World's oldest new mom dies, leaves twin toddlers

[Lone_Star_Dem]

MADRID — A Spanish woman believed to have become the world's oldest new mother when she gave birth at 66 has died at 69, leaving behind twin toddlers, newspapers reported Tuesday.

Maria del Carmen Bousada, who reportedly died Saturday, gave birth in December 2006 as a single mother after getting in vitro fertilization treatment at a clinic in Los Angeles.

The births ignited a firestorm of debate over how old is too old for a new mother, and how much responsibility fertility clinics have over who gets treatments.

Bousada told an interviewer she lied to the fertility clinic about her age, and maintained that because her mother had lived to be 101, she had a good chance of living long enough to raise a child.

Bousada's death was reported by the newspaper El Mundo and Diario de Cadiz. Cadiz is the southern province where Bousada lived her whole life.

Diario de Cadiz quoted her brother, Ricardo Bousada, as confirming her death but refusing to disclose the cause. The newspaper said she had been diagnosed with a tumor shortly after giving birth.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6529981.html

[xchrom]

1. Peace be with her family and friends --

such is life though -- the clock's ticking on everyone.

[babylonsister]

2. I remember her. I hope there is someone to raise those babies

who wants them as much as she did.

[predfan]

3. Tragic.

[Bragi]

4. She was a selfish, irresponsible person

I hope her kids are rescued by someone, and that she becomes the poster girl for idiots who want to become parents way past when they should do so.

- B

[WillParkinson]

5. And who decides that age?

Just out of curiosity.

I mean should we tell people they can't have kids at all because tomorrow they might die in an accident?

While I will not deny that she was up there in years, she wanted children. I cannot blame her for what she did. I may not agree with it, but I don't have to.

[Bragi]

12. Individuals should make that decision

And if a geriatric woman in their mid-sixties perversely decides she absolutely must have children, then a) a rescue group for the child should be established to await the inevitable death of the geriatric parent, and b) the geriatric parent should be decried as an irresponsible and selfish cretin who is more concerned about stroking their own unfulfilled ambitions than they are about any children they may bring into the world.

[myrna minx]

25. So, do you think there should be a moratorium on men who sire children

late in life as well? Monty Python's Terry Jones, at the age of 67, is expecting to be a new father this summer. Are men like him "irresponsible and selfish cretin who is more concerned about stroking their own unfulfilled ambitions than they are about any children they may bring into the world." or is it just women you find to be "perverse".

[Bragi]

27. I would apply the same standard to irresponsible men /nt

[Arugula Latte]

56. One issue, though, is that in cases like Jones', there is a younger partner in the mix.

True, there's no guarantee that the younger parent won't die early, but it's not as likely as a single mother who gives birth in her 60s dying and leaving her kids without any parents at all. When there are two parents involved at least there is another parent left after a death, unless it's a car accident or something.

[Alcibiades]

76. It's not the same, biologically

Though I very much doubt a 67 year old man has the energy to keep up with a toddler, the biological reasons against a woman becoming a mother at that age are far more compelling than those for a man.

That being said, I don't want the government meddling in who or who does not become a parent: this is the flip side of being pro-choice.

[JeanGrey]

94. LOL. What a good smack down!

[Warpy]

28. Does that apply to old goats with trophy wives?

[lukasahero]

34. "geriatric" "in their mid-sixties"?

:wow:

[DollyM]

74. For pregnancy, anyone over 30 is considered geriatric

Seriously, I was 30 when I had our first (well, only) child and I was listed on my medical records as "elderly gravida" which means a first baby born past the age of 30.

[Karenina]

79. "Materna Gravida" was listed on mine.

[Iggo]

38. Mid 60's is 'geriatric' now?

That means at 48 I'm probably just about a senior citizen.

Howcome I'm paying full price on the crosstown bus?

Dammit!

[csziggy]

84. In two years you can join AARP!

They alloy entry at age 50. Not quite the same thing, but once you have that card, you sure feel older.

[Iggo]

86. Oh, I'm joining right up at 50.

Think of the coupons!

[csziggy]

87. You can save a bunch on insurance, too

We already had a nice deal for Hartford Auto from our bank, but changing over to AARP's deal with Hartford saved us nearly $200 per vehicle per year. Unfortunately, AARP's homeowner's insurance company has pulled out of Florida, so I can't get a deal for that one.

