Jon Gosselin Seeks Custody of Hannah

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I think Kate is good at physically keeping the children fed, clothed, etc... But she is wound so tight.

Jon is probably better at meeting their emotional needs. I think they're both shitty people but that he is able to connect with the kids and provide a more relaxed environment.

[16strong]

Who's Leah? I thought we were talking about Hannah.

Jon may not be a good parent, but I'm wondering if he's not the lesser of two evils?

Sorry I got the girls mixed up. Ignore me. :lol:

[mpheels]

I think Kate is good at physically keeping the children fed, clothed, etc... But she is wound so tight.

Jon is probably better at meeting their emotional needs. I think they're both shitty people but that he is able to connect with the kids and provide a more relaxed environment.

I think that is an accurate assessment. I suspect they wouldn't have been a relatively happy, stable family if they had stopped at two kids, with Jon and Kate's parenting abilities balancing each other instead of clashing. I think the added stress of six more would have been difficult, but manageable off camera. The additional stress of filming, plus the need (real or perceived) to be in "character" and fulfill story lines brought out the worst in both of them.

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

Kate reminds me so much of my mom and sister- it's scary! They are complete control freaks and so is she. I think she will have a complete nervous breakdown once the sextuplets go off to college and she has no longer has control over their lives.

I do find Jon revolting- he acts like a little boy. Guess that is why he was drawn to Kate- so she could take care of business and boss him around.

If Jon gets custody of Hannah- I think that will open up the floodgates for all the kids to start bouncing back and forth between parents as they go through the teen years. There are just no good answers for these kids.

[dianapavelovna]

I also thought it was interesting that it's Hannah, since Kate did seem to favor her quite a lot. But Hannah also always seemed pretty reserved/introverted, so perhaps the push to perform and be filmed is particularly hard on her.

I wish all the kiddos the best. Hard to believe the sextuplets are 11 now - their whole lives really have been filmed for public consumption. I really enjoyed watching J&K+8 back in the day because the kids were so cute, sweet, and funny, but they deserve their privacy and happiness, and I hope they get it.

[Burris]

ETA: I hope this...essay...actually makes sense to readers :)

I just don't think he is any better than Kate. I think he is of the same damn attention seeking breed. He seemed to be fine with his kids being on the show before they divorced. While I think stopping the show was for the best, I think he did it out of spite and not actually trying to protect the kids. I think they are both attention whores are both using their children as pawns.

I've never been a fan of any incarnation of the Kate/Jon/8 shows and nor have I ever watched a continuous episode that I recall.

I have never liked what I have seen of KG's television persona. I found her rude, abrupt, brusque, condescending, demanding, and bitter. I did not understand her appeal, and nor could I see why other mothers felt compelled to emulate what they saw as her dogged determination.

The first time I saw Jon and Kate in a televised argument, I wondered if they would risk divorce (because the argument, as I recall, was an unproductive collection of insults and accusations that led nowhere but to higher ratings - and if this was typical of how the two fought, with such utter contempt for one another, they were fated to divorce).

For that reason, these scandals barely moved me - although I have an overriding contempt for reality television in general, which I will discuss later in this post.

My knowledge of this specific scandal comes from some reading I've done across the web tonight. Until the reading, and this subsequent post,I did not care about this particular matter. In some ways, then, I'm a slightly less biased observer of the scandal that someone who has watched it unfold over the years and has chosen a party in whom to invest sympathy.

At present, my sympathy is divided among the children of Jon and Kate, extending then to the parents themselves.

Jon and Kate were married for ten years, eight of which (if the might Wikipedia is to be believed) were spent filming their reality show. I suspect their marriage, perhaps ill-fated from the start, or maybe ruined by fame, would have ended years earlier had it not been for the facts they had eight children together and their jobs - their livelihoods; their careers - were this television show.

Other people work at the office or the store. Jon and Kate worked as reality TV personages.

Behind Jon and Kate were years of harsh words, some of them on air. Moreover, I suspect (but of course cannot prove) that unscrupulous producers abused KG's nervous temperament by deliberately triggering her emotional losses of control without any regard for her mental health or for that of her family.

I do believe there's some truth to be had concerning the nature of this lady in the tell-all book written by Robert Hoffman.

