is wack. Particularly the married part - the law allows them to get married, but not to act as adults?? 

 

Many states are actually like this in practice. It isn't just from the public policy perspective. Due to the age of majority not having been reached, being married does not make one 18 for any reason. Voting rights are not conferred, the right to buy tobacco, the ability to enter other legal contracts, to be employed in certain types of jobs, etc. 

It all goes back to colonial, patriarchal views of women. Though there are instances of minor males being married off, most are females to older men. According to child.org, in a 2020 study of the matter in the US, 87% of all child marriages were cases of the female not being the age of majority with cases of girls as young as 10 and 12 being married off to adult males. Only 13% of cases involve males below the age of majority, and exceedingly rare for a male to be below the age of 16, most being 17 and striking distance of their own 18th birthday. The idea behind allowing marriage prior to the legal age of adulthood is to indenture a young female to an older male. It was a property exchange, nothing more, and in the state of Delaware, girls as young as 8 could be legally married off, 12 being very common and to men 15-20 years or more older. To be fair to Delaware, in modern times they were the first state to put a total ban of child marriages, 2018. In 2001, three ten year old girls were legally married to men ages, 24, 25, and 31. Those girls did not receive emancipation due to being married. At that age, regardless of being legally married, they cannot even request an HPV vaccine.

Given the historical bias against female agency, and the continued influence of patriarchy, religious beliefs, and misogynistic control in the U.S., it should not be a shock that many a minor female who is married off will experience lack of agency and ability to advocate for herself or her child, ability to make necessary legal decisions in situations in which adult age is not automatically assumed and must be proven. Though a legislature may establish marriage minimum ages, if they do not then specifically also include language that automatically confers specific rights of majority to that married minor, then it cannot be surprising that there are issues with this, and again, we are talking about issues that are overwhelmingly faced by females. It can't be surprising then that our male dominated political establishment doesn't find this problematic since their sons and grandsons are highly unlikely to face the consequences of child marriage, but those same sons and grandsons are in a position to benefit from child brides.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Many states are actually like this in practice. It isn't just from the public policy perspective. Due to the age of majority not having been reached, being married does not make one 18 for any reason. Voting rights are not conferred, the right to buy tobacco, the ability to enter other legal contracts, to be employed in certain types of jobs, etc. 

 

In my state, fully emancipated minors can definitely enter into contracts and handle their own medical care. Marriage at 16 or 17 is automatic full emancipation. 

When I was young, many years ago, I know you could show your marriage certificate to get into a bar and order liquor, but that was possibly just a common practice vs being encoded in law. 

[Renai]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:37 AM, Eos said:

No, not at all blaming you, I apologize if that's how it came across.  I was not understanding how 13-year-olds were beyond the definition of statutory rape.  What I think you were saying, at least as Gardenmom pointed out, was that the law will not prosecute without a larger age differential.

They are not beyond the definition of statutory rape, regardless of the difference in age. It has to have something to do with intent. When I worked in a high-security male juvenile prison (not detention, prison), I mainly worked on the dorm of 10-14 year olds who were separated from the general population (up to age 18) because they were smaller in stature and more likely to be victimized. More than 2/3 of those 10-14 year olds were there for se*ual assault, ie., rape. Some of their victims were younger, some were older, all within 3-4 age difference (most within 2 years). So, yeah, intent may have something to do with prosecution.

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, Renai said:

They are not beyond the definition of statutory rape, regardless of the difference in age. It has to have something to do with intent. When I worked in a high-security male juvenile prison (not detention, prison), I mainly worked on the dorm of 10-14 year olds who were separated from the general population (up to age 18) because they were smaller in stature and more likely to be victimized. More than 2/3 of those 10-14 year olds were there for se*ual assault, ie., rape. Some of their victims were younger, some were older, all within 3-4 age difference (most within 2 years). So, yeah, intent may have something to do with prosecution.

But if two 13 yr olds have sex, technically they BOTH would be guilty of rape, and BOTH victims of rape, at the same time. Which means to prosecute you'd have to prosecute a victim (well, two of them). 

[Ann.without.an.e]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

But if two 13 yr olds have sex, technically they BOTH would be guilty of rape, and BOTH victims of rape, at the same time. Which means to prosecute you'd have to prosecute a victim (well, two of them). 

That was my point earlier, as long as it is consensual of course.