Jon and Kate Plus 8, Official Thread--Part 7

[MAKmom]

a totaly housebound family due to a child's disability (unless they are totaly bedridden or have something like an extreemly compromised immune system such that it precludes public contact) is a very rare circumstance these days. disability advocates and service providers want these kids out in the world so they get exposed to different environments vs. the walls of their homes/rooms.

ds receives services from one of the very few in home occupational therapy program-it in large part was made 'in home' not because of kids/parents being homebound but because of the extreemly rural nature of where we live which compounded with at times very severe weather could prevent a parent from being able to transport their child to regular, on-going o.t. (another goal of the program is to have children/parents learn to do o.t. using available household items vs. getting the mindset that only with all the 'fancy' stuff at the o.t. centers it can be accomplished).

even though ds's therapy is technicaly 'in-home', he and the other participants do regular off site o.t.. during the summer months this can be at the ymca, the local lakes or public parks. during the winter months it is more difficult, but (at least for ds and the kids that live right near us) thanks to some indoor facilities at a local university that are open to the public we still manage to do about 59% offsite (indoor pool, indoor rock climbing walls, indoor ice rink).

most insurers won't consider paying for in-home services (if they are even available in a region) without extremly extenuating circumstances-and generaly that would not include a person finding it difficult to do because they had additional children absent a childcare provider to leave them with.

We are talking about if the Gosslins had multiple children with disabilities. They would be housebound any family would. I'm not saying they would never leave but it would be a production with 8 kids. We are in Philadelphia it is available in home. We also have free Septa transportation.

 

[FergieTCat]

We've been discussing that even with child protection laws, it would not stop the show. None of us know how many hours a day they actually "work", but from what I can tell, they seem to be compliant with any laws that other states have. So the show could still go on. Well, as kate+8.

Not sure about alimony.

I actually deleted my post because I thought it was redundant.

I think Kevin and Jodi need money for the holidays. I fully expect them to give more interviews to the tabloids within the next week or two.

FWIW, I never thought the kids were being exploited.

 

[LoraJ]

I actually deleted my post because I thought it was redundant.

I think Kevin and Jodi need money for the holidays. I fully expect them to give more interviews to the tabloids within the next week or two.

FWIW, I never thought the kids were being exploited.

I thought the same thing when I saw the photos of them there this weekend.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

We've been discussing that even with child protection laws, it would not stop the show. None of us know how many hours a day they actually "work", but from what I can tell, they seem to be compliant with any laws that other states have. So the show could still go on. Well, as kate+8.

Not sure about alimony.

Correction--it will go on if both parents on are board with the filming.

I'm not certain the limitations law could place on forcing Jon to allow his kids be filmed if he doesn't want that.

I'm only familiar with Denise Richards though--she had sole custody in CA, and she wasn't prevented from filming her kids despite what Charlie said. I'm not sure if he later changed his mind, but I do recall it being an issue and then the issue disappeared.

Different state, different rules.

My children have only been in a student film--but I was adequate for permission. I didn't have to have anything signed by my husband or have him present as providing his stamp of approval for filming.

I'm sure paid gigs might be different, though I just cannot imagine a situation where a parent could 100% forbid something when the child is not in their care.

I admit to being weak in that area of expertise and I wouldn't even know where to begin in researching that.

I'd love to know from a legal standpoint on that if anyone has an idea.

 

[madge]

I thought the same thing when I saw the photos of them there this weekend.

Unless CBS news pays for interviews, I still haven't see Kevin and Jodi surface anywhere that would be revenue bearing for them.

 

[Mickey527]

Well I didn't make it through for the drinking game last night. I heard the first question about the dogs, then the next but after that it got blurry. I fell asleep after the 2nd question.
I did get woken up a few times by the kids screaming "Next on Jon & Kate" before each commercial, but it just didn't hold my interest at all.
I tried to watch it again when it came on for a repeat at midnight but I couldn't keep my eyes open.
(Note to self, when watching Jon & Kate, stand or sit on a nail bed, don't lie down on a comfortable bed.)
Does Jon still get paid for these shows? They still said Jon & Kate, he was on the beginning credits, and they showed him in quite a few clips.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm not sure what you mean by Disability checks but SSI is based on parent income and assets for children under the age of 18yo.