The original of this publication was pulled for legal reasons; it allegedly contained direct excerpts from KG's personal journal - an incredible breach of privacy. (The amended book now contains synopses of those journal entries rather than direct excerpts.)

Of course I despise child and animal cruelty - they're issues on which there is nearly universal agreement - and are among the charges Hoffman levels at KG, but if she committed actionable crimes those should have been heard in a real court and not in the reality TV-approved court of public opinion.

I suspect KG started out as a simply a high-strung woman married to a more laid-back man with a side of flirt to his nature...so basically ordinary people - ordinary people who, in an effort to produce a third child to add to their family, instead produced sextuplets.

From what I understand, Kate's religious beliefs precluded selective reduction and frankly I respect that; her fertility, her religion, her decision.

But that also left Jon and Kate with the question of how to care for six potentially medically fragile children in addition to the two they already had.

ASIDE: Interestingly, Hoffman produced a letter KG wrote to social service officials in the State of Pennsylvania asking for help in caring for her children whom she described as disabled. Hoffman offers this as evidence of KG's duplicity when in truth, it may very well have been that her sextuplets were disabled - and she had not only a right but a duty to seek whatever help for them she could get.

The nurse whom KG trusted and did not want to replace went on, apparently, to slam her former employer in a news interview and referred to KG as combative and demanding. That nurse, if she did indeed give the interview described, pretty much violated the confidentiality of a woman who trusted her after allegedly firing dozens of other candidates.

Hoffman, by his own admission, and to form the backbone of his book, took copies of KG's private documents to shore up his case as to how terrible KG is - which, in a way, is even more evidence for what a sleaze he himself is.

Meanwhile, everything revealed about KG and which is designed to damn her actually paints her as a potentially mentally ill and severely overwhelmed mother of eight children. Even with help, caregiver burnout is a real problem, and one from which KG may have suffered.

Among all this speculating, a lot of people have lost sight of one very simple truth: KG is not some Hollywood creation whose dramatic life plays out for the expressed entertainment of others.

She is a real person.

That is her real name.

Those are her real children.

Her marriage to Jon was the real deal.

The reality of this situation is not to be found on the television specials or even in Hoffman's book, but rather in the recognition that...

1) I think KG either was or is mentally ill.

That is not meant as a cheap shot at a reality TV star, but rather it comes from someone who recognizes the signs of caregiver burnout.

Caregiver burnout is real. At the time when she wrote the "damning letter" for which Hoffman slams her. KG had six 11-month-old children who may very well have been developmentally delayed.

For reasons that have never been revealed to my knowledge, she exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress. (Maybe months of fear she would lose the pregnancy triggered it.)

I'm by no means a medical professional and if I were I wouldn't diagnose-by-television. I simply recognize some of her behaviours: The frazzled outbursts. The requests for help. The sense her family was being under-served (and she very well may have been; if there had not been a service coordinator to help her keep the staff in line, that would be just one more burden that fell to her).

2) KG asked for help.

She was displeased with what she got, and said so. It may very well be that she could have needed counselling and medication to ease the fear I expect lies back of her demanding personality. (But then goodness, Hoffman would have snooped out the doctor's notes and used them against KG as well.)

3) At least two different people grossly violated KG's privacy in ways that her being a reality TV star does not excuse.

This entire sad affair is but one symptom of the sickness that is reality TV.

"A New Age in Television: Ten Times the Drama at a Tenth of the Cost"

I dislike reality television as a genre and as a social phenomenon primarily for two reasons:

1) I see the format as a way to rob professional actors of job potential by hiring 'not-actors' at a tenth the price to do "reality" shows that are as heavily staged and scripted as any sitcom or TV drama. (So here, then, is a naked profit-grab mixed with dishonesty aimed at the viewers and even at cast members.)

2) These reality television producers have shown themselves to be predatory - utterly mercenary. A family with six new mouths to feed, for example, was perfect fodder - a perfect mark; money for their kids' futures in exchange for what was probably sold to the pair as a candid and respectful look into their daily lives as they learned to cope with a highly unusual situation.

Neither Jon nor Kate strike me as especially intelligent - and while they may have developed a certain media savvy now, I suspect that was lacking when they first negotiated their contracts - and I give them the benefit of the doubt that Jon and Kate attempted to work those contracts in good faith for the good of their families. (Think unusual travel opportunities, scholarships for the kids, adequate room in a nice house for a family of ten...basically what anyone with that unusual problem would hope to find for help.)