[JitterbugPerfume]

53. geriatric?

I beg your pardon , but I am not geriatric

[SheilaT]

13. No matter how old you are when you have kids,

everyone is at risk of having some kind of accident and leaving the children without a parent. But there is an enormous difference between having kids any time before age forty or so, and having them after age 65. At that age you're at serious risk of not living to see them past the teen years. And that's without even raising the question of whether you have the stamina to raise them at that age.

I'm not one of those who thinks if you don't have your kids before age twenty-five you're too old. I had my kids when I was thirty-four and then thirty-eight for the second one. The best thing about being a little older was that I'd had a life of my own before I had kids. The second best thing was that I had perspective about everything. Occasionally I'm asked by someone who had her kids before she was twenty if I wasn't too old when I had mine. Nope. Not in my mid and late thirties. But late sixties? I'm sixty now, and I agree that it was irresponsible at best for this woman to have those kids so late in life. And it was equally irresponsible for the clinic and doctors who enabled her not to check things out a little more closely.

[Jennicut]

31. Sixties is pushing it, I would say. I had my kids at twenty-eight and twenty-nine.

Not too young, not too old.
I have stamina but I also had some time to myself for awhile.
I think up to mid forties is okay but after that it gets irresponsible to the kids.

[Critters2]

64. How fortunate for you. Did you just go down to the spouse store

and pick some lucky soul to have kids with? Cuz not everyone gets to pick the circumstances under which they have kids. Or didn't you know that?

I married late (wtf was I thinking?!), and then was left with fertility problems caused by asymptomatic endometriosis. Then divorce. I would love to have been a mother, and still think about adopting, in my early 50's. I would, if I had a spouse.

How happy for you that everything worked out just right for you. Someday, you're going to have some problem. I hope others are more compassionate than you are.

[Pool Hall Ace]

65. I see Jennicut as just being pragmatic.

The marriage-and-kids thing seems to have worked out for Jennicut, but how do you know she doesn't have problems in other aspects of her life?

I consider myself a compassionate person, but I happen to believe it's selfish for a woman to go and defy nature in order to become pregnant. :shrug:

[Critters2]

82. You say "pragmatic". I say "lucky".

How nice to see those who have good luck shitting on those who don't. Damned progressive of you.

[Jennicut]

81. Maybe it is different for me because I DO have health problems

I actually met my husband at college and yes we were fairly young when we met (21) and I guess young when we married (25). Sometimes I wish I did wait and date other people as my husband was my first boyfriend and I was his first girlfriend. We have had our own issues before we had kids but I suppose it was immaturity and realizing the grass is not always greener on the other side for us.
When I did get pregnant after being married a few years, things kind of went wrong with the baby's birth and she came out really big and a bit sick. I was not doing too well either. Turns out I was probably prediabetic but my doctor just thought she was a really big baby and was a bit shocked from getting stuck for a little while. I got pregnant not too soon after and this time I was misdiagnosed with gestation diabetes which goes away after the baby is born. This time the doctors induced me early. Good thing as it turns out I was a full blow diabetic, diagnosed 3 months later. I guess for me, health is such an issue. I was lucky I decided to have the kids before the diabetes got worse. I can control it but sometimes I just have really bad days. I wonder what it would be like to be over 45 and not in my early 30's on those low or high blood sugar days.

I am sorry but I was probably too influenced when thinking about age ranges by my own circumstances and you are correct, not everyone meets and marries someone by 25 and not everyone has health issues like I do.

[LanternWaste]

63. Self-delete

Self-delete

[SteelPenguin]

19. Also would it apply to men too?

I find it interesting the controversy when an older woman had a child, and how it's far more nasty towards the woman, than it is to men who father children at later years.

David Letterman fathered a child at 56. Mick Jagger at 57. Michael Douglas at 58. Paul McCartney at 61. Warren Beatty at 63. Woody Allen at 64. Clint Eastwood at 65. Larry King at 66.

Why the double standard? Some might argue that this woman was single, but we don't know what her support system is. She could have a tremendous one for all we know.

If we limited women to a certain age of having kids, would we do it with men as well?