I'm not sure what I mean either.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Unless CBS news pays for interviews, I still haven't see Kevin and Jodi surface anywhere that would be revenue bearing for them.

Does radar on-line pay? (tabloid that showed their taped confessions.)

I don't think the major networks pay for regular interviews on newscasts, b/c then it becomes an ethics issue and compromises their integrity of the legitimacy of the interview. These newscasts would include your 6pm news and the morning news shows, not necessarily other shows that are "news-y" but more entertainment value.

But for straight news, I don't think they could pay people even if they wanted to. But ethics in mass media could have changed in the past 16 years since I have worked in the field.

 

[barkley]

Well as it stands--

Let's use Table for 12. They have a disabled daughter who is wheelchair bound. I do not know the nature of her disability or if she receives regular services.

But assuming that she does, I'm sure they do what they can to accomodate her needs as I doubt they drag all of the other 9 kids to therapy with her. I haven't watched the show so have no idea if they ever even talk about dealing with that or not.


I have had my share of PT for a variety of things and when I can avoid bringing my kids, I did. But there was a time or two when I was stuck and took them with me. Other times I was able to have my husband take time off and watch the kids and a time or two where I have gotten a sitter.

I mean really--if Kate needed to she would deal.

The only difference between now and when the kids were little is that she now pays for all the care and way back then she had lots of helpers who helped her for free.

Not to open that can of worms or anything--but if she got dealt with a disability, she would deal much as any family would do.

on table for 12 they have dealt to some extent with the challenges of the special needs child, and the issue of having activities and committments that some kids are involved in and others are not.

they've talked of how they've had to educate the kids on how since all 3 sets of multiples are at different ages and have different interests they need to understand that a particular activity they have to go along to might not be to their taste or offer them anything to do but that their sibs are doing the same thing when they get dragged along on their activities. with the special needs kid they showed the little girl going to a place that did horse therapy-the little ones were told from the begining that this was'nt an outing for them, that it was for their sister's therapy. they've shown very young activities that the older 2 sets of twins (esp the oldest) were absolutly bored to death going to but for whatever reason the parents did'nt want them left at home so they had to go along for the ride.

one or two of the gosselin kids did receive some kind of therapy when they were realy little-i believe it was through the easter seals organization so they have obviously dealt with these issues to some extent and at a point in time when they did'nt have the financial resources they have now.


i have no problem with people using paid childcare (i did it for years) my concern is now as it was before all the childcare became apparant (back when jon and kate would repeatedly say they had no outside help and never would)-kate said repeatedly, in front of those kids that it is impossible for one person alone to safely care for them, and used that in large part to justify jon leaving his employment to help her f/t-but then she turned around and would leave them with a lone provider like jody or beth. she still continued to say this but then it seemed to be fine for just jon to care for them when she began focusing on having more of a career and was doing the speaking engagements and outside travel (back when we were still being told that at best they had a very part time helper). she's still saying this and unless those kids are on lock down with no exposure to tv/radio/internet, don't go to grocery stores or dr/dentist/hair cuts where they see the tabloid magazine covers, and the school has managed to get all the other students to absolutly not talk about it those kids are hearing her repeat this mantra but then we see images in the media where a lone childcare provider (or kate's friend) is alone with the kids. what does this message send to the kids? it's either 'mom is lying' or it's 'i'm being repeatedly left in what my mom says is an impossible/unsafe situation'-neither is a healthy thing for a young child to deal with.

 

[FergieTCat]

Does radar on-line pay? (tabloid that showed their taped confessions.)

I don't think the major networks pay for regular interviews on newscasts, b/c then it becomes an ethics issue and compromises their integrity of the legitimacy of the interview. These newscasts would include your 6pm news and the morning news shows, not necessarily other shows that are "news-y" but more entertainment value.

But for straight news, I don't think they could pay people even if they wanted to. But ethics in mass media could have changed in the past 16 years since I have worked in the field.

A quick Google search found this about Radar Online:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/02/entertainment/et-channel2

So, yes, they do pay for stories. I don't know if they paid Kevin and Jodi, but apparently, they do have a history of paying alot of money for interviews.