"You Play a Bitch" versus "You Are a Bitch"

Unlike actors, who although they may be type-cast, are rarely outright mistaken for the characters they play on television, reality TV personalities allegedly are the people shown on screen - and they're treated in ways that fit public perception of them.

"You Can't Do That on (Traditional) Television"

The creators of these shows can bring a whole new circus element to the proceedings contrived to make the 'non-actors' look as if they are complete idiots in ways that would never be accepted in traditional television show formats. The reason for this is simple: Viewers won't suspend their disbelief when a character is deliberately written to do something everyone in the audience knows is stupid (and perhaps out of character as well).

Not so with "reality TV" where audiences are willing to suspend disbelief because this is allegedly real, what they see.

"Fame Can Ruin Families"

Indeed there never was a golden age when studios treated their assets - especially child actors - well. Multiple laws had to be passed to ensure the child actors weren't being overworked, robbed of their educations, robbed of their earnings, and so on.

The fate of so many child actors who became dysfunctional adults demonstrates just how wrong-headed it is to allow a corporation to essentially raise a child as a show-animal whose value decreases with age.

But I think the mercenaries that produce reality television are far more predatory than their forerunners. They hide their abuse of privacy and child labour laws behind the screen that (a) the parents are there and would protect the interests of their children (which may not be true or actually may not be permitted by contract) and that (b) reality stars aren't actually doing any work by one theory; they simply live out their lives while the world watches - which would not violate child labour laws. And yet that is not at all how "reality TV" works.

I think that, were it not for the show, Jon and Kate would have either divorced years sooner or they would still be married after having gone through real, off-camera counselling. They are people, after all - attention-seekers who of course want financial security, but still persons for all that. And when the lights are out the the cameras aren't rolling, they become just two more imperfect human beings - who have the financially daunting task of caring for eight kids.

"Beware Producers Bearing Goodies"

What I would suggest to any people who have special needs in their families and who are approached by TLC or any other television network is to (a) hire a good contract lawyer as soon as they are certain the negotiations are going anywhere (since potential families are likely looked at and dismissed on a regular basis), and (b) do as the parents of Abby and Brittany Hensel through their decisions to allow very limited access once or twice every few years to the girls until they finally came of age and could craft their own media presence.

"The Original Clown Car Ends Up Crashing on Television - and the Ensuing Grief is Aired for All to See"

I think the Duggars, for all the financial benefit they've gained, have been hurt by their long exposure on television. In the first special, they were presented as a deeply religious and frugal family that maintained a certain amount of discipline among their then 14 kids (and hopefully not by "the rod). Now, perhaps even to their own dismay, they have lost the privacy that allowed them to freely chose how to dress and how to express their religious beliefs. Their actions are either edited or circumscribed to make them seem more palatable to the public.

"How The Non-Actors Are Viewed"

***Note: None of the links are broken because they lead to highly public source that expect clicks, etc. - and as far as I know, none of these direct links violates the TOU. If it does, correct at leisure.***

Many reality television shows are successful precisely because viewers are looking for the modern version of the gladiatorial pit: Blood in sport, for the entertainment of the masses. For being brought into the light as they are, the thanks these "stars" receive comes in the form of paycheques and ridicule:

In her effort to understand the widespread fascination people have with reality TV, HuffPo blogger Tami Shaikh writes...

After watching for a few minutes, I started to think, What is wrong with us as a society? Why are most of our "Reality Shows" showing people that are willing to make a fool of themselves? Do we watch them because we are fascinated by their fearlessness when it comes to letting it all hang out, or is it because we can laugh and make fun of them? I am not sitting here and being judgmental about anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. When I asked around, my friends confessed that they mostly watched reality shows. With shows like Duck Dynasty, Life With Latoya, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, Return to Amish, My Five Wives, etc. what are we saying to the next generation? Are we telling them to laugh and ridicule other people because they choose to live differently than us?

(Source)

Austine Cline at atheism.about.com begins his article on the ethics of reality TV with a question: "Should we really watch?" He, too, made note of the strong streak of humiliation that runs through most of this genre.