[Bragi]

24. Yes, I would apply the same standard to men /nt

[enlightenment]

26. Mother Nature did.

Science has bent the rules - so women who are past the natural breeding age can still reproduce.

But just because you CAN doesn't mean you should - and while I sympathize with the desire to have a child, when rationality takes a back seat to desire it becomes a dangerous game.

[Xithras]

40. True, but evolution may have been responding to pressures that no longer exist.

Remember, there are no accidents in human design. Every facet of our biology is the result of evolutionary pressure and has a scientific reason for being designed the way it is.

Menopause was an evolutionary reaction to a confluence of pressures, mostly having to do with the death of children following the death of their mother (there was no welfare 100,000 years ago). If a prehistoric woman had six kids and died with the seventh, there was a very strong chance that all seven of her offspring would die as a result. In the world of evolution, that's a FAIL of epic proportions.

As women reach a certain age, their odds of dying in childbirth increase dramatically, and the odds of her living long enough to raise the child plummet alongside it. That means a termination of her offspring and genetic line. Natural selection, over time, would have favored younger women who were capable of bearing a large number of children in a fairly short time, but who ceased reproduction early enough to increase their chances of successfully raising their children to adulthood. The onset of menopause at such a relatively early age (when compared to the lifespan of other mammals) is a safety mechanism designed to protect existing offspring.

That was a solid evolutionary basis 150,000 years ago, but it's not so relevant today. These kids will grieve the loss of their mother, but there's little chance of them starving to death.

By the way, this same survival pressure has been cited as a strong contender for the male biological imperative to seek younger women over middle aged women. A child sired with a younger woman had a greater likelihood of surviving until adulthood than a child sired with an older woman.

Evolution: cruel, but eternally practical.

[enlightenment]

42. Did prehistoric women live long enough to reach menopause?

Really?

Is there proof that menopause was accelerated in the past - that it occurred earlier in a woman's life than it does now? Because it seems to me that women (and men) just weren't living long enough to make menopause an issue.

Can you give me some links (article citations would do, they don't have to be on-line links) to studies that support your assertions, please?

I'm not trying to be snarky - I am not entirely certain that I'm buying the argument, however, and would like to see some back-up. I'm an historian, not an anthropologist or evolutionary biologist, so this isn't my field.

Thanks.

[Xithras]

70. Yes, even neolithic people could live into their 60's or 70's.

There's a very common misconception that most ancient people lived only until their 20's or 30's, based on the fact that the average life expectancy of a neolithic newborn was only about 25. This is a great example of why averages can mislead people though. The infant and child mortality rate of our ancient ancestors was often at or above 50%! At some points in history, it could be substantially higher...a woman having five children may only see one or two grow to adulthood.

Once those children REACHED adulthood, however, the odds of living to a lifespan comparable to those we see today improved dramatically. I read a paleo article a few years ago that pegged the average lifespan of humans 10,000 years ago at about 55 if you factored out the prepubescent deaths (for all practical purposes, humans were "adults" once they hit puberty up until relatively recent times). While it would have been very rare for someone to live until 90, it probably wasn't uncommon for adults to live to 60 or 70 barring injury.

The belief that cavemen were dead of old age by 35 is sort of a scientific urban legend.

[enlightenment]

85. Again, could I ask for some relevant academic studies?

Citations will do - I don't need internet links to the articles or texts.

I appreciate that you may be extremely well-studied in this area, but I would prefer to see the studies that you are citing.

Thank you.

[Xithras]

88. Online cites for this stuff are hard to find, but here's a couple...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X2B-48D442X-2&_user=1510497&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=958710909&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000053379&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1510497&md5=a064ec4f1afd07b0e491b6df3a954917

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/77003160/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/full/392759a0.html

All three of these are actual scientific papers with data supporting my original point (the Nature article is the one I originally read and is where I obtained this info). As with all published scientific papers, you'll need to pay to read anything beyond the abstracts.

And here's another article I found while looking up cites. It mentions the same theory I cited, but also goes into another possible evolutionary reason for menopause...that it was genetically beneficial for human females to lose their fertility when their daughters reached childbearing age. As more of a mass market article, it's light on citations.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1593/menopause-blame-it-evolution

[enlightenment]

92. Thanks.

I specifically wasn't asking for online citation - I am an academic and have access to most scholarly journals. I'll use what you've found to find the relevant sources. Thanks again.

