Principia Discordia

http://news.yahoo.com/obese-third-grader-taken-mom-placed-foster-care-201731761.html (http://news.yahoo.com/obese-third-grader-taken-mom-placed-foster-care-201731761.html)

QuoteA Cleveland third grader who weighed more than 200 pounds was taken from his mother after officials reportedly said she did not do enough to help the boy, who suffered from a weight-related health issue, to lose weight.

"They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don't love my child," the boy's mother, who was not identified, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

Officials first became aware of the boy's weight after his mother took him to the hospital last year while he was having breathing problems, the newspaper reported. The child was diagnosed with sleep apnea and began to be monitored by social workers while he was enrolled in a program called "Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight" at the Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital.

The boy lost a few pounds, but recently began to gain some back, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. At that point, the Department of Children and Family Services asked a juvenile court for custody of the boy, citing his soaring weight as a form of medical neglect, according to the newspaper.

I have a hard time with this because I think there are children out there whose parents are abusing them in so many ways, however, I also see this as a type of abuse as well.  Having had the opposite problem with my boys (they were always underweight for their height/age according to the charts).  Yet I never once had a fear that anyone would take them from me as otherwise they were perfectly healthy.  Now, they are both almost 6' and still thin but it's not a health concern, they are both extremely active.

The Dr told me Joy was overweight on her last check up.  The Dr suggested a "food diary" which we kept religiously for a month.  Then Joy and I sat down and took a good look at it.  I stopped buying as much junk food snacks for their lunches and after school snacks and we started making an extra effort for all of us to eat healthier with our snacks and the lunches I pack for them, which was the only thing we could find unhealthy in the diary.  Joy has lost 10 pounds, feels a hundred times better and she and I are walking and excercising together.  In the end though, I blame the loss of physical education classes in middle school as much as I do my bad snack choices.

When the schools serve pizza, french fries and peaches in heavy syrup as a well balanced lunch, there is a problem.  However, as a parent, I feel it is ultimately my responsibility that I make sure my child's health, not limited to but including their weight, is healthy and where they should be for their height and age.

Wow.  I just... wow. :(

Wow, that's....sad.

Not very insightful, I know, but not sure how I feel about it. The story doesn't say much about what the mother/child/doctors were doing (or not) to improve the situation. Were they sneaking snacks at school, from friends? I know they said the child was put on a special program - I assume maybe being given special lunches? Or just eating school lunches (since, as Khara mentioned, a "well-balanced" meal from the school isn't always so). I agree in cases of abuse or extreme neglect the State should step in, at least to an extent. Without actually being there, who knows what the mother and/or child were doing to help or hurt the situation. Not that I want to advocate constant surveillance of families - don't want to open that can of worms. Opens it up to a whole slippery slope of what's "good for the children" - too much TV? Too violent games? Too much/not enough religion? Though physical health I suppose is a slightly more easily distinguishable problem.

Where's the line between abuse/neglect and maybe not that great of parent/doing the best they can and still struggling?

Well, if they start doing this shit, they're never going to be able to take a lunch break.

Just saying.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 07:35:15 PM
Well, if they start doing this shit, they're never going to be able to take a lunch break.

Just saying.

I was just think about that. How slippery is this slope?

Oh it is quite slippery and I'm not saying I agree with removing the child from the school, however, I do think the parents should be ashamed of themselves. 

They are setting their child up for a lifetime of health issues, social issues and self esteem issues.  Fat kids are picked on, it isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

They are the adults, it is their job to raise the healthiest child they can.  The mom complains about "lifestyle changes", yeah it's a lifestyle change, but this change is most likely going to save your kids life.

Does she want to watch Dr. Phil pull this kid out of the basement in 15 years with a freaking backhoe because he weighs 800 pounds? 

Quote from: Khara on November 28, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
Oh it is quite slippery and I'm not saying I agree with removing the child from the school, however, I do think the parents should be ashamed of themselves. 

They are setting their child up for a lifetime of health issues, social issues and self esteem issues.  Fat kids are picked on, it isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

They are the adults, it is their job to raise the healthiest child they can.  The mom complains about "lifestyle changes", yeah it's a lifestyle change, but this change is most likely going to save your kids life.

Does she want to watch Dr. Phil pull this kid out of the basement in 15 years with a freaking backhoe because he weighs 800 pounds? 

On the other hand, do we want the state looking over our shoulder while we're raising our kids?  Do we want to give them that kind of power because the media aw shucks at some fat kid?

Stupid shit/manufactured outrage/managed reaction/actual goal accomplished.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 08:34:21 PM

Quote from: Khara on November 28, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
Oh it is quite slippery and I'm not saying I agree with removing the child from the school, however, I do think the parents should be ashamed of themselves. 

They are setting their child up for a lifetime of health issues, social issues and self esteem issues.  Fat kids are picked on, it isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

They are the adults, it is their job to raise the healthiest child they can.  The mom complains about "lifestyle changes", yeah it's a lifestyle change, but this change is most likely going to save your kids life.

Does she want to watch Dr. Phil pull this kid out of the basement in 15 years with a freaking backhoe because he weighs 800 pounds? 

On the other hand, do we want the state looking over our shoulder while we're raising our kids?  Do we want to give them that kind of power because the media aw shucks at some fat kid?

Stupid shit/manufactured outrage/managed reaction/actual goal accomplished.

So, on one hand we want to keep the health of a child in mind, and on the other hand, retaining the privacy and parenting authority of a child's parents is also important. This is tricky.

And the problem arises with those parents who either don't give a flying fuck because they weigh 300 pounds themselves, think thier baby will grow out of the "baby fat" or just refuse to change their own eating habits to help the child, not to mention themselves.

Do I want the state or the fed governing my child's weight?  OH HELL NO.  I never said I agreed with the child being taken away. 

Maybe something along the lines of when a pediatrician sees this, they are mandated to report it to (no clue who, just kind of thinking out loud) who then arranges for the parents to sit down with a dietician to make a monthly meal plan?  If the child does not improve within a year of that happening, non felony child endangerment charges?  Then again you have the state getting involved. 

I just can't comprehend this. If my child were having weight related health issues at 9 (because sleep apnea has been directly linked with severe obesity) then not doing something to correct that is my bad parenting.

There are no winners in parents who do not put the health of their child before their own selfishness

Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 08:43:41 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 08:34:21 PM

Quote from: Khara on November 28, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
Oh it is quite slippery and I'm not saying I agree with removing the child from the school, however, I do think the parents should be ashamed of themselves. 

They are setting their child up for a lifetime of health issues, social issues and self esteem issues.  Fat kids are picked on, it isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

They are the adults, it is their job to raise the healthiest child they can.  The mom complains about "lifestyle changes", yeah it's a lifestyle change, but this change is most likely going to save your kids life.

Does she want to watch Dr. Phil pull this kid out of the basement in 15 years with a freaking backhoe because he weighs 800 pounds? 