What we are looking at here is, I think, an extension of Schadenfreude, a German word used to describes people's delight and entertainment at the failings and problems of others. If you laugh at someone slipping on the ice, that's Schadenfreude. If you take pleasure in the downfall of a company you dislike, that is also Schadenfreude. The latter example is certainly understandable, but I don't think that's what we're seeing here. After all, we don't know the people on reality shows.

So what causes us to derive entertainment from the suffering of others? Certainly there may be catharsis involved, but that is also achieved through fiction - we don't need to see a real person suffer in order to have a cathartic experience. Perhaps we are simply happy that these things aren't happening to us, but that seems more reasonable when we see something accidental and spontaneous rather than something deliberately staged for our amusement.

That people do suffer on some reality TV shows is beyond question - the very existence of reality programming may be threatened by the increase in lawsuits by people who have been injured and/or traumatized by the stunts these shows have staged. One of the reasons such programming is attractive is that it can be much cheaper than traditional shows, but that may change as insurance premiums for reality TV begin to reflect higher to insurers.

(Source)

Jen Christensen, writer at CNN, considers reality television a platform for what would under normal circumstances be seen as impermissible bullying.

David Rupel, writing for the Writers' Guild of America, West ("WGAW") and who works in this industry, explains and defends some of the practices mentioned here:

The edits, for example, are necessary to maintain viewer interest. They are not meant to obfuscate truth but rather to skip over the mundane that probably comprises a massive chunk of reality TV camera footage.

He is candid in his commentary on the scaffolding that goes into building a successful reality TV show:

So how does reality TV work? The first thing to realize is that the term "unscripted" is a fallacy. No, we don't write pages of dialogue, but we do create formats, cast people based on character traits and edit scenes to tell a powerful, intriguing tale. In short, we are storytellers just like you. We just get there a little differently.

Most reality shows fit into one of two categories:

A) It is a show with very little structure, where everyday events become the stories, such as The Real World, The Osbournes, and A&E's Airplane. On these shows, story editors sift through days (and sometime weeks) of footage to find compelling stories after the shooting has occurred....

B) It is a show that is heavily formatted, where events are planned before shooting begins. Examples of this are Survivor, The Amazing Race and The Bachelor. Writers–usually getting some kind of producer title–create beats for the show that generate the dramatic structure. These shows tend to have much shorter shooting schedules. Two to three days is typical to create a one-hour episode.

To clarify what Rupel sees as an ethical matter, he makes the following statement:

Ethics Note: We don't "create" scenes to trick people. With the exception of Big Brother, there is no show that I am aware of that shoots 24/7, which means we are going to miss certain moments. Those gaps in the plot have to be filled to make the story complete.

The article is quite short and it's worth the read in part because it offers a view from the other side of the table on this controversial matter.

It is entirely possible Rupel has worked with the best in his business and that he has found pockets of ethical reality television. I am genuinely not questioning that - especially since he might find unsettling the inclusion of his article in the somewhat hostile territory of my post. (So, to be clear, Rupel is here in service to balance and not as a potential punching bag.) I fully admit, however, that my post is hostile to reality television in whole.

To close this post, I will link to a Reader's Digest article that appeared online in September, 2013, and was also in the print edition that month.

The title: "13 Secrets Reality TV Show Producers Won’t Tell You"

...and among these many "secrets" are the complaints I and others have voiced through the course of this post. The first of these secrets is essentially...

'We're not real.'

[theinvisiblegirl]

I read Hoffman's book about Kate and her ways. My only wish is that I had been able to read the first edition where everything was, more or less, in Kate's own words. In the second edition (which is still available to purchase on Amazon on the Kindle AFAIK), it's all paraphrased. The content is somewhat redundant at times, but what is described is a bit horrific.

I think, when it comes to having Jon and Kate as parents, I would, personally, want to live with Jon. I know he isn't perfect, but he definitely seems to be the lesser of two evils.

[acheronbeach]

He masturbated on national tv while filming "Couples Therapy" with his skank girlfriend.

He also agreed to let the kids film in exchange for zero child support. So basically, the kids are supporting themselves.

Now, he is a DJ or something. Whatever...fat dad of 8 working part time as a DJ. I am no fan of Kate, but at least she has enough hustle to keep the kids fed, clothed and private schooled.