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

I think Kevin and Jodi need money for the holidays. I fully expect them to give more interviews to the tabloids within the next week or two.

FWIW, I never thought the kids were being exploited.

ITA with all.

 

[madge]

Does radar on-line pay? (tabloid that showed their taped confessions.)

I don't think the major networks pay for regular interviews on newscasts, b/c then it becomes an ethics issue and compromises their integrity of the legitimacy of the interview. These newscasts would include your 6pm news and the morning news shows, not necessarily other shows that are "news-y" but more entertainment value.

But for straight news, I don't think they could pay people even if they wanted to. But ethics in mass media could have changed in the past 16 years since I have worked in the field.

Radar might have paid (and I think we concluded that they did) for the video interview they did earlier.

But in this most recent series of events, I don't think they were paid to be on CBS this morning. The pics on Radar came from the paparazzi pool pics, so I doubt they were paid for those, either. Those are the only appearances I'm aware of as of 1:52pm EST on Tuesday. Inside Edition, ET, Extra, etc. have not aired yet here.

 

[daughtersrus]

We are talking about if the Gosslins had multiple children with disabilities. They would be housebound any family would.

Actually, I was talking about having one or more with disabilities. Either way, I think that the point is being lost. If Kate and Jon can't handle having their children in extra activities, how would they have managed taking one or more to the necessary appointments that a disabled child/ren would have required?

I'm not sure why you assume that they would have been housebound? Is it because they say that they need help to care for all of their healthy children as it is? I don't believe that the McCaughey family is housebound but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not saying they would never leave but it would be a production with 8 kids. We are in Philadelphia it is available in home.

Is that for the EI program or do all health providers come to the home regardless of whether or not it is covered by insurance? If that's the case, who pays for the services?

We also have free Septa transportation.

Not according to the SEPTA website. I didn't see anything about it being free but there are some discounts for services if you have a Medicare card (the card would be based on income).

http://www.septa.org/fares/disabilities.html
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/MedicalAssistance/003670296.htm

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Actually, I was talking about having one or more with disabilities. Either way, I think that the point is being lost. If Kate and Jon can't handle having their children in extra activities, how would they have managed taking one or more to the necessary appointments that a disabled child/ren would have required?

It's kind of one of those weird scenarios that doesn't exist at this time for them. I mean their life could change in an instant with a tragedy that would create that scenario, but just like me and just like any other family with able-bodied healthy kids, we'll deal with such a tragedy if it occurs.

I'm sure the Table for 12 family was trucking along just fine without disabilities and then they got a child with disabilities...and they adjusted AS NEEDED for that child.

Jon and Kate don't need to adjust for a non-existent scenario.

I'm not sure why you assume that they would have been housebound? Is it because they say that they need help to care for all of their healthy children as it is? I don't believe that the McCaughey family is housebound but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't get that either.

I met a mom who was picking up some freecycle stuff for me and when 'I met her daughter, I felt bad for having her drive all the way to my house. Her daughter was on life support. Transporting her ANYWHERE is a HUGE DEAL. And it cannot be done with one adult. She MUST have someone in the back seat with her at all times. So on this trip, the mom had a friend come along. Like I said, I felt bad, but she was grateful for an opportunity to leave the house. I'm sure those opportunities don't come often. And when her mom told me at the door that her daughter was on life support--we are talking she travels wtih a machine that keeps her going. (I believe it was a breathing machine of some kind.)

If she had multiple children, it is likely they would not actually be doing much for the other child in way of activities unless there was someone competant to care for her disabled child while the other child go to do their thing. (the child was a twin, but her twin died at birth.)

 

[daughtersrus]

A quick Google search found this about Radar Online:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/02/entertainment/et-channel2

So, yes, they do pay for stories. I don't know if they paid Kevin and Jodi, but apparently, they do have a history of paying alot of money for interviews.

If that's the case, did they pay Marty Singer (one of Kate's lawyers) for the interview that he did with them earlier this month?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If that's the case, did they pay Marty Singer (one of Kate's lawyers) for the interview that he did with them earlier this month?

