Obese Third Grader Taken From Parents.....

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Oh I'm spazzing quite a bit myself, but I'm at a loss as to what will save the child.  Well other than the neighborhood mothers beating some sense into the mother.

I don't want the government to have any say in what a child does or does not weigh, but as has been said, what do you do when a child has been starved, I agree, overfeeding is not different, in fact I think it may be worse as many under nourished children are a result of parents losing their jobs/homes and so forth and an overweight child is from pure indulgence when there isn't a hormonal issue to deal with.

It's a difficult topic.

[Phox]

Wow, I am very torn.

It reminds me of the cases recently where people were convicted and imprisoned for not getting medical help for their children because it was against their religion.

Slippery slope, yes. But I am torn. My eight-year-old weighs about 60 pounds. 200 lbs on an 8 year old is insane, and the child has a life-threatening medical problem as a result of his severe obesity. At what point should an agency try to intervene? Where do they draw the line? It seems like the medical condition is where they drew the line, and I think that may be a valid place for it.

Yeah, I think I'm with Nigel on this one. Difficult case. Hmm. I can completely understand where Roger is coming from though. Ugh, the whole thing makes me sick.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, I am very torn.

It reminds me of the cases recently where people were convicted and imprisoned for not getting medical help for their children because it was against their religion.

Slippery slope, yes. But I am torn. My eight-year-old weighs about 60 pounds. 200 lbs on an 8 year old is insane, and the child has a life-threatening medical problem as a result of his severe obesity. At what point should an agency try to intervene? Where do they draw the line? It seems like the medical condition is where they drew the line, and I think that may be a valid place for it.

Yeah, I see your point, but it makes me really uncomfortable.

It's difficult. Doctors are supposed to notify the authorities if they find evidence of abuse or neglect... doctors make mistakes too, but as long as the line is being drawn by doctors and not government agencies, it makes sense. The alternative is to draw a hard and fast line of "if you don't see bruises or cuts and the child isn't starving, don't report anything" which is also a terrible idea IMO.

This story is being reported (in that article, anyway) very much as if the State just stepped in and took the child away because he's fat. That's not what happened. The doctor is the one who called the State, and he may, in fact, be doing more harm than good, but he's trying to save the kid's life.

I'm glad I'm not a doctor, because that would be a bitch of a decision to make.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

I think taking the kid is too extreme, without more input pertaining to the parent's willful neglect and/or abuse. There should be some sort of mandatory meeting with a pediatrician and/or nutritionist or something. Weekly, if possible. But taking the kid . . . I don't think that's going to help him at all. Even if he loses weight, his head is going to be all fucked up because of this.

[Freeky]

I think taking the kid is too extreme, without more input pertaining to the parent's willful neglect and/or abuse. There should be some sort of mandatory meeting with a pediatrician and/or nutritionist or something. Weekly, if possible. But taking the kid . . . I don't think that's going to help him at all. Even if he loses weight, his head is going to be all fucked up because of this.

Yeah.  "YOU CAN'T LIVE WITH YOUR FAMILY ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO FAT."  How's that for a setup for a lifetime of eating disorders?

[Cain]

I'm divided on taking the kid away or not, but I'm entirely in favour of someone coming along and beating the parents with sticks.  Policy analysis would reveal further cost/benefit ratios if this were publically provided or funded by private, charitable and corporate initiatives.

[Jenne]

I can tell you that what happens in my husband's office, since he runs a few peds clinics now where this takes place here and there, is that this is a case of neglect rather than outright abuse.  Usually it's an education issue, coupled with the effort it takes to change your lifestyle and habits as a family.  So if the county/state is providing ways to ease those changes, then they are doing their job right.  That doesn't always happen, but in this case, I think they at least tried before they took the kid away.

It's when the family's been given some time to do so and won't, or can't, that usually the state will step in with neglect casres.  It's not like this woman showed up with her kid in the ER and then the kid was whisked away to a fat farm, never to return home to momma again.  This kid was looked after by OTHER PEOPLE, and then the family fucked him up again.

So let's take another health condition--say cancer--or pneumonia--if the hospital that the child is brought to for initial diagnosis makes arrangements for them to get better through treatment and then when brought home the child declines further...what's to be done?

Saying "it's JUST obesity" is a risky tack to take.  So basically, I am saying--you either believe that the medical profession should "look out for" the welfare of children to the best of their ability, and yes, that sometimes means drastic measures if a kid's life is at stake, or you don't.  This should have been caught before this kid was this old, but it wasn't. 

I don't LIKE the state taking kids away from parents as a general rule, but there are exceptions to that for me as well.  If you've seen what Type II diabetes does to a child, if you've seen the longterm effects asthma and high blood pressure will do on a teen, if you've seen the heart issues that a 17 year old can have after 10 years of massive obesity, the blind eye to "mere fatness" probably wouldn't be so easy to turn.

Parental rights are a precious, precious thing.  I hate giving them up and hate advocating their revocation.  But I also tend to think some parents might need help, or a nudge, to do the RIGHT thing instead of the EASIEST thing by their children.

To go further, we have food deserts in this society in the urban and even rural areas where poor people live.  We have shitty education systems that don't see phys ed as ED at all, instead they treat it as a luxury for the rich schools that can afford a coach or two.  These factors, along with how cheap fast food is, have created a sinkhole in the American mind.  And yes, the first innocent victims of this are the younger generation--they don't understand, until they're taught, what the repercussions of the sins of their forefathers, city planners and school administrators will have wrought until they're paying their medical bills.

Or going bankrupt doing so.

[trippinprincezz13]

So, what would qualify for neglect, then? Aside the obvious sexual/physical assault. For example, if we intervene when a child is starving, should we not also intervene when a parent's diet choices is causing the children life threatening health problems?