On the other hand, do we want the state looking over our shoulder while we're raising our kids?  Do we want to give them that kind of power because the media aw shucks at some fat kid?

Stupid shit/manufactured outrage/managed reaction/actual goal accomplished.

So, on one hand we want to keep the health of a child in mind, and on the other hand, retaining the privacy and parenting authority of a child's parents is also important. This is tricky.

I reject the notion that we have to keep the kid's weight in mind.  There's not much wiggle room between "beating the mortal shit out of the kid" and "Creating a desperately unhappy land whale that will never kiss a girl", but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Quote from: Khara on November 28, 2011, 08:57:54 PM
Do I want the state or the fed governing my child's weight?  OH HELL NO.  I never said I agreed with the child being taken away. 

My bad.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:04:22 PM

Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 08:43:41 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 08:34:21 PM

Quote from: Khara on November 28, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
Oh it is quite slippery and I'm not saying I agree with removing the child from the school, however, I do think the parents should be ashamed of themselves. 

They are setting their child up for a lifetime of health issues, social issues and self esteem issues.  Fat kids are picked on, it isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

They are the adults, it is their job to raise the healthiest child they can.  The mom complains about "lifestyle changes", yeah it's a lifestyle change, but this change is most likely going to save your kids life.

Does she want to watch Dr. Phil pull this kid out of the basement in 15 years with a freaking backhoe because he weighs 800 pounds? 

On the other hand, do we want the state looking over our shoulder while we're raising our kids?  Do we want to give them that kind of power because the media aw shucks at some fat kid?

Stupid shit/manufactured outrage/managed reaction/actual goal accomplished.

So, on one hand we want to keep the health of a child in mind, and on the other hand, retaining the privacy and parenting authority of a child's parents is also important. This is tricky.

I reject the notion that we have to keep the kid's weight in mind.  There's not much wiggle room between "beating the mortal shit out of the kid" and "Creating a desperately unhappy land whale that will never kiss a girl", but we have to draw the line somewhere.

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?

Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 09:13:02 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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?

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.

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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:27:44 PM

Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 09:13:02 PM
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:

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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.

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.

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.

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)?

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 (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   

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!

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.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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.

Quote from: Science me, babby on November 29, 2011, 09:30:19 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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?

I'm not saying that taking the kid from his family was the right thing to do, but from a medical perspective it appears to be "lose weight or die", and after a YEAR he had only lost a few pounds, and then gained them back again. And was gaining additional weight.

I swear that if one more person offers an opinion without reading the fucking article I'm going to slap them in the eyes with my dick.

:fap:

Quote from: Iptuous on November 29, 2011, 06:20:47 PM
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!

Ok, here's the thing--any pediatrician worth their weight in salt will tell the parents of a kid that obese that yes they need to work on getting that weight down and will in fact refer the kid to a dietician.  Period.  EOS.

BUT AND HOWEVER, we all know that docs range in ability and ease of use, like any other profession.  Some doctors do not follow up either.  Follow-up and prevention are probably, alongside education, the biggest factors as to why this shit gets missed until type II diabetes takes over epidemic like in whole families and communities.

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 06:55:43 PM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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.

Yeah, I read the article. I'd like to know what exactly that Rainbow program entailed and how often the social workers monitoring the program were in contact with the child and his family. I doubt it was with any sort of consistency, given my family's experience with such programs.

I like the quote:

QuoteWhen told of the Regino case, Ludwig said his solution of state intervention did not always work.

"Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer," he said.

Yeah.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 07:05:50 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 06:55:43 PM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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.

Yeah, I read the article. I'd like to know what exactly that Rainbow program entailed and how often the social workers monitoring the program were in contact with the child and his family. I doubt it was with any sort of consistency, given my family's experience with such programs.

I like the quote:

QuoteWhen told of the Regino case, Ludwig said his solution of state intervention did not always work.

“Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer,” he said.

Yeah.

Seems like you're willing to err on the side of so called parental rights rather than the benefits of getting a child whose health is failing (let's not forget the factoid he went to the ER BECAUSE HE COULD NO LONGER BREATHE ON HIS OWN) some help that lasts longer than a few months/weeks.

Quote from: Khara on November 29, 2011, 06:35:28 PM
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.

Insulin shots--they are FOREVER!!!

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 07:00:53 PM

Quote from: Science me, babby on November 29, 2011, 09:30:19 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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?

I'm not saying that taking the kid from his family was the right thing to do, but from a medical perspective it appears to be "lose weight or die", and after a YEAR he had only lost a few pounds, and then gained them back again. And was gaining additional weight.

I swear that if one more person offers an opinion without reading the fucking article I'm going to slap them in the eyes with my dick.

I know what it is, Nigel--it's the fear that taking the kid away is worse than letting him rot in his natural state with those who birthed him.

It's a good fear to have.  However, I think in this case, it might be misplaced.  I see a system that has tried to get a family to comply, not a system that is geared to abuse its authority outright.

http://www.uhhospitals.org/rainbowchildren/ourservices/divisionofendocrinologymetabolism/tabid/466/healthykidshealthyweight.aspx

Here's the low-down on the program they put the kid in. I like that it addresses the entire family and gives them access to dietitians and exercise specialists. I think it would be more effective if the core program lasted longer than 12 weeks.

My brother's heart blew up when he was a kid. He got a pacemaker and a defibrillator when he was around 18. He was so massive and overweight, 6'0'' and 400+ lbs that his heart couldn't take it. He couldn't sleep, couldn't breathe well, and couldn't get around too great.

No one seemed to really care about him or his issues, or what was going on in our home. They just went through the motions and shoved him off their caseload as fast as possible.

Same thing happened with my other brother, in a different circumstance. And me.

I don't think the programs work. I don't think the people being paid to do this shit actually care about what they're doing. But that's my experience. And you can keep saying I didn't read the article all you want.

But, in my opinion, taking a kid out of his comfort zone when this big scary shit happens is not going to help. And a 12 week program is only the start of what this kid needs.

Just my opinion. You can take it or leave it as you please.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

This one, I don't like.

Read the original article to get a little more information and it just smacks of "making an example of". Can you remove a kid for being dangerously fat and the parents not having it together to do anything about it? Yes. This just doesn't look exactly that way.

The kid was losing weight, doing well, then shot up "rapidly". Not sure what rapidly means but if he's that big, it's not inconceivable for him to tack on 10-20 pounds over the course of a month without it being a sign that the parents have completely fallen off the program. And what is the state spending on foster care? Obviously, Mom has some serious ignorance obstacles to overcome, and something a little bit more intense then weekly group meetings are probably called for. The last few lines in the original article said that the foster parent is having trouble keeping up with the meetings and all the care the kid needs so the state's looking at providing her some extra assistance. That just sits, very, very wrong.