Ugh, slut shaming and fat shaming. You've certainly convinced me... :roll:

[Burris]

I read Hoffman's book about Kate and her ways. My only wish is that I had been able to read the first edition where everything was, more or less, in Kate's own words. In the second edition (which is still available to purchase on Amazon on the Kindle AFAIK), it's all paraphrased. The content is somewhat redundant at times, but what is described is a bit horrific.

I think, when it comes to having Jon and Kate as parents, I would, personally, want to live with Jon. I know he isn't perfect, but he definitely seems to be the lesser of two evils.

So, you wish you could have read selected entries - i.e., entries Hoffman chose in service to his main thesis that she is a terrible person - from Kate's diary?

Why?

As I point out in the admittedly long post above, Hoffman accuses Kate of lying to authorities in a letter she wrote asking for social assistance in caring for her then 11-month-old sextuplets. Hoffman objected to her description of them as "disabled" when in fact it's highly likely, given they were multiples, that they did at least have developmental delays. "Disability" is not a term that implies permanence. A person - a child, for example - can be temporarily disabled.

His agenda was not noble: Hoffman did this for profit and, I believe, had no other motive at all. He used privileged access to steal copyrighted material from a woman's diary and then he placed that information online for sale.

[DGayle]

The PA law required trust funds be set up (a mere 15%), which can be used for the children's health and educational needs, and mandates that a parent or guardian must be in sight and sound of the children at all times. It also requires a studio teacher on set for mandated schoolwork and rest and limits the number of hours they can be filmed. The Gosselin kids had no such protections for the first few years of filming. It was just plain wrong.

Worse than just a mere 15% is that that is divided among ALL the kids. Those kids get a paltry 2.125% each, and that, like you said, can be drained for health and educational stuff that the parents should be paying for anyway.

Since the kids actually go to school, they can probably get an exemption to the studio teacher rule. Most kid-actors aren't in regular school.

[DGayle]

On the women, these are probably greatly exaggerated rumors too. Post the Glassman girl, he's had a couple of long-term relationships since the divorce and seems to date in between them. Horrors.

The horror. Oh, the horror! When I was single, I worked outside the house and still had time to date. Condense my monthly dating history into a minute for TV, and it would sound like I was always dating and doing nothing else. I think a lot of people forget how condensed it is.

Jon also seems to have a big problem keeping jobs, but has definitely been employed on and off. He claims to have been in court many times to try to stop filming - but apparently the judge has approved Kate's making them work so far.

I can't blame him for his times of unemployment. It's clear he's making an effort, and good luck finding an employer who'll be okay with all the time needed for court. If he decided to go work full-time to pay child support and just plain never see the kids, he'd be a bad guy. By going to court to fight for his kids, which will make keeping jobs harder, he's still a bad guy. A lot of people are really lucky to not know what this is like. It's hard enough when you've got the household income to pay the bills. It's worse when you're the only person making the money.

[DGayle]

I don't like either of them, but I thought Jon was ok until he did that season of Couples Therapy on VH1. He was ridiculous and it seemed hypocritical of him to do it, as he spoke about his children and Kate, drawing more attention to them while claiming he didn't want them to have that sort of attention. He seemed to like being in front of the cameras again.

I just don't think he is any better than Kate. I think he is of the same damn attention seeking breed. He seemed to be fine with his kids being on the show before they divorced. While I think stopping the show was for the best, I think he did it out of spite and not actually trying to protect the kids. I think they are both attention whores are both using their children as pawns.

I got the feeling from the early episodes that he didn't really care for the cameras. Kate mugged for them, and Jon was just there. He was paid for that therapy show, and had a lot of child support to pay. It was a job for him, probably a more relaxing job than many. He did what he had to do to support his kids. What Kate is doing is for herself.

[DGayle]

I think both parents are equally atrocious in their own ways. Kate is a Lisa Pennington-level control freak, and John has no boundaries whatsoever. He can't tell others no, is not consistent in his behavior and lifestyle, and is generally immature. Poor Leah is jumping from one frying pan and into another. The only hope any of those kids have is their 18th birthday.

He lacks a spine. I think he's doing the best he can, but the problem is he can't say NO to the woman who bowled him over, which leads to a lot of bad situations. It's too late now. He needed to say no earlier on.

[Palimpsest]

So, you wish you could have read selected entries - i.e., entries Hoffman chose in service to his main thesis that she is a terrible person - from Kate's diary?

Why?

As I point out in the admittedly long post above, Hoffman accuses Kate of lying to authorities in a letter she wrote asking for social assistance in caring for her then 11-month-old sextuplets. Hoffman objected to her description of them as "disabled" when in fact it's highly likely, given they were multiples, that they did at least have developmental delays. "Disability" is not a term that implies permanence. A person - a child, for example - can be temporarily disabled.

His agenda was not noble: Hoffman did this for profit and, I believe, had no other motive at all. He used privileged access to steal copyrighted material from a woman's diary and then he placed that information online for sale.

I think the bolded is the wrong thing to base your argument on, Burris. Basically, as with many premature and multiple births, Medicaid authorized an LPN for the sextuplets. After 11 months, the LPN service was withdrawn as the babies were medically assessed to be in good health and they no longer fit Medicaid criteria. Kate Gosselin appealed the Medicaid decision and lost.

Kate's infamous letter claimed that the children were "in a sense" disabled because they were babies and could not walk, feed or take care of themselves. When she lost the appeal she was expected to rely on family and community resources to take care of the healthy children. At the time, she supposedly had a lot of help - but treated volunteers as well as paid LPNs badly. Allegedly.

None of the children have ever been diagnosed as having developmental delays, AFAIK. They are all in private school. There have been rumors of emotional and behavioral problems, but those came later. See stress of filming, dysfunctional parents, and the acrimonious and very public divorce.

This is one of the more balanced and well researched local articles about the Gosselins. The family made themselves very unpopular even before the TV show and the divorce. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/jon-a ... -gosselin/

I also detest the phenomenon of "Reality" TV and think Hoffman is a sleazy piece of work. I bought the first edition of his book for the contract information, somewhat to my embarrassment. The leaked TV contract information, and how families sign away their rights is shocking, and I don't regret buying the book to get a look at it. The book is both unpleasant and really quite unreadable. Hoffman makes many wild accusations based on very little information. I still think that Kate is an extremely unpleasant woman, and believe she is frequently abusive to those around her. I think it is entirely possible that she lost control with the babies and hit them. Whether this reached CPS levels of abuse, IDK, as spanking is still quite legal in PA.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Those kids need a guardian ad litem assigned to them. I feel for the kids, and don't doubt for a second that Hannah wants away from the show. Those kids are show dogs to Kate. I'm glad Jon's looking out for them. And I don't think it's a case of thinking things will be magically perfect at Jon's place. I think Hannah knows there won't be tv-show-funded trips, and probably a smaller place. So what is there for her there aside from no cameras? I think that's what she is after.

There should be a federal law protecting kids from having to live for the cameras.

So true. There needs to be a Coogan Law pertaining to kids on reality shows. So far, there is very little protection or any concern regarding their long-term well-being. I shudder to think what might become show ponies like the Gosselin kids, the Duggar kids, Honey Boo and countless other kids caught up in their parents' relentless and narcissistic pursuit of cheap and tawdry fame.

[DaffyDill]

Just as an aside, I am really surprised our resident Kate Gosselin leghumper, admirer, defender, or whatever else she could be called, hasn't appeared in this thread.

And I miss Curious, as she has followed the train wreck that is the Gosselins for a while, and always has something interesting to say. Needless to say, she and the leghumper are NOT the same person.

[umsami]

Good for Jon. I hope he wins.

If he doesn't I would fear for the backlash against Hannah.

IMHO, he is definitely the lesser of the two evils. Kate used to whack the kids with a wooden spoon. I would not be surprised to learn she has some sort of personality disorder.

[Stephanie66]

I really don't think Kate will fight it. Hannah will go live with Jon, miss her siblings, and go back to Kate, who will hold it against her for all time.

I do hope that Jon does get the right of first refusal that he is trying to enforce. And that Kate has to leave a contact number. I bet the twins leave in a few years and never look back.

[dianapavelovna]

Burris - thanks for that thoughtful post. I enjoyed hearing your perspective as someone with little prior knowledge or opinion of the family. I want to correct you on one point, however - Jon and Kate were married six years when their first TV special aired (they married in 1999 and were first on Discovery in 2005). Jon & Kate Plus 8 started as a series sometime in 2007.