[Alcibiades]

77. Childrearing also may be a reason why women live longer

An older woman is more useful than an older man, because she is more likely to care for her grandchildren, thus freeing her mother to do things such as hunt and forage.

I do think, though, that the pressures you describe are not entirely gone. The outcomes for kids who lose their parents are not as good.

[alarimer]

48. It's a double standard for women.

Tony Randall had kids when he was in his 70s I think and died when they were still small (not that many years ago if I recall). So when a woman does it, she's selfish but when Tony Randall did it it was okay?

I recognize that there are physical limitations on the age of a woman having children. I don't really know the cause of this woman's death but anyone can die at any time. How does that make her any more selfish than anyone who has kids, knowing they can die at any time?

[Arugula Latte]

58. The difference is there was another, younger parent still around.

This woman had no partner, so her kids are orphaned.

[JitterbugPerfume]

51. menopause?

is menopause natures way of saying you are to old to be having kids?

And don't birth defects increase with the age of the mother, be it to old or to young?

[Hawkowl]

91. Mother Nature decides

You disregard her at your peril.

[hlthe2b]

8. I can recall several accounts of very young women with cancer

who made the choice to go ahead and have children and there are men who provide for their sperm to be used, even after death....

This woman's story bothers me as well, but I don't think that fine a point can be drawn.

[Bragi]

14. Ethically, this isn't that difficult, really

A young woman with cancer can obviously choose to have a child.

If she has a partner, or others who agree to care for the child if/when she dies, then I see nothing at all irresponsible about this.

If she doesn't set up support for her child in the event of her death, then I think she is irresponsible and selfish.

[hlthe2b]

15. Yet, are the circumstances really so different for this older

woman if she also has set up a network of support for the child, should something happen to her? I note you automatically concluded the older woman to be irresponsible and selfish, yet the circumstances could be quite similar to the younger woman for whom you are willing to afford benefit of the doubt. Just rhetorical questions, mind you... I have concerns about both situations.

[MercutioATC]

9. I won't go that far, but I'll allow that it might not have been the most responsible decision.

Hell, I'm 41 and I consider myself too old to have more children.

[peace13]

10. That is awful!

Your comments are very disturbing.

[get the red out]

11. Grandparents raise children

There are many grandparents with custody of their grandchildren these days. A friend of my husband's is raising his granddaughter because her mother is in prison as a result of her drug addiction. Thankfully he is a great parent and loves this young girl very much, despite getting on in age.

I don't know the answer to "what is too old". I do know that a loved and wanted child is much better off than one who is not.

One thing I wish would be looked into is whether any hormone treatments that might be used in extreme fertility treatments might put someone at risk for cancer, in light of the studies that have shown other hormone treatments can carry this risk.

[denem]

66. At 60 you are unlikely to have grandparents who can raise 3 year olds

QED.

[get the red out]

78. I would imagine a court would still grant them custody

[laureloak]

16. You got that right! n/t

[ejpoeta]

17. that's real nice. who are you to decide when is too old!! you don't know what the situation was

and it is not for any of us to make these kind of comments about anyone. It doesn't matter how old or young you are, there is a risk you will die and leave your kids without a parent. Was my mom irresponsible for carrying my sister to term even after she was told that she risked illness and death?? because she was told the risks. but she had barbi anyway. And she got sick and left six kids behind when she died. so she must be irresponsible too. No one knows when their time will come. No one knows what the future holds. Would I have a kid at that age??? I don't think so. But I don't pretend to be the moral police or anything else for others.

[Romulox]

36. Mother Nature (and the Grim Reaper!) made that decision.

:hi:

[Pool Hall Ace]

41. Bragi is only offering an opinion, not passing down an edict.

I happen to agree with Bragi. You don't. No biggie.

I also happen to be opposed to women or couples who go out of their way to create a megabrood, suddently decide that their faith prevents selective reduction, then shoot for a TV show on TLC. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

[seabeyond]

18. and equally all men of that age that have children are selfish and irresponsible people

just to keep things balanced

[Romulox]

37. Agreed. nt

[Bucky]

23. Wow, what a ghoul you are

[elehhhhna]

32. Like every wealthy man you ever heard of?

I'm thinking Michael Douglas, Larry King, etc. Geezers with their "Second" families (or third, fourth, etc.) -- You know, the ones who say "I finally have the time ($$$) to ENJOY my children. What 's the diff?

[xultar]

45. The same thing could have happened to a 20 year old. She didn't die of old age.

[VenusRising]

52. Well, then isn't it lucky she died?!

No more selfishness and irresponsibility coming from her!

:eyes:

[peace13]

6. So sad. Whenever a mother of young children dies it is a tragedy.

It can happen to any of us. I hope she had a good support system set up. Peace to her family.

[Mari333]

7. Thats why one becomes a grandmother

its most satisfying to be with a little one who is your grandchild , you spoil them, play with them, cuddle them,and send them home for mom and dad to do the hard work. I dont know what her motivations were for wanting to give birth at her age, so I wont judge her. But for me, the thought of having a baby at the age of 58, which I am now, makes me get the vapours. I will stick to my cats, my dog and my grandchild.
I think because you KNOW that time is limited with a grandchild, you make every second last.

[LisaL]

20. You can't become a grandmother unless you become a mother

first. Hello?
She lived with her mother until the mother died in 2005. Obviously she didn't have kids so becoming a grandmother wasn't an option.

[Mari333]

22. UM, I know that honey

I was just describing the pleasure of playing with a small child.
if this woman already had children before this, she may have been a grandmother.
if she had children at age 66, her chances of being a grandmother are pretty much shot unless she lives to be 100.

one can derive the pleasure of having small children around them also by being a loving auntie, or a foster mom, or work with kids in other ways. a uterus is not always needed to fulfill one's mothering instincts.

[Blue_Tires]

21. many people predicted this would happen

and that fertility clinic is just as irresponsible as the one who gave 8 more to the 'octomom'

[xultar]

46. But the same thing could have happened to a younger woman. She wasn't old.

[LeftyMom]

57. Yes she was. Average life expectancy for a woman is 74. She was 69.

Being 93% of the average life expectancy is pretty much the very definition of old.

It's not offensive to say that a person is old when they are. It's no more of an attack or an offense than saying that a young person is young. Almost everybody gets old. It certainly beats the alternative.

edited to fix numbers

[Ms. Toad]

72. Now you're making me feel old

at 72% of the average life expectancy - that and starting to feel creaky when I get up from sitting cross legged on the floor the last month or so.

[kestrel91316]

29. Definitely a poster child for self-indulgent, irresponsible behavior.

I guess the crazies aren't ALL here in Lost Angeles.....

[xultar]

47. How is that? She didn't die of old age. Cancer can strike a child.

[Ms. Toad]

73. The risks are vastly different

Cancer can strike children, but the likelihood of it happening is also linked to age.

The cancer risk for a child through age 15 in the UK (the quickest place I could locate statistics) is 1/500. For a woman 35-44 the risk is 1/200. For a woman who is 66, however, the risk is 1/50.

Death from old age pretty much needs to include all of those diseases that are more prevalent in old age to have any meaning for purposes of family planning.

[kestrel91316]

89. Cancer rates increase with age. Shame on her. She had the baby to

satisfy herself without considering whether or not she was likely to be able to live to raise it.

SELFISH.

[LeftinOH]

30. Was Ms Bousada's IVF doctor was the same as Octo-Mom's..???

[Blue Diadem]

33. She lied to the clinic. Said she was 55 which is their cut off age.

I think the clinic/Dr. needs to verify instead of taking someone's word for it.

[Romulox]

35. What a disgusting, selfish woman. nt

[xultar]

44. Giving birth and then getting a tumor could happen to a 20 year old.

[VenusRising]

50. Well, lucky for everyone she died, huh?

:eyes:

[dugaresa]

39. I can't help but wonder if the treatments they gave her to have this children

were the reason she died?

By 60 years of age your body has gone through menopause and I am wondering if they gave her some hormones that may have triggered a cancer. She carried the pregnancy but perhaps the unnatural way it was done was what may have triggered the cancer.

I feel bad for the children.

Raised by much older parents myself and one did not live to see me grow up. That was tough.

[LeftishBrit]

67. The same thing occurred to me

After all, it's known that hormone replacement therapy can increase the risks of some forms of cancer - so the hormones given to enable pregnancy, plus the pregnancy itself, could well have been a risk factor here.

In any case, it's terribly sad.

[Pharlo]

43. What strikes me as strange about this story is that

she didn't figure out she wanted children enough to have them until she was 66.

[wickerwoman]

75. Oh please...

IVF can cost easily $50,000-60,000 and she was apparently unemployed and taking care of her mother for years. I doubt she woke up one day at 66 after years of sitting on the fence and decided to suddenly have children. She probably had to save up literally for decades to afford the treatment.

Believe it or not, we don't all live in a world where as soon as you want something it magically appears for you.

[Pharlo]

80. My point exactly, you don't wake up at 63

and decide you want children. Had she tried earlier, she may not have needed IVF. Therefore, why wait until 63?

[LisaL]

96. She was living with her mother and caring for her.

She got IVF after the mother died.

[Pharlo]

97. There are single women all over the world who look after an

elderly parent while caring for children. It's not easy, but if you really want children, it is doable. The whole waiting until 63 to decide to have children.....nope. Sorry, makes no sense.

Sounds more like a geriatric OctoMom than anything else.

[JitterbugPerfume]

49. having a child in your 60s is just insane

[mnhtnbb]

54. I hope she has family willing to raise those kids. Not the best decision

IMO for her to become a single parent at her age. If she had a younger partner, I'm not so sure
I'd be so judgmental. You have to think of the kids and continuity of their care.

[The2ndWheel]

55. You can't give people the ability to do something

and then expect that someone somewhere won't take you up on the offer.

[JVS]

59. What a fucking shocker!

[xultar]

62. She died of cancer and not old age. Big difference.

[Eric J in MN]

69. There is always a more specific reason than old age...

...when an old person dies. Cancer and heart attack being common reasons.

[cherish44]

60. How sad

Hopefully the kids will raised in a loving environment. She's no more selfish than men having kids in their 50s and beyond. Look at Tony Randall who had his first kid at 75 with his 25 year old second wife (ICK!). I didn't hear anyone criticizing him. In fact it was all praise and "good for him" when he fathered kids with one foot in the grave.

[Gwendolyn]

61. Everything's a trade-off.

A hundred years ago, it wouldn't have been possible for this woman to bear children. However, most young women faced the prospect of dying in childbirth, or the possibility of having to bear numerous children, many of whom died early. The book "The Way We Never Were" was a real eye-opener. In the days of yore, so many young women died in childbirth that many offspring were actually raised by the extended family or ended up being the step-child of a new union when the widower remarried. Sometimes a man went through numerous marriages in a lifetime for that very reason. (That's why there are so many evil step-mother fairy tales.) Compare that number with the few insane women today who actually want to be pregnant at 60, and it's really not an issue.

[pipi_k]

68. Another one who thinks she was selfish

and the fact that she didn't die of old age isn't a very good argument, IMO.

One thing that people might want to consider before they have children is the likelihood that they'll live long enough to raise the kid at least to the age of 18 or so.

Yeah, people can die of horrible diseases when they're young.

But the chances are much less.

They increase as people age.


The death of a parent is always very painful. I was 50 when my dad died. My kids were 30, and 32, when their dad died. I know people who were even younger. The younger one is, the more of an impact the loss of a parent has on one's life.

Did that woman even stop to consider what the rest of those kids' lives would be like without a mother on the increasingly likely chance that she would die? Who knows. I would guess that she probably didn't.

Selfish.

[TankLV]

71. "For the last time! If you kids don't BEHAVE right now, you're gonna be the DEATH of me!"...

[MrSlayer]

83. That is so wrong.

And that's why it's so funny.

:rofl:

[LWolf]

90. Current life expectancy, according to the CDC, is 77.7 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

I don't understand the urge to bear babies that probability suggests you won't live long enough to raise.

That is, imo, the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

I hope the twins find stable replacement/s; the mother referred to a "godfather."

Her brother seems unconcerned and uninvolved with their care; he's selling their story.

[mp9200]

93. Whoa

Never thought someone so old could have a child.

[Vickers]

95. "she lied to the fertility clinic about her age"

She started the whole thing off on the wrong foot.