Too much experience around the foster care system to think that anything short of life or death makes that a good alternative. I've even helped friends emancipate because making their way at 15 on their own is wiser than subjecting them to the wide variety of horrors foster-care offers. Until all other options were exhausted, I just can't see how this is in any way good for that kid.

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 29, 2011, 07:21:01 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

This one, I don't like.

Read the original article to get a little more information and it just smacks of "making an example of". Can you remove a kid for being dangerously fat and the parents not having it together to do anything about it? Yes. This just doesn't look exactly that way.

The kid was losing weight, doing well, then shot up "rapidly". Not sure what rapidly means but if he's that big, it's not inconceivable for him to tack on 10-20 pounds over the course of a month without it being a sign that the parents have completely fallen off the program. And what is the state spending on foster care? Obviously, Mom has some serious ignorance obstacles to overcome, and something a little bit more intense then weekly group meetings are probably called for. The last few lines in the original article said that the foster parent is having trouble keeping up with the meetings and all the care the kid needs so the state's looking at providing her some extra assistance. That just sits, very, very wrong.

Too much experience around the foster care system to think that anything short of life or death makes that a good alternative. I've even helped friends emancipate because making their way at 15 on their own is wiser than subjecting them to the wide variety of horrors foster-care offers. Until all other options were exhausted, I just can't see how this is in any way good for that kid.

My brother's ex-wife spent a lot of time and effort trying to make her kids fat.  No shit.  Her family had also done this to her brother.

Because it's nice if the Italian son stays with mommy and daddy forever, right?

Foster homes are frequently nightmares, but this kid is on the fast track for being dead by 30 at the outside.  My discomfort doesn't stem from the foster care angle, but from the idea that the state can interfere with the family at any level it sees fit.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 07:20:26 PM
http://www.uhhospitals.org/rainbowchildren/ourservices/divisionofendocrinologymetabolism/tabid/466/healthykidshealthyweight.aspx

Here's the low-down on the program they put the kid in. I like that it addresses the entire family and gives them access to dietitians and exercise specialists. I think it would be more effective if the core program lasted longer than 12 weeks.

My brother's heart blew up when he was a kid. He got a pacemaker and a defibrillator when he was around 18. He was so massive and overweight, 6'0'' and 400+ lbs that his heart couldn't take it. He couldn't sleep, couldn't breathe well, and couldn't get around too great.

No one seemed to really care about him or his issues, or what was going on in our home. They just went through the motions and shoved him off their caseload as fast as possible.

Same thing happened with my other brother, in a different circumstance. And me.

I don't think the programs work. I don't think the people being paid to do this shit actually care about what they're doing. But that's my experience. And you can keep saying I didn't read the article all you want.

But, in my opinion, taking a kid out of his comfort zone when this big scary shit happens is not going to help. And a 12 week program is only the start of what this kid needs.

Just my opinion. You can take it or leave it as you please.

Sometimes comfort zones are not what we need to be healthy or to survive.  Comfort zones are often what get us locked up, hospitalized and on the fastrack to getting dead, just saying.  That alone is not reason enough to not intervene if necessary.

Your experiences seem to color the effectiveness of this sort of shit, so I'll leave you alone on those.  Your interaction with these types of individuals seems to have tempered where you come from in your estimation of the efficacy for others.  I totally get that, and see it often in other avenues that are just as touchy.

Be that as it may, I still see no overstepping by these guys, not if their first set up was to give him a program to follow.  Also--which is it, the people/programs don't work, or they need to go on longer?  You are confusing me with your points.

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 29, 2011, 07:21:01 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

This one, I don't like.

Read the original article to get a little more information and it just smacks of "making an example of". Can you remove a kid for being dangerously fat and the parents not having it together to do anything about it? Yes. This just doesn't look exactly that way.

The kid was losing weight, doing well, then shot up "rapidly". Not sure what rapidly means but if he's that big, it's not inconceivable for him to tack on 10-20 pounds over the course of a month without it being a sign that the parents have completely fallen off the program. And what is the state spending on foster care? Obviously, Mom has some serious ignorance obstacles to overcome, and something a little bit more intense then weekly group meetings are probably called for. The last few lines in the original article said that the foster parent is having trouble keeping up with the meetings and all the care the kid needs so the state's looking at providing her some extra assistance. That just sits, very, very wrong.

Too much experience around the foster care system to think that anything short of life or death makes that a good alternative. I've even helped friends emancipate because making their way at 15 on their own is wiser than subjecting them to the wide variety of horrors foster-care offers. Until all other options were exhausted, I just can't see how this is in any way good for that kid.

Again, taking him out of the home wasn't their first step in getting him help, it was just the latest. 

Also, what's your degree in, again?  Do you have experience in biology and pediatrics?  Do tell.

Lastly, what next step would you like to see, then?  In-home therapy?  Big brother watching the mom make her meals?  What?  What can be done, then?

Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 07:10:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 07:00:53 PM

Quote from: Science me, babby on November 29, 2011, 09:30:19 AM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
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?

I'm not saying that taking the kid from his family was the right thing to do, but from a medical perspective it appears to be "lose weight or die", and after a YEAR he had only lost a few pounds, and then gained them back again. And was gaining additional weight.

I swear that if one more person offers an opinion without reading the fucking article I'm going to slap them in the eyes with my dick.

I know what it is, Nigel--it's the fear that taking the kid away is worse than letting him rot in his natural state with those who birthed him.

It's a good fear to have.  However, I think in this case, it might be misplaced.  I see a system that has tried to get a family to comply, not a system that is geared to abuse its authority outright.

Taking a child from their family is very extreme. However, it is completely, painfully clear (especially if you read other articles about this) that the parents had ample time, opportunity, and assistance to help their son, and failed to do so. The county wasn't even involved, from what I can tell, until the kid started rapidly gaining back the weight he had lost. The mother tries to blame genetics because both she and the father are overweight... that doesn't hold a lot of water. The kid DID lose weight last year, so that demonstrates that it's probably not a medical condition.

My ex's family is definitely predisposed to chubbiness, which I am pretty sure is largely because they are THE least active people I have ever known. Wonderful people, but absurdly sedentary, with an apparent aversion to moving around, and a tendency toward gluttony. My ex tried to tell me that he was just genetically fat, and I couldn't help laughing; he might be genetically lazy and gluttonous, though. My oldest daughter also hates activity and loves food, and she'd probably be severely overweight instead of just slightly chubby if I didn't keep a pantry full of healthy, boring snacks, cook healthy meals, and make her walk everywhere. The other two are athletic little rails.

One of the stupidest quotes in that whole article is "It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

It's NOT "HARD", YOU ARE JUST A LAZY, SPOILED ASSHOLE. "Hard" is working as a longshoreman or running a marathon or climbing a mountain or competing in a triathalon. "Hard" is raising kids alone in a city with one of the highest cost of living ratios and highest unemployment rates in the country without a formal education or any marketable job skills. "Hard" is living under a bridge because you couldn't make your house payments and rents are higher than your mortgage was.