I also think that Kate may suffer from some kind of mental illness. She was reportedly physically and sexually abused as a kid (see here for a summary of what was reported in Hoffman's book, see also this link, scroll to the last section), which could have resulted in PTSD. And if she suffered abusive discipline as a kid, it's easy to see how difficult it would be for her to appropriately discipline her own kids, especially with so many running around underfoot (the famous "6 2-year-olds and 2 6-year-olds").

Anyway, I don't mean to excuse any of her behavior, which has been despicable in many situations, but I think she's more than a two-dimensional villain. To me she seems quite a complex character, perhaps someone, as a kid growing up under a strict pastor father, who we might've discussed in Quiverfull of Snark. Reality TV and infamy didn't make her the way she is, but they sure didn't help.

In the end, I'm left with nothing but sympathy for the kids. I hope they can reach out to their extended family for support at some point - Kate is estranged from all her family, AFAIK, but Kevin & Jodi seemed to love the kids and were very good with them.

Oh, and I don't envy the judge hearing this case. At all.

[Mabel]

I really hope Jon does get custody of Hannah, because if anything I wouldn't want to have her going back to Kate who will probably be just vile towards her.

[Maggie Mae]

I have not watched a ton of K+8, nor do I have any real interest in them, other than I find it very interesting how different people respond to them. Personally, I couldn't stand Kate from the moment she first opened her mouth on the first special. The episode they filmed in my town had the normal messed up timeline and nonsensical popup crap, which is fairly common in Reality TV. My mom also found her shrill and didn't understand why she couldn't relax even on vacation. She also was so mean to Jon, we couldn't figure out why they were married.

Then the divorce happened and my coworker was going on about how horrible Jon was. I was SO surprised. Because it had seemed like he was being abused by a narcissist for so long.

[Sisterturtle]

I watched the show for a very long time and between the two of them, they barely made for a complete, rational person. It hurt me to think of how those kids must feel under either of their care.

[clueliss]

I have more or less come to the conclusion regarding Jon requesting custody of one child (only) that he is really not wanting custody. He's really trying to stop filming of Kate + 8. Not that he's going to be successful.

[SassyPants]

A shear number of children does not equal a disability.

Kate needed a mother's helper for a plethora of well children, not a state paid for and supplied nurse.

Jon and Kate were/are both losers, but at least when he was still in the home, Jon acted like he enjoyed the children.

Kate left those little ones in their cribs for hours on end. Horrible excuse for a mother.

[Burris]

I think the bolded is the wrong thing to base your argument on, Burris. Basically, as with many premature and multiple births, Medicaid authorized an LPN for the sextuplets. After 11 months, the LPN service was withdrawn as the babies were medically assessed to be in good health and they no longer fit Medicaid criteria. Kate Gosselin appealed the Medicaid decision and lost.

Kate's infamous letter claimed that the children were "in a sense" disabled because they were babies and could not walk, feed or take care of themselves. When she lost the appeal she was expected to rely on family and community resources to take care of the healthy children. At the time, she supposedly had a lot of help - but treated volunteers as well as paid LPNs badly. Allegedly.

None of the children have ever been diagnosed as having developmental delays, AFAIK. They are all in private school. There have been rumors of emotional and behavioral problems, but those came later. See stress of filming, dysfunctional parents, and the acrimonious and very public divorce.

This is one of the more balanced and well researched local articles about the Gosselins. The family made themselves very unpopular even before the TV show and the divorce. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/jon-a ... -gosselin/

I also detest the phenomenon of "Reality" TV and think Hoffman is a sleazy piece of work. I bought the first edition of his book for the contract information, somewhat to my embarrassment. The leaked TV contract information, and how families sign away their rights is shocking, and I don't regret buying the book to get a look at it. The book is both unpleasant and really quite unreadable. Hoffman makes many wild accusations based on very little information. I still think that Kate is an extremely unpleasant woman, and believe she is frequently abusive to those around her. I think it is entirely possible that she lost control with the babies and hit them. Whether this reached CPS levels of abuse, IDK, as spanking is still quite legal in PA.

I see. I was wrong.

Since KG appealed, however, it seems she did not accept the judgment her kids were advancing normally. (I still don't think Hoffman's assertion is strong - assuming that letter is all the evidence on which it's based - that KG was deliberately attempting to get resources through a false claim of disability in her children. There's room for her honest belief that the kids needed this extra care.)