We don't know if either party is paid, but there is no way to prove that either party was NOT paid to say that Jodi and Kevin are without a shadow of doubt doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Typically when a tabloid has an exclusive, there is a monetary reason for that privilege.

Not always---but typically.

 

[DMRick]

(back when jon and kate would repeatedly say they had no outside help and never would)-

I thought they said they had a babysitter, but prefered to not call her a nanny? Isn't that what we laughed about here? That there appeared to be no difference and we thought it was really a nanny?

kate said repeatedly, in front of those kids that it is impossible for one person alone to safely care for them, and used that in large part to justify jon leaving his employment to help her f/t-

I may be remembering wrong, but I thought he stayed home full time because they agreed he would be with the kids while she traveled to do speeches and push the book? I thought they also had a babysitter.

but then she turned around and would leave them with a lone provider like jody or beth.

So we know that Jody and Beth were alone with all the kids? Or were there spouses there with them? I have no idea.

we see images in the media where a lone childcare provider (or kate's friend) is alone with the kids. what does this message send to the kids? it's either 'mom is lying' or it's 'i'm being repeatedly left in what my mom says is an impossible/unsafe situation'-neither is a healthy thing for a young child to deal with.

Again, we see the rag mags post a picture showing one adult. But how do we know if there is just one adult there or if all the kids are there? They can take a ton of pictures and show the one that is the most damaging. I see them doing it to Jon all the time. We see what the rag mags post and don't always see what they don't. For instance so many times they show Kate with just Steve, but if you see an expanded picture, you see her other regular guard there also. But that doesn't fit what they want us to believe.

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

So we know that Jody and Beth were alone with all the kids? Or were there spouses there with them? I have no idea.

Most of the time when the kids were with Beth her teenage daughter was there to help out.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

On the old shows, when Kate left the kids with the sitter, there were actually multiple sitters.

Not always, but several times. And then on trips, they'd take even more adults.

I think it depends on the circumstances.

I just don't see an issue with her statement. She didnt' say she required 2 people 24/7.

 

[walden]

Correction--it will go on if both parents on are board with the filming.

I'm not certain the limitations law could place on forcing Jon to allow his kids be filmed if he doesn't want that.

I'm only familiar with Denise Richards though--she had sole custody in CA, and she wasn't prevented from filming her kids despite what Charlie said. I'm not sure if he later changed his mind, but I do recall it being an issue and then the issue disappeared.

Different state, different rules.

My children have only been in a student film--but I was adequate for permission. I didn't have to have anything signed by my husband or have him present as providing his stamp of approval for filming.

I'm sure paid gigs might be different, though I just cannot imagine a situation where a parent could 100% forbid something when the child is not in their care.

I admit to being weak in that area of expertise and I wouldn't even know where to begin in researching that.

I'd love to know from a legal standpoint on that if anyone has an idea.

Well, it does seem different in different states. I've just done a quick search and the legal language =

It is also not clear to me whether Jon's injunction preventing the children from being filmed is temporary and/or merely for the location (i.e. the house). I'm sure it is challengable by Kate. I think it will be dealt with as part of the custody agreement. I rather pity the Judge in this case.

For what it is worth: California's Coogan Law has been used as a model for other states i.e. New Mexico and NY but is not applicable in all states. The Coogan Law is fairly minimal -- money earned by a child working as an actor belongs to the child, and a giant 15% of the child's gross earnings must be placed in trust. If I am reading correctly it has been modified several times to close loop-holes, most recently in 2004. Child Labor Law in CA takes care of other aspects, like education and hours worked. It covers 100% of minor actors. The Screen Actors Guild web page has a link to the full text.

New York's Coogan Law is very similar, but also includes some language re. education. I think the NM version was filed after the Child Nation controversy, but have not looked for it yet. As I said:

PA has no Coogan Law, but there are good provisions to protect child labor extant regarding hours and educational opportunities. Remember that PA is still investigating whether TLC and the Gosselins have violated Child Labor Law or have merely exploited loopholes. Here is the link, and the relevant section is 7.1 if you scroll down the page --

http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/CWP/view.asp?a=185&Q=58124

I think I need a nap after reading all that legalese!