Changing your fucking grocery shopping and cooking habits and going for a walk once a day is NOT FUCKING "HARD". And one year is ample time to ease into it. Stop buying junk food, you fat, stupid, lazy fuck.

I totally feel ya, Dudette!

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 07:20:26 PM
http://www.uhhospitals.org/rainbowchildren/ourservices/divisionofendocrinologymetabolism/tabid/466/healthykidshealthyweight.aspx

Here's the low-down on the program they put the kid in. I like that it addresses the entire family and gives them access to dietitians and exercise specialists. I think it would be more effective if the core program lasted longer than 12 weeks.

My brother's heart blew up when he was a kid. He got a pacemaker and a defibrillator when he was around 18. He was so massive and overweight, 6'0'' and 400+ lbs that his heart couldn't take it. He couldn't sleep, couldn't breathe well, and couldn't get around too great.

No one seemed to really care about him or his issues, or what was going on in our home. They just went through the motions and shoved him off their caseload as fast as possible.

Same thing happened with my other brother, in a different circumstance. And me.

I don't think the programs work. I don't think the people being paid to do this shit actually care about what they're doing. But that's my experience. And you can keep saying I didn't read the article all you want.

But, in my opinion, taking a kid out of his comfort zone when this big scary shit happens is not going to help. And a 12 week program is only the start of what this kid needs.

Just my opinion. You can take it or leave it as you please.

It's not because the programs are ineffective, it's because your parents are lazy assholes. All the "programs" in the world won't do shit if the parents won't stop neglecting/abusing their kids. There is a fucking element of responsibility, here.

Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2011, 07:43:01 PM
Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

Maybe we can also bring back that old tradition of parading their asses up and down the street while hurling shit at them; I forget what it was called.

Quote from: Cainad on November 29, 2011, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2011, 07:43:01 PM
Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

Maybe we can also bring back that old tradition of parading their asses up and down the street while hurling shit at them; I forget what it was called.

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 07:56:14 PM

Quote from: Cainad on November 29, 2011, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2011, 07:43:01 PM
Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

Maybe we can also bring back that old tradition of parading their asses up and down the street while hurling shit at them; I forget what it was called.

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

:spittake:

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2011, 07:43:01 PM
Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

I am not as opposed to this idea as I probably should be.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 07:56:14 PM

Quote from: Cainad on November 29, 2011, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2011, 07:43:01 PM
Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

Maybe we can also bring back that old tradition of parading their asses up and down the street while hurling shit at them; I forget what it was called.

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

:spittake:

That, my friend, was the post of this century!!!!

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 07:56:14 PM

Quote from: Cainad on November 29, 2011, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2011, 07:43:01 PM
Arranging for people to beat them with sticks would qualify as "hard" also.

Cain,
invested in this idea

Maybe we can also bring back that old tradition of parading their asses up and down the street while hurling shit at them; I forget what it was called.

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

:lulz: :mittens:

Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 07:34:17 PM

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 29, 2011, 07:21:01 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

This one, I don't like.

Read the original article to get a little more information and it just smacks of "making an example of". Can you remove a kid for being dangerously fat and the parents not having it together to do anything about it? Yes. This just doesn't look exactly that way.

The kid was losing weight, doing well, then shot up "rapidly". Not sure what rapidly means but if he's that big, it's not inconceivable for him to tack on 10-20 pounds over the course of a month without it being a sign that the parents have completely fallen off the program. And what is the state spending on foster care? Obviously, Mom has some serious ignorance obstacles to overcome, and something a little bit more intense then weekly group meetings are probably called for. The last few lines in the original article said that the foster parent is having trouble keeping up with the meetings and all the care the kid needs so the state's looking at providing her some extra assistance. That just sits, very, very wrong.

Too much experience around the foster care system to think that anything short of life or death makes that a good alternative. I've even helped friends emancipate because making their way at 15 on their own is wiser than subjecting them to the wide variety of horrors foster-care offers. Until all other options were exhausted, I just can't see how this is in any way good for that kid.

Again, taking him out of the home wasn't their first step in getting him help, it was just the latest. 

Also, what's your degree in, again?  Do you have experience in biology and pediatrics?  Do tell.

Lastly, what next step would you like to see, then?  In-home therapy?  Big brother watching the mom make her meals?  What?  What can be done, then?

Actually, yeah. Intensive intervention. Big brother, the whole 9. If my kid's life is on the line, and I'm seriously struggling against the wall of trying to change a generation or two or three of habits after just a 12 week course, I'd consider a big brother presence like that a life-saver. It's not unprecedented, either. Kids with serious behavioral disorders are often shadowed 10-12 hours a day. I don't think that taking the kid out of the home should ever be the "latest" step, it should only ever be the last. That's just something that cannot be undone...and that's group homes, runaway "shelters", a longtime friendship with a veteran of 11 foster homes in a 6 year period, a marriage to a social worker, a long and respectful relationship with the county foster-care coordinator and a current relationship with a woman who is second in charge of a rather large organization that assists abused and neglected children, talking. The 20 pound comment, was just an ex fat-boy, who's done it. No credentials, just stretch marks.

I was probably hasty in the conclusion that CPS was trying to set a precedent or something, but there are very few cases of this on the record so it's not unreasonable to assume that lines are still being drawn and procedures are still being laid down. The fact that the state is considering assigning an assistant to the foster care provider, just tells me that maybe there was a whole lot more that could have been done before it came to this. I'm not about to say that removing a kid from a situation that is hopeless and life-threatening in this way isn't called for, just that given what limited information is available, it seems hasty in this case.

When is it prudent then?  What time frame suits you best?

Here's what I see:  a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking ITT.  Like it or not, there ARE people out there invested in the child's interests and seeing him un-become a statistic.  I cheer those folks on if they are led by doing right by him.  And again, I see no indication this hasn't gone on.

Meanwhile, a year later, his mother's still overfeeding him to death.

I am from a family of short fat bog hoppers.  They all came over from Ireland except my parents.  I never understood how they could be as fat as they are considering all the talk about how there was no food in Ireland.

In any event, yes, some people have thyrhoid issues which will effect their weight, however I don't think people are predisposed to be fat, they are trained to eat fattening foods from practically birth because they eat what their parents eat.  They are trained to be lazy because they see their parents sitting on their asses doing nothing.  Not to mention that these days with the price of food, it is cheaper to cook pasta, potatos, bread is filling, cheese is filling and a WIC item, hamburger is cheaper than ground chuck, chicken thighs are cheaper than breasts.  They have shown this repeatedly. Lower income families are more likely to be overweight.  Not because they are lazy, but because fattening food is cheaper.

I said in my comment a page back, that a medical reason was certainly something that a Dr needs to address, however, as you can see by the 2010 statistics, more and more kids are overweight or obese.  

Of course we could just take the attitude that this is a self inflicted disease and refuse medical treatment to those who refuse dietary therapy.  That would solve quite a few problems including over population.