No, I think beyond assault or deprivation, the state shouldn't have much to say.  The state is a stupid beast, even when it means well, and the more power you give it to intrude on the family, the worse off your culture is.  I'm not trying to sound like some Libertarian fuckbat here, I'm just saying that "scope creep" is a fact of bureaucracy.  It won't stop with fat kids, Kai.  It never stops, unless you stop it.

Yea, this is pretty much was I was trying to get at in my babbling above. Once they start taking away kids for being overweight, what's next?

ETA:

I think taking the kid is too extreme, without more input pertaining to the parent's willful neglect and/or abuse. There should be some sort of mandatory meeting with a pediatrician and/or nutritionist or something. Weekly, if possible. But taking the kid . . . I don't think that's going to help him at all. Even if he loses weight, his head is going to be all fucked up because of this.

Also this, because even if the mother was doing a shitty job of getting him to eat/exercise right, she wasn't beating the shit out of him physically or emotionally and, as far as I can tell (which is not much from the article) she wasn't purposefully being neglectful. So what kind of lasting mental effects is this going to have. Does he get to go back to mom once he's at a healthy weight or byebye forever? Even if he goes back, there's still going to be an impact.

Some sort of plan like CPD mentioned sounds like a good start, but again, that can start the slope of who needs to be monitored when and for what reason and how often, etc.

[Jenne]

So basically, unless the kid's being beaten, there's no cause to take the kid away...?  And there are gradations to this sort of consequence, by the way--it's not a cookie cutter phenomenon.  Because the beating/sexual abuse DOES get you yanked out of your home quickly, but neglect rarely does.  Neither does it always lead to permanent removal.

I rather think it's a case by case scenario, depending on the foster care system of the state, the amount of relatives and support around the family, etc.  Doctors by and large, if my husband's to be believed, do NOT like to take the kid out of the family.  They like the kid to have consistent care--foster systems do not offer this.  Kids are still more stable in a neglectful home than they are in a new foster home, sad though that may seem on the outside.

Yes, there's going to be an impact on any kid taken away and put back into their home...so those of you not wanting the child removed, what's the alternative?  If the parents cannot or will not change the eating/moving around habits, what's to be done?

Nothing?

I'm curious.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh, I'm not saying "merely fat".  I know that with me, if I put on any extra weight, I get apnea, blood pressure issues, etc. 

And I'm even willing to accept this particular case, as long as someone is willing to draw a line and say that the state cannot interfere with a family beyond that point.

[LMNO]

Hypothetical:

Let's say the kid remained with his parents, and parents let the kid stay fat, and get fatter.

Then the kid dies, from weight-related health issues. 

What responsibility do the parents have for the kid's death, and is there a way to extrapolate that into a pre-death situation (i.e. the kid will die if someone doesn't do something about it)?

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I think if the weight of a child, whether over or under has begun to effect the child's health then the parents should be told that they will need to work with a dietician or the state will force them too, it's their choice.

If after a considerable period of time (9 - 18 months), no progress has been made, if the child was overweight they have either not lost any weight or have continued to gain with the opposite for underweight children then there should be a DCF hearing.  If the child's problem is medical and the parents are doing what they need to do according to the Dr's and dieticians, then so be it.  If the parents aren't, well, it should be a last step, but the removal of the child might become necessary.  Ususally the fear of losing their child will knock some sense into parents. 

This case may very well be a wake up call for a lot of parents.  Cosidering they estimate is that 1 out of 3 children in the US is overweight or obese, parents need to step up to the plate and pay attention. 

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html

2010 State Obesity Rates
State %
Alabama 32.2 Illinois 28.2 Montana 23.0 Rhode Island  25.5
Alaska 24.5 Indiana 29.6 Nebraska 26.9 South Carolina 31.5
Arizona 24.3 Iowa 28.4 Nevada 22.4 South Dakota 27.3
Arkansas 30.1 Kansas 29.4 New Hampshire 25.0 Tennessee 30.8
California 24.0 Kentucky 31.3 New Jersey 23.8 Texas 31.0
Colorado 21.0 Louisiana 31.0 New Mexico 25.1 Utah 22.5
Connecticut 22.5 Maine 26.8 New York 23.9 Vermont 23.2
Delaware 28.0 Maryland 27.1 North Carolina 27.8 Virginia 26.0
District of Columbia 22.2 Massachusetts 23.0 North Dakota 27.2 Washington 25.5
Florida 26.6 Michigan 30.9 Ohio 29.2 West Virginia 32.5
Georgia 29.6 Minnesota 24.8 Oklahoma 30.4 Wisconsin 26.3
Hawaii 22.7 Mississippi 34.0 Oregon 26.8 Wyoming 25.1
Idaho 26.5 Missouri 30.5 Pennsylvania 28.6   

[Elder Iptuous]

so, would an overweight child (defined by BMI of 25 or more) trigger the warning to their parents?
i mean, is the 'overweight' label as defined on the CDC page the line you would draw?
or the 'obese' label? of 30 BMI...
we'd have to hire a shitload of state funded dieticians based on that alarming trend graphic!

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I would say warnings should come at overweight and action taken at obese.  Dieticians are cheaper than extended medical treatment and hospital stays, test and so forth in the long run though.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think taking the kid is too extreme, without more input pertaining to the parent's willful neglect and/or abuse. There should be some sort of mandatory meeting with a pediatrician and/or nutritionist or something. Weekly, if possible. But taking the kid . . . I don't think that's going to help him at all. Even if he loses weight, his head is going to be all fucked up because of this.

Did you read the article? Because the child has been in a program at the hospital for some time.