Spotlight on sisters Samantha, Savannah

It is safe to say the odds are not in favor of the following scenario playing out: Two sisters giving birth at the same hospital - 20 minutes apart. Yet, that is what happened Thursday at Fisher-Titus Medical Center to Shiloh siblings Samantha and Savannah Mullins.
Aaron Krause
Jul 25, 2010

 

It is safe to say the odds are not in favor of the following scenario playing out: Two sisters giving birth at the same hospital — 20 minutes apart.

Yet, that is what happened Thursday at Fisher-Titus Medical Center to Shiloh siblings Samantha and Savannah Mullins.

Samantha, 21, gave birth to Kieran Barnett at 1:42 p.m. Thursday, with Kieran weighing 8 pounds 11 ounces, and 201⁄2 inches in length. Samantha was eight days overdue.

Savannah, 19, gave birth to Kyah Chandler, at 2:02 p.m. Thursday, six days early. Kyah weighed 7pounds, 10 ounces and 21 inches long.

It is the first child for both women.

Samantha said she is happy the scenario worked out as it did, as is Gerald Chandler, proud father of Kyah.

“It was awesome,” he said. “You can’t really explain it.”

Chandler, Savannah’s fiancé, has a 21⁄2-year-old daughter, Emma, from a previous relationship.

Kieran is the first child for both Samantha and her boyfriend, Randy Barnett.        

The two siblings found out they were pregnant within a week of each other, and went to the hospital about the same time.

Savannah went to Fisher-Titus at 5:30 a.m. Thursday, after having contractions throughout the night. In fact, Savannah said her sister was with her at home, counting the contractions before Savannah went to the hospital.

Samantha began having contractions when Savannah went to the hospital, and she followed her sister to Fisher-Titus Medical Center about four hours later.

Both women said their deliveries went smoothly and they gave birth to healthy babies.

Norwalk Dr. James Kasten delivered both babies, while the same physician, Dr. Stephen Clingman, will care for the newborns. 

“They’re beautiful,” Samantha said.

Both sisters said they’re glad they’re new mothers at the same time.

“Luckily, we don’t have to do it alone,” Samantha said.

Comments

Just The Facts ...

It's so funny when you read comments that try to rationalize something wrong. Keep it up guys you are doing a great job. If being married or having the father's name on the birth is not a big deal, then why do it? I don't really care who does it (FYI People) it's wrong. Bottom line just don't have children out of wedlock especially when you can not take care of them.

Cm (Anonymous)

Let me tell you all something. When I was 17, I had gotten pregnant out of wedlock.. and my parents were furious!! I ended up marrying the guy and we spent 7 yrs of our lives together.. being unhappy.. and NOT in love. I love my child... but let me tell you what..that 7 yrs was a complete waste of my life. For you to say that these girls are so incredibly horrible.. you are the ones who are incredibly horrible, and may god save your soul for judging someone based on their actions (as the lord says.. let he without sin, be the first to cast the first stone) . As for myself.. I am a happy single mother who has a very good job and I am raising my child the best I can.. and I can do it without a man, and without government help. (and if you read the story.. the one girl has a fiance, and the other has a boyfriend)so please... get over yourselves.

Who are we to j...

I don't think any of us can judge, we do not know their individual story and honestly it is none of our business. I believe a woman should be married before having children, but mistakes happen, (is it just a coincedence that it was the same case for both girls, I don't know) as long as these babies are given the love, attention and necessities that they need I am in support of these girls. I hope the fathers are there whether the parents end up getting married or not.

2 much (Anonymous)

In my opinion, if you cannot raise and care for a child on your own, without outside financial help, then you are irresponsible to risk becoming pregnant, married or not. The parent suffers, society suffers, and mostly, the child suffers. And so it continues, from one generation to the next. Just so some guy can have a few seconds of pleasure.

Annie (Anonymous)

What an awful phrase; "illegitmate children". As if they have done some wrong. I'm so glad I don't live in Norwalk anymore; where the iron hand of senility rules, and folks make such striking assumptions of six people they have never met. Many of you would be the first to shy away from helping innocent children because of the circumstances of their birth--you should be ashamed of yourselves. There are many unmarried couples who are quite responsible--and there are many married couples who are quite irresponsible. A contract does not automatically make you "better" or "more able to care for your children".

~congrats 2 You...

C.O.N.G.R.A.T.S. TO YOU BOTH... I have a question for all of the "need to get up to date with todays time" where in this article does it say anything about Welfare or WIC? And who said that anyone has to be married to have children.. the waltons or little house on the praire?? well our lives are in color now and options, not black and white rabbit ears style. So your assuming?? And since your from the "old school" you should know what people say when you assume right?!!! How could some of you rain on there day? Birth is beautiful and your putting a gloomy cloud over it. It makes me wonder how pathetic some of your lives are that you have to sit behind a keyboard to rant and rave about someone that you dont even know.. it truly is sorry. Alot of you have strong opinions on subject on here but why waste it on a little website like this.. take it to congress if you feel so many are people are using your tax dollars incorrectly...Get a hobby like playing in traffic instead of bashing someones moment that is beautiful.

what (Anonymous)

they're both sluts.period

Reader (Anonymous)

They're not "sluts." We don't know them, and judging them with such labels isn't helpful. But while we don't know them, we know a lot about people like them (unwed mothers). They are six times as likely to live below the poverty line as they would had they married their babies' fathers. If they decide to marry to provide a second parent to help raise their children, being unwed mothers already means that they will marry men who are considerably older and less educated than their counterparts of the same age who don't have kids. Their kids have significantly increased risks of psychiatric disease, suicide or suicide attempt, injury, and addiction compared with those in two-parent households. Their children are statistically less likely to have stable living arrangements — or lives. As young adults, these kids are less likely to achieve academically and more likely to be unemployed. They're also a better bet to have children outside of marriage.
All of these are verifiable findings of studies conducted by the government, by academia, by foreign and domestic scientists. You see, we don't know much about Samantha and Savannah (although we do know that the baby father of one of them has already fathered another one in a prior "relationship," another unwed mother raising the child alone). But we know a lot about people in their position. Nothing about the birth of a child to an unwed mother should be a cause of celebration to the taxpayers or to those who care about this country's future. The young women needn't be called names or ridiculed for their poor choices ... but the Reflector showed poor judgment in publicizing it so non-critically on Page 1.

well (Anonymous)

it would also be helpful if people would think with their heads and not their genitalia. What in the hell is wrong with you, there is free birth control nowadays. And shame on the nr for making this a front page story. It's tacky.

sue (Anonymous)

so then they're just welfare whores. And establish true paternity,pronto.

oh my God (Anon...

I must have missed the part of the story that these girls were on public assistance and the boyfriends were unemployeed bums and the beautiful babies were "bastards"!! How dare you sit in judgement of these women and their children when you know nothing of them except they had babies 20 minutes apart and are sister! Get a life and learn to have a little respect for other people's feelings! Twenty years from know when these babies are adults and happen to read any of this how do you think they will feel?

2 much (Anonymous)

I would like to see the Reflector do a follow up article in 20 years on these two babies to see what becomes of them.

Think about it ...

After doing a little research on the Internet I found it will take $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 to raise a new born to the age of 18. Even with a "Good" job they would have to get some sort of public assistance so lets be real "We The People" will foot some of the bill on these 2 children and the mothers. I truly hope the State go's after those 2 baby's daddy's to make sure they do the right thing.

Perspective to ...

Reader: Scholarship has demonstrated that diversity and change have been the only constants in the history of the American family. Far from signaling the family's imminent demise or an erosion of commitment to children, recent changes in family life are only the latest in a series of disjunctive transformations in family roles, functions, and dynamics that have occurred over the past three centuries. Few subjects are more shrouded in myths, misconceptions, and misleading generalizations than the history of the family. Among the most potent myths that pervade contemporary society are that divorce, domestic violence, and single parenthood are recent phenomena; that throughout American history, most families consisted of a breadwinner-husband and a homemaker-wife; and that in the past strong, stable families provided effective care for the elderly and other dependents. Only careful historical analysis can correct such myths.

2 much (Anonymous)

What source calls a stable, 2 parent, no divorce, no domestic violence family a myth? Certainly my family and those I know have followed that pattern for generations. Sad that single, battered and divorced moms should be considered the norm.

Pathetic (Anonymous)

I think that Norwalk is full of judgmental rediculous people. Just because someone is young and unmarried doesn't make them a slut. There are millions of people on welfare because our government does not help our people with healthcare. Yet we get mad at those people on welfare and not the government. Instead of bitching about it why don't we try to enact a better way to support eachother. Yes, there are those that misuse welfare and other forms of assistance. But we should not make those who use it as a form of help to get on their feet.

newsflash (Anon...

Not everyone is catholic... Take you idealogical values and press them on to your own legitimate children.

I am the father of a child out of wedlock, does that make my wife a slut or does she get to shake the title because we proceeded to get married afterward? Or is she a slut because she had sex before marriage, or is she a Slut just because she got pregnant? Or is she a slut just because it is assumed she had sex before marriage without birth control? Surprise, birth control is not 100% effective all the time.

See I guess I'm just try to figure out which detail you hypocritical retards use to determine slut/not slut. Because I know, sitting in your glass house, you would have never engaged in premarital relations, i guess as long as you don't get caught, you don't get to be a slut.

Annie (Anonymous)

How interesting that the women are "sluts" and "whores" all the terrible connotations that go along with that, and naught a word is spoken about the gentlemen who were part of the process.

How many of you would not have been born if your parents (who I'm sure are saints) had to prove their financial ability to raise kids ahead of time? I guess they should of just had abortions.

Perspective to ...

2 much wrote on Aug 14, 2007 12:01 PM:.....................
" What source calls a stable, 2 parent, no divorce, no domestic violence family a myth? Certainly my family and those I know have followed that pattern for generations. Sad that single, battered and divorced moms should be considered the norm. ".....................................
...........................................................
No source that I'm aware of depicts these prevelant social norms as mythic. Nor does any scholarship seems to indicate that single, battered and divorced moms should be considered the norm.

This is crazy!!...

I have read that article over and over and I still can't find where it says that this girls are on public assistance anywhere, so how do any of you know that they are? I can't believe that you so called adults get on here and bash people the way you do it's totally ridiculous!!!
And to the girls.......I just want to wish you all the luck in the world you have 2 beautiful babies!!!

Reader (Anonymous)

Newsflash's post demonstrates why using epithets such as "slut" is such a bad idea. It derails the debate (and it's not nice, no matter what the writer may think of the young women's conduct). My point is that children born out of wedlock -- no matter what "Perspective to Reader" wants to write about "diversity and change" in the American family -- are handicapped educationally, medically, emotionally and socially. Those are facts, and as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Newsflash took his child out of that situation by becoming a husband and father, and none of us is privileged to criticize him or the mother for the child born before the wedding. We'll leave all the sin judging to a higher power. The earthly facts are enough to underscore my point that the Reflector should not have lauded the births with a top-of-the-fold page one story. We need to encourage our daughters to become educated and to be able to be good mothers and to provide well for their children before they have them. We need to teach our sons the same about education and fatherhood. Running articles such as this one (as well as some posters' comments) suggest that the fact that people procreate is a reason for a party. After the guests leave and the beer cans are cleaned up, the child will remain for 18 years at least.

You Said It! (A...

To Well...and everyone else reading this. YOU SAID IT! Why is this front page news?

newsflash (Anon...

You live in Norwalk, that is why it is front page news... What exactly do you propose they run instead? look at the paper and tell me one story from that edition that should have been pulled forward. It has never been Reflector style to but to most prominent world news on the front page, they run a local Human interest story.

Wake up. Quit complaining about every news story that comes along and manufacturing some kind of debate just to hear yourself talk.

newsflash (Anon...

And one more thing... My children are NOT in any way shape or form "handicapped educationally, medically, emotionally and socially".

For you to insinuate and generalize that because a child is born out of wedlock is immediately disadvantaged is ludicrous. There are many people like myself that have a good job and provide and care for our children much better than those of you who were married before you had children. Crazy as it sounds I actually even have a college degree.... and paid for it myself. There are many married people raising their kids on welfare. Don't jump on and blame having kids before marriage for putting people on welfare. I did it and we are surviving on our just fine without toughing one red cent of your precious tax dollars.

gas guzzler (An...

i want to thank all of the Norwalk gas station owners for lowering their price for gas this past week !! it is nice to know that now we are only paying 20 cents more per gallon , than the 30 cents per gallon that you were over charging us a few weeks ago ... my question still is "why " why is gas so much more expensive in Norwalk , than in any of the surrounding areas ??? please people , we are winning in this , please stop buying your gas in Norwalk , until the local dealers determine that to get our hard earned dollars , they must lower their prices to a more competative range ......

Sad (Anonymous)

I just find it very sad that people use these forums to judge people and argue with one another. Do you not have anything better to do than get on a newspaper website and put down people you don't even know? I don't understand how some people on here can be so cold hearted.

ged (Anonymous)

maybe these girls can apply for the jobs of the 3 HCDJFS workers that were just let go from their jobs !!it sounds like they are familiar with how the system works already , so their training process won't be so confusing ,

ged (Anonymous)

i would hope that when the new director gets her feet wet , that she pay's particular attention to a fact that i read in the paper awhile back ... when the courts , in particular , the Dixon family , was suing the state for not screening the prospective foster parents , in this case .. Paul Efaw .. and Mr. Dumbeck who was,the director at that time , was quoted in the paper as saying that'HCDJFS DOESNT REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING , CHECKING THE POTENTIAL FOSTER PARENTS CRIMINAL RECORDS, AN INTERVIEW WITH THEIR EMPLOYER, CHECKING COURT DOCKETS FOR CIVAL CASES REQUIRING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO CHECK FOR INCIDENTS OF APPLICANTS PREVIOUS BIZZARE BEHAVIOR, OR INTERVIEWINGVICTIMS OF SUSPECTED ABUSE BY THE APPLICANT" .. YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT .. THEY DO Not REQUIRE ANY OF THESE THINGS IN THEIR BACKGROUD CHECK OF A POTENTIAL FOSTER PARENT .. this in itself should be criminal , that the HCDJFS is releasing children to potential foster parents without checking thei backgrounds any better than that !!! i hope that the new director concentrates on this issue , and demands that they do a complete background check of any and all potential foster parent ...think about it , without these background checks , it would be a field day for any and all child molesters to supply their need , and at the same time give them some "respectability " in the community .. i am asking that everyone keep an eye on this issue , because if we don't demand a change in their proceedures , we may, no , we will be burying more of our children.

Reader (Anonymous)

Newsflash may have misunderstood my post. Because he is a responsible father and husband, his children are statistically likely to be as well off educationally, emotionally and everything else as the children of other married couples. Because he stepped up, his kids avoid the risks that these two young women are exposing their kids to. Sadly, kids born and raised out of wedlock are more likely to be disadvantaged. That's not my idea, it's the conclusions drawn by a lot of social research.

hater (Anonymous)

The reason they're not married is that they can't both marry the same guy who fathered both kids. Even ged understands that.

Pages