Of course, if you did that, then anything self inflicted would be subject to refusal of medical treatment which would again, help with over population, but piss a ot of people off.  Stomach pumpings would be damn near obsolete.  The problem would be when someone wrecked their car and received a ticket for being at fault, is that person refused treatment?  Technically if the accident were their fault it would be self inflicted.

So we fund fat camps and rehab for fatties?

Seriously?

The parents are GROWN UPS.  They have the ability to make an instantaneous change in their lives IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.  Not doing so is neglect of their child's health.

No, I don't want fat kids in the system for being fat, I do however want to see soemthing done or we will all be on those fucking scooters....

WALL E

Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 08:27:10 PM
WALL E

:lulz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9s7afoYI-M

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 29, 2011, 08:14:57 PM

Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 07:34:17 PM

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 29, 2011, 07:21:01 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
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.

This one, I don't like.

Read the original article to get a little more information and it just smacks of "making an example of". Can you remove a kid for being dangerously fat and the parents not having it together to do anything about it? Yes. This just doesn't look exactly that way.

The kid was losing weight, doing well, then shot up "rapidly". Not sure what rapidly means but if he's that big, it's not inconceivable for him to tack on 10-20 pounds over the course of a month without it being a sign that the parents have completely fallen off the program. And what is the state spending on foster care? Obviously, Mom has some serious ignorance obstacles to overcome, and something a little bit more intense then weekly group meetings are probably called for. The last few lines in the original article said that the foster parent is having trouble keeping up with the meetings and all the care the kid needs so the state's looking at providing her some extra assistance. That just sits, very, very wrong.

Too much experience around the foster care system to think that anything short of life or death makes that a good alternative. I've even helped friends emancipate because making their way at 15 on their own is wiser than subjecting them to the wide variety of horrors foster-care offers. Until all other options were exhausted, I just can't see how this is in any way good for that kid.

Again, taking him out of the home wasn't their first step in getting him help, it was just the latest. 

Also, what's your degree in, again?  Do you have experience in biology and pediatrics?  Do tell.

Lastly, what next step would you like to see, then?  In-home therapy?  Big brother watching the mom make her meals?  What?  What can be done, then?

Actually, yeah. Intensive intervention. Big brother, the whole 9. If my kid's life is on the line, and I'm seriously struggling against the wall of trying to change a generation or two or three of habits after just a 12 week course, I'd consider a big brother presence like that a life-saver. It's not unprecedented, either. Kids with serious behavioral disorders are often shadowed 10-12 hours a day. I don't think that taking the kid out of the home should ever be the "latest" step, it should only ever be the last. That's just something that cannot be undone...and that's group homes, runaway "shelters", a longtime friendship with a veteran of 11 foster homes in a 6 year period, a marriage to a social worker, a long and respectful relationship with the county foster-care coordinator and a current relationship with a woman who is second in charge of a rather large organization that assists abused and neglected children, talking. The 20 pound comment, was just an ex fat-boy, who's done it. No credentials, just stretch marks.

I was probably hasty in the conclusion that CPS was trying to set a precedent or something, but there are very few cases of this on the record so it's not unreasonable to assume that lines are still being drawn and procedures are still being laid down. The fact that the state is considering assigning an assistant to the foster care provider, just tells me that maybe there was a whole lot more that could have been done before it came to this. I'm not about to say that removing a kid from a situation that is hopeless and life-threatening in this way isn't called for, just that given what limited information is available, it seems hasty in this case.

I am very, very far from being a Libertarian, but you seem to be saying that if people won't make the changes that they are told they must make, shown how to make, and then given a year of continuing guidance in making, that when they fail to make those changes AT ALL, the government should then send in a team to live in fat people's homes and make sure they eat right and exercise?

:lulz: I'm sorry. But wow.

People change a lifetime of habits on a short period all the fucking time. Just as an aside. It's not, in fact, fucking hard at all if you actually try to do it instead of pretending it will take care of itself if you wait long enough. A whole year. Do you think they had no warning? CPS wasn't even called in until the kid gained back all the weight he'd lost and then some. The parents weren't even fucking trying. Are we going to put a live-in dietician in every fat family's home?

LOTS of changes need to be made to our society to cure its problems. Taking kids away from their families isn't the ultimate answer, at all. But your suggestions are fucking retarded.

Okay...  Digging deeper.

Kid is eight years old, and weighs over 200 lbs.  (Average weight for an 8 year old is 57.2 lbs (http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-weight-teens.shtml).  I had to look it up.) 

QuoteCuyahoga County does not have a specific policy on dealing with obese children. It removed the boy because case workers considered this mother's inability to get her son's weight down a form of medical neglect, said Mary Louise Madigan, a spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Family Services.

They said that the child's weight gain was caused by his environment and that the mother wasn't following doctor's orders -- which she disputes.

"This child's problem was so severe that we had to take custody," Madigan said. The agency worked with the mother for more than a year before asking Juvenile Court for custody of the child, she said.

There's a trial set for next month. 

The more in-depth article is here:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/obese_cleveland_heights_child.html

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 08:49:54 PM

I am very, very far from being a Libertarian, but you seem to be saying that if people won't make the changes that they are told they must make, shown how to make, and then given a year of continuing guidance in making, that when they fail to make those changes AT ALL, the government should then send in a team to live in fat people's homes and make sure they eat right and exercise?

:lulz: I'm sorry. But wow.

I totally missed that they had done the guidance for a year beyond the 12 week course. Re-read...fixed. Sans that, though, yeah. If it's worth pulling a kid out of the home, when that home's not otherwise ... and such ... then it's gotta be worth some pretty extreme measures to keep them in the home. When to say when, though? Glad that's not my call.

Honestly when I at first just read the posts about this, I was full blown expecting to read quotes by the Mom straight out of Precious, or something. That's the only way I could get my brain around someone not being able to keep their 3rd grader under 200lbs after having been confronted with doctors, and protective services, etc. I don't fully understand stupid without the retard filling, I guess.

Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 07:32:18 PM

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on November 29, 2011, 07:20:26 PM
http://www.uhhospitals.org/rainbowchildren/ourservices/divisionofendocrinologymetabolism/tabid/466/healthykidshealthyweight.aspx

Here's the low-down on the program they put the kid in. I like that it addresses the entire family and gives them access to dietitians and exercise specialists. I think it would be more effective if the core program lasted longer than 12 weeks.

My brother's heart blew up when he was a kid. He got a pacemaker and a defibrillator when he was around 18. He was so massive and overweight, 6'0'' and 400+ lbs that his heart couldn't take it. He couldn't sleep, couldn't breathe well, and couldn't get around too great.

No one seemed to really care about him or his issues, or what was going on in our home. They just went through the motions and shoved him off their caseload as fast as possible.

Same thing happened with my other brother, in a different circumstance. And me.

I don't think the programs work. I don't think the people being paid to do this shit actually care about what they're doing. But that's my experience. And you can keep saying I didn't read the article all you want.

