Messages

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?

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 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.

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!!!

[BECAUSE HE COULD NO LONGER BREATHE ON HIS OWN]

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:

When 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.

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.

Aw, but the ISI are just a buncha goodfellas...

har har har har

True, he sold out.  Over and over.  But warts and all, he was still more of a voice for Democrats than most even try to have.

The Dems are gonna miss that guy. 

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.

I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral.  If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.

I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific.  As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'.  Mostly because of colors schemes, etc. 

Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you.  I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements.  *shrug*  But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL  my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).

Even the boy's sets are gender-specific, and here's the simple reason why: If a boy wanted to play with the girls set, it would be frowned upon.

As a friend of mine says, "Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." It's misogyny, plain and simple.

Yep.

My son is a beautiful child with large eyes and delicate features. He likes to wear his hair long and he used to love wearing dresses and women's shoes around the house. His dad used to make fun of him and say "everybody will think you're a girl". Because that's a deterrent?

So he just wore dresses and women's shoes around my house, where nobody gives a fuck. He stopped doing it, but he still wears makeup sometimes.

Also, total Brony. Not at all kidding.

There was a mom recently who put out a book about her preschooler who liked to wear dresses.  She did it so people at school would understand--she said her family was only just then starting to grasp why he wanted to wear them, pretend to be a princess, etc.  She claimed the book helped.  http://www.amazon.com/Princess-story-about-young-loves/dp/0615395945  She calls him "My Princess Boy."

It reminded me of the time I was teaching preschool in the LA bay area at a private pre-K through 5th grade school.  There were dress-up clothes for the 3 and 4 year olds to play in, and this one boy always chose the blue, silky dress.  And I let him, because I knew what he felt when he played in it--the same feeling I always had trying on beautiful, floaty dