I don't think this at all. Greedy is cryptic when it suits her, but I took it as H giving her the injection. Probably a fertility injection ready for the turkey basting.So from her latest post it seems H is the biological mother and it's so obvious she reads here. Imagine trying to prove a point to people you've never met whilst acting like you don't give a shit lol
We had to fight this rule when we had fertility investigations and then needed treatment, thankfully we didn't get to IVF. They had it recorded that an ex-girlfriend of my husband had a pregnancy that had resulted in a live birth, she'd had a termination! It was very stressful!I didn’t mean great for her. I think the rule is so unfair in England you aren’t entitled to any funding if your partner already has a child from a previous relationship even if they’re estranged.
Doubt it’s relevant to her because she clearly paid privately and can afford to either way.
there definitely should be better measures in place to stop parents exploiting their kids online!
Best selling author rememberI’ve never seen the word “because” used so many times in one paragraph before.
also that poor baby forced to lie near her 1 week old leaking postpartum vag
That's awful. What an odd rule - just makes no sense. So you could marry someone in your late 20s who had a lot of partners in the past, perhaps got someone pregnant accidentally who decided to keep the kid, either of you have no contact with said kid and potentially that kid doesn't even know who their father is and you're then not entitled to IVF? That's absolutely mad.We had to fight this rule when we had fertility investigations and then needed treatment, thankfully we didn't get to IVF. They had it recorded that an ex-girlfriend of my husband had a pregnancy that had resulted in a live birth, she'd had a termination! It was very stressful!
SameUsed to love bathing mine in front of the fire in the lounge when they were newborns, didn’t have central heating so it was the warmest place to do it. Happy times
You’d have to be on a birth certificate or know about the biological child I’d assume. Anyone who has walked away from their own child (regardless of a one night stand/failed relationship etc) shouldn’t get IVF to have another if they’re already an absent parent, it’s really a shame they’re ‘allowed’ to pro create again in the first place. If they’re in a child’s life however then I think that’s a really harsh ruleThat's awful. What an odd rule - just makes no sense. So you could marry someone in your late 20s who had a lot of partners in the past, perhaps got someone pregnant accidentally who decided to keep the kid, either of you have no contact with said kid and potentially that kid doesn't even know who their father is and you're then not entitled to IVF? That's absolutely mad.
I suppose I'm thinking of situations like my cousin, he had a brief relationship with someone about 17 years ago and then about two months after they split because he wasn't happy/she was a bit psycho and controlled a lot of what he did, she called him and told him she was pregnant. He wanted to be fully involved in the relationship with his child but she wouldn't let him until the child was 6 or so (for no reason from what I've heard other than she liked the control aspect of it - but admittedly that is only coming from family so two sides to every story). Since the child became a teen they wanted him to be more involved and now they see each other a few times a month. There's a lot of gray in between loving family and estranged.You’d have to be on a birth certificate or know about the biological child I’d assume. Anyone who has walked away from their own child (regardless of a one night stand/failed relationship etc) shouldn’t get IVF to have another if they’re already an absent parent, it’s really a shame they’re ‘allowed’ to pro create again in the first place. If they’re in a child’s life however then I think that’s a really harsh rule
It’s the excessive saliva for me, slurping away - knocks me sickHer most recent stories..why is she speaking with such an impediment? I'm sure it's worse than ever before. She's also talking like she's off her head ..however thank goodness the baby now has clothes on ! (And Greedy for that matter!)
Naked again in the latest FB postHer most recent stories..why is she speaking with such an impediment? I'm sure it's worse than ever before. She's also talking like she's off her head ..however thank goodness the baby now has clothes on ! (And Greedy for that matter!)
Convinced she's read something about skin to skin (why they're constantly naked) but I would be a bit worried about doing that as babies can suffocate really easily in slings if you're not on the ball and risk of over heating her (I have used slings, still using one now, always super nervous when they're small).Why the hell has she got the sling on inside her clothes?? Nobody does that surely?
I'd definitely say that her older son has autism, hinch definitely isn't autistic she's just jumped on that because of her son. My 11 old is autistic and i seen some of the traits in ronnie my son has/had when he was alot younger like ronnie.Who wants to take bets that this little girl will have autism when she 2/ 3 years old etc just like Mrs hinch & PTWM so that can carry on with contents on Instagram!! Sorry that it's an awful thing to say but can picture it now!! I don't think ptwm or Mrs hinch son got autism and I work with children who do.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?