But, in my opinion, taking a kid out of his comfort zone when this big scary shit happens is not going to help. And a 12 week program is only the start of what this kid needs.

Just my opinion. You can take it or leave it as you please.

Sometimes comfort zones are not what we need to be healthy or to survive.  Comfort zones are often what get us locked up, hospitalized and on the fastrack to getting dead, just saying.  That alone is not reason enough to not intervene if necessary.

Your experiences seem to color the effectiveness of this sort of shit, so I'll leave you alone on those.  Your interaction with these types of individuals seems to have tempered where you come from in your estimation of the efficacy for others.  I totally get that, and see it often in other avenues that are just as touchy.

Be that as it may, I still see no overstepping by these guys, not if their first set up was to give him a program to follow.  Also--which is it, the people/programs don't work, or they need to go on longer?  You are confusing me with your points.

I think the whole family needs intensive work on the long term. Like, a year or more. And nutrition education, how to shop and cook healthy, etc.

But I'm not sure where it should end. I mean, at some point it would be the state raising the entire family, not just taking the kid and trying to get him squared away. And that's if the programs are worth anything.

You have a point in that the comfort zone sometimes enables the very problem that needs correcting. That whole break the cycle thing. It just seems like a lot to stack on a 9 year old's plate.

I will be interested in seeing how this story progresses.

I'd also like to posit that whole family intervention is not an easy avenue nor is it always feasible, either.  Consider the resources it takes to do that.  Consider how inadequate most of our public works programs are.  Now apply that to cases like these.  How many families would the state be "raising" now?  You want to talk about overstepping boundaries...there you go.

As always, I go back to my usual bailiwick:  EDUFUCKINGCATION.  If we had a better system, it would reach the families in a more equal way such that this sort of seive wasn't necessary as often.  If people LEARNED at school and then had it reinforced at home what is good for them, what biology has taught us about fat, sugar, and exercise...then this problem would go a long way to being prevented.

There's no avoiding it some people are just fat lazy fucks. They tend to breed fat lazy fuck kids and then occasionally one of their kids will be slim and fit and they'll hassle it incessantly for being too skinny. Thing is, it's a choice. Do you want to be fit and healthy and enter the "long active life, if you don't happen to get hit by a bus" - lottery or do you want 30-40 years of sitting on a sofa, stuffing your face full of pop tarts and twinkies, watching soul destroying game shows before your heart finally gives up trying to pump solid lard through your arteries?

There aint a right and wrong answer but if you choose option-b don't expect me to sympathise with your "big-boned" bullshit, cos I won't. You're a fat lazy fuck and you'll probably die a long time before I do. Enjoy that twinkie, lardass! I agree with educating the kids, tho. Tell them - you're a fat lazy fuck, your mom and dad are fat lazy fucks, so don't listen to those assholes if you want to get healthy, eat less lard, do some exercise and don't worry about getting in trouble with the parents - you'll kick those fat lazy fuck's asses with one hand tied behind your back, that's the beauty of fitness.

I actually think it's tragic that they stopped teaching home ec in high school.

Quote from: Nigel on November 30, 2011, 05:43:26 PM
I actually think it's tragic that they stopped teaching home ec in high school.

We took it in 7th grade.

But that was actually more like "kitchen hygiene:  How not to poison yourself while preparing food."

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2011, 05:46:00 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 30, 2011, 05:43:26 PM
I actually think it's tragic that they stopped teaching home ec in high school.

We took it in 7th grade.

But that was actually more like "kitchen hygiene:  How not to poison yourself while preparing food."

The idea that you are expected to be able to prepare food at all has gone out the window. Cooking from scratch? How do?

I did cooking at school  :sad:

I still have a burn mark on my right wrist from it, actually.  It's hard to see now, with the hair covering it, but that was painful as fuck.  We did scotch eggs, pizza and, uh, other entirely unhealthy foods where the chances of someone getting set on fire were quite high, now I think about it...

Quote from: Nigel on November 30, 2011, 06:40:45 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2011, 05:46:00 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 30, 2011, 05:43:26 PM
I actually think it's tragic that they stopped teaching home ec in high school.

We took it in 7th grade.

But that was actually more like "kitchen hygiene:  How not to poison yourself while preparing food."

The idea that you are expected to be able to prepare food at all has gone out the window. Cooking from scratch? How do?

Alty is a prime example of why this shit should still be taught.

If food is bad, or even MIGHT be bad, you throw it the fuck away.

I think I got more out of that class than any other class I took in junior high school.

Sometimes I am amazed at the contrast between the relative popularity of cooking shows/competitions, and the absolute inability the general public has when it comes to preparing food.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2011, 06:55:35 PM
Sometimes I am amazed at the contrast between the relative popularity of cooking shows/competitions, and the absolute inability the general public has when it comes to preparing food.

Seriously. Even just the basics.

I don't think cooking shows really help with that; people end up with the impression that cooking from scratch is this sophisticated and complex alchemy unattainable to the common man, when honestly, where they need to start is with simple things like "rice" and "fried egg".

Eh, I have forced all of my children to help me in the kitchen from the time they were old enough to stir.  

My kids can cook, and not just microwave pizza and shit, I mean real food from scratch.

I grew up basically living in our kitchen, it was the heart of the house and where everyone usually was, sitting around the table.  It was nothing to come home and find my grandmother starting dinner and bowls set on the table for us kids to help with, either shelling peas or peeling potatos, snapping beans.  In retrospect, I grew up eating healthy, mainly because we grew our own vegetables and raised our own meat.

I know it's easy to put the blame on our education system but seriously, isn't it our responsibility as parents to make sure our kids eat healthy?  Isn't it our job to make sure they have the basic household skills to survive?

My first husband was a mommy's boy, couldn't even boil water.  I decided then, any child I had, male or female would leave my home with the ability to be self sufficient.  

I don't know, maybe it's not the "right" way or the "best" way to raise them, but you know, they aren't obese, they all are active in sports and in excellent health.  AND they can cook, do laundry, clean a bathtub, mop a floor and so forth.  It works for me.

Self-sufficiency is seen as a luxury these days.  Everyone hires out.  Need to iron?  Why bother--take it to the dry cleaners.  No time to cook?  Take out or drive thru on your way home.  Plan the meals? Fuck no, just drop by willy nilly at the store when you need something.  Whatever lands in the basket, lands.

I'm hoping my kids won't be total assmunches when they get to college and learn to eat more than ramen and pizza...we've taught them to make eggs, fry meat, chop veggies...boil pasta and make rice...I'm hopeful those skills will come in handy when we're no longer living with them day to day.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2011, 06:49:53 PM
If food is bad, or even MIGHT be bad, you throw it the fuck away.

If it might be bad, you eat it and let your stomach sort it out. If it IS bad, at least one orifice will power spray it into the toilet—problem solved.

Net,
human garbage disposal.

This is the correct method.

Cain,
veteran of a thousand food poisoning incidents.

Quote from: Khara on November 30, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
Eh, I have forced all of my children to help me in the kitchen from the time they were old enough to stir.  

My kids can cook, and not just microwave pizza and shit, I mean real food from scratch.

I grew up basically living in our kitchen, it was the heart of the house and where everyone usually was, sitting around the table.  It was nothing to come home and find my grandmother starting dinner and bowls set on the table for us kids to help with, either shelling peas or peeling potatos, snapping beans.  In retrospect, I grew up eating healthy, mainly because we grew our own vegetables and raised our own meat.

I know it's easy to put the blame on our education system but seriously, isn't it our responsibility as parents to make sure our kids eat healthy?  Isn't it our job to make sure they have the basic household skills to survive?

My first husband was a mommy's boy, couldn't even boil water.  I decided then, any child I had, male or female would leave my home with the ability to be self sufficient.  

I don't know, maybe it's not the "right" way or the "best" way to raise them, but you know, they aren't obese, they all are active in sports and in excellent health.  AND they can cook, do laundry, clean a bathtub, mop a floor and so forth.  It works for me.

It is the responsibility of the parents, but when the state mandates that the kids spend a significant amount of waking hours at an educational institution, it also becomes the responsibility of the state.

I know a single mom who doesn't have time to cook. Period. How are her kids going to learn?

How about people who didn't learn to cook... who teaches their kids?

Home-ec isn't just cooking. It's also economics. Schools used to be not only about academic skills but also "how to function as an adult" skills like woodshop and mechanics, and if our kids are going to be there all day, then they need to be learning those skills there, too... like how not to overdraft your account, how to pay bills on time, how to write up a simple budget.

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2011, 09:02:09 PM
This is the correct method.

Cain,
veteran of a thousand food poisoning incidents.

(http://i.imgur.com/C4cAd.gif):hi5::vom:

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 07:36:50 PM
One of the stupidest quotes in that whole article is "It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

It's NOT "HARD", YOU ARE JUST A LAZY, SPOILED ASSHOLE. "Hard" is working as a longshoreman or running a marathon or climbing a mountain or competing in a triathalon. "Hard" is raising kids alone in a city with one of the highest cost of living ratios and highest unemployment rates in the country without a formal education or any marketable job skills. "Hard" is living under a bridge because you couldn't make your house payments and rents are higher than your mortgage was.

Changing your fucking grocery shopping and cooking habits and going for a walk once a day is NOT FUCKING "HARD". And one year is ample time to ease into it. Stop buying junk food, you fat, stupid, lazy fuck.

AMEN!

BTW Khara from your last post and your first ITT, you're a really great mother. Just needed to say that :)

Quote from: Nigel on November 30, 2011, 06:58:28 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2011, 06:55:35 PM
Sometimes I am amazed at the contrast between the relative popularity of cooking shows/competitions, and the absolute inability the general public has when it comes to preparing food.

Seriously. Even just the basics.

I don't think cooking shows really help with that; people end up with the impression that cooking from scratch is this sophisticated and complex alchemy unattainable to the common man, when honestly, where they need to start is with simple things like "rice" and "fried egg".

This is the /exact/ feeling I had about baking until I had done it several times. Since my cooking generally involves inprecise measurements on the stovetop, it sounded like alchemy. I had no idea what baking powder or baking soda was for, or why you would add shortening, or eggs, or salt. After baking a few times, a cake, some bread, brownies (all under Phox's supervision, of course <3), I realized how simple it was. Baking powder, baking soda, yeast, these are all leavening agents of differing strengths and texture. Salt is just for flavor. Eggs and shortening act to glue everything together.

No longer alchemy. Though the proportions DO have to be close to the recipe or it won't rise right, will be too sticky or dry, or won't taste right.

Quote from: Nigel on November 30, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Home-ec isn't just cooking. It's also economics. Schools used to be not only about academic skills but also "how to function as an adult" skills like woodshop and mechanics, and if our kids are going to be there all day, then they need to be learning those skills there, too... like how not to overdraft your account, how to pay bills on time, how to write up a simple budget.

Seriously. My mom and dad taught me everything I know about home repair and tool use, but I would have really benefited from a basic auto maintenance class in HS. Too bad they only offered it after 5 prerequisites...Should have been available for everyone.

If you add an extra egg, just one, to one of those boxed cake mixes, you get a really moist cake that won't dry out so quickly.

/tangent

Quote from: Net on November 30, 2011, 09:20:06 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2011, 09:02:09 PM
This is the correct method.

Cain,
veteran of a thousand food poisoning incidents.

(http://i.imgur.com/C4cAd.gif):hi5::vom:

Tends to be more from the other end.

I've also noticed my sense of balance totally goes haywire when I've got food poisoning.  I managed to fall down a hill twice in an hour when I was ill in Switzerland, and in my latest incident, I had significant trouble getting from the bed to the toilet in the morning.  I dunno if that is common to all food poisoning incidents for all people, just for me, or just the last two of mine, but it is rather strange.

Quote from: Science me, babby on November 30, 2011, 10:25:57 PM
If you add an extra egg, just one, to one of those boxed cake mixes, you get a really moist cake that won't dry out so quickly.

/tangent

That's generally a good idea. Actually, we modified the brownie recipe we used because it wasn't wet enough to mix.  :lol:

Quote from: Net on November 30, 2011, 09:24:24 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 07:36:50 PM
One of the stupidest quotes in that whole article is "It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

It's NOT "HARD", YOU ARE JUST A LAZY, SPOILED ASSHOLE. "Hard" is working as a longshoreman or running a marathon or climbing a mountain or competing in a triathalon. "Hard" is raising kids alone in a city with one of the highest cost of living ratios and highest unemployment rates in the country without a formal education or any marketable job skills. "Hard" is living under a bridge because you couldn't make your house payments and rents are higher than your mortgage was.

Changing your fucking grocery shopping and cooking habits and going for a walk once a day is NOT FUCKING "HARD". And one year is ample time to ease into it. Stop buying junk food, you fat, stupid, lazy fuck.

AMEN!

What Net said. 

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2011, 10:45:59 PM

Quote from: Net on November 30, 2011, 09:20:06 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2011, 09:02:09 PM
This is the correct method.

Cain,
veteran of a thousand food poisoning incidents.

(http://i.imgur.com/C4cAd.gif):hi5::vom:

Tends to be more from the other end.

I've also noticed my sense of balance totally goes haywire when I've got food poisoning.  I managed to fall down a hill twice in an hour when I was ill in Switzerland, and in my latest incident, I had significant trouble getting from the bed to the toilet in the morning.  I dunno if that is common to all food poisoning incidents for all people, just for me, or just the last two of mine, but it is rather strange.

Can't say I've experienced that. My brain just kind whispers to me, "You're going to vomit soon," and I get a metallic flavor in my mouth—both well before it comes back up. It's fairly rare though. I think it's related to my absolute lack of food aversions. Besides indications of botulism and spoiled meat, I have built up a strong trust in my guts. If I were born in a different era I would've been the asshole to invent blue cheese.

It depends on the type of food poisoning. Some of them fuck with your central nervous system.

Urgh.  I got either food poisoning or a stomach virus when I was in college.  The helpful folks down at the campus medical station basically said, "it's one or the other, doesn't really matter, just don't eat anything solid for a few days, let it run its course."

"Run its course" meant "just projectile vomit every 15 minutes (yeah, my sick bastard friends timed me), or at the smell of food, and, for gods' sake, drink more juice and water than you puke."  I'm ALL set with food poisoning, thanks.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2011, 06:55:35 PM
Sometimes I am amazed at the contrast between the relative popularity of cooking shows/competitions, and the absolute inability the general public has when it comes to preparing food.

That's the beauty of teevee - why do when you can sit on your fat ass and watch? Same goes with weight loss shows. The best way to lose weight is not sitting on your fat ass on the sofa and watching land whales wobbling around an assault course.

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 30, 2011, 09:53:17 PM
BTW Khara from your last post and your first ITT, you're a really great mother. Just needed to say that :)

Agreed!  She sure is.  And under extreme duress this whole time in her personal life, as well.

I have to say, being a parent is a fucked up thing and a glorious thing at the same time.  Most do it by accident, and it changes your life forever.  If you don't treat it serious enough, it can ruin more than just your own but another human being's forever.  And doing it right all the time is next to impossible--because what other relationship do you think you have where you are perfect all the goddamned time?

There's a strange, medieval part of me that wants folks to EARN the rights to their kids when I hear of the neglect, abuse and downright dumbfuckery the general populce perpetrates on the kids of the earth day after day, moment to moment.  I wouldn't trust 85% of them with my dogs, why would I trust them with a human life that is vulnerable and can't fend for themselves?

But then, what right do I have to decide such things?  None.  But as a collective, we can demand that there are safeguards, preventives and incentives to keep us all on the "do less harm" track when it comes to caretaking and teaching our kids.

By the way, it IS the responsibility, as GOOD parental practice, to teach kids how to survive life and live it well.  But how many of us out there really think folks in general know these things THEMSELVES?  Were taught them THEMSELVES?  Or are not too selfish to say AW FUCKIT and skip the work it takes to do it altogether for their kids?  When you work 100 hours/week, for less pay, are strung out and worried, baking bread and cookies in the kitchen like gramma used to do is not a priority.

I'm not saying these things aren't important--we've just shifted in our priorities to the point that we've un-selected the skills that no longer seem relevant but are indeed still important especially once they are gone.

So like everything else in this day and age, though the spirit is willing (and studies have shown, parents everywhere really DO want the best for their kids--I just question if they know what that is or how to manifest it), the flesh is entirely too weak, undereducated and not well-rested enough.

Quote from: Jenne on December 01, 2011, 01:40:32 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 30, 2011, 09:53:17 PM
BTW Khara from your last post and your first ITT, you're a really great mother. Just needed to say that :)

Agreed!  She sure is.  And under extreme duress this whole time in her personal life, as well.

Thank you both!  :D

Most of this thread is concentrated extract of dildos, but THIS:

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 07:36:50 PM
Taking a child from their family is very extreme. However, it is completely, painfully clear (especially if you read other articles about this) that the parents had ample time, opportunity, and assistance to help their son, and failed to do so. The county wasn't even involved, from what I can tell, until the kid started rapidly gaining back the weight he had lost. The mother tries to blame genetics because both she and the father are overweight... that doesn't hold a lot of water. The kid DID lose weight last year, so that demonstrates that it's probably not a medical condition.

My ex's family is definitely predisposed to chubbiness, which I am pretty sure is largely because they are THE least active people I have ever known. Wonderful people, but absurdly sedentary, with an apparent aversion to moving around, and a tendency toward gluttony. My ex tried to tell me that he was just genetically fat, and I couldn't help laughing; he might be genetically lazy and gluttonous, though. My oldest daughter also hates activity and loves food, and she'd probably be severely overweight instead of just slightly chubby if I didn't keep a pantry full of healthy, boring snacks, cook healthy meals, and make her walk everywhere. The other two are athletic little rails.

One of the stupidest quotes in that whole article is "It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

It's NOT "HARD", YOU ARE JUST A LAZY, SPOILED ASSHOLE. "Hard" is working as a longshoreman or running a marathon or climbing a mountain or competing in a triathalon. "Hard" is raising kids alone in a city with one of the highest cost of living ratios and highest unemployment rates in the country without a formal education or any marketable job skills. "Hard" is living under a bridge because you couldn't make your house payments and rents are higher than your mortgage was.

Changing your fucking grocery shopping and cooking habits and going for a walk once a day is NOT FUCKING "HARD". And one year is ample time to ease into it. Stop buying junk food, you fat, stupid, lazy fuck.

is fucking MAGNIFICENT.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

:mittens:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 01, 2011, 09:28:15 PM
Most of this thread is concentrated extract of dildos, but THIS:

Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 07:36:50 PM
Taking a child from their family is very extreme. However, it is completely, painfully clear (especially if you read other articles about this) that the parents had ample time, opportunity, and assistance to help their son, and failed to do so. The county wasn't even involved, from what I can tell, until the kid started rapidly gaining back the weight he had lost. The mother tries to blame genetics because both she and the father are overweight... that doesn't hold a lot of water. The kid DID lose weight last year, so that demonstrates that it's probably not a medical condition.

My ex's family is definitely predisposed to chubbiness, which I am pretty sure is largely because they are THE least active people I have ever known. Wonderful people, but absurdly sedentary, with an apparent aversion to moving around, and a tendency toward gluttony. My ex tried to tell me that he was just genetically fat, and I couldn't help laughing; he might be genetically lazy and gluttonous, though. My oldest daughter also hates activity and loves food, and she'd probably be severely overweight instead of just slightly chubby if I didn't keep a pantry full of healthy, boring snacks, cook healthy meals, and make her walk everywhere. The other two are athletic little rails.

One of the stupidest quotes in that whole article is "It's a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

It's NOT "HARD", YOU ARE JUST A LAZY, SPOILED ASSHOLE. "Hard" is working as a longshoreman or running a marathon or climbing a mountain or competing in a triathalon. "Hard" is raising kids alone in a city with one of the highest cost of living ratios and highest unemployment rates in the country without a formal education or any marketable job skills. "Hard" is living under a bridge because you couldn't make your house payments and rents are higher than your mortgage was.

Changing your fucking grocery shopping and cooking habits and going for a walk once a day is NOT FUCKING "HARD". And one year is ample time to ease into it. Stop buying junk food, you fat, stupid, lazy fuck.

is fucking MAGNIFICENT.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

:mittens:

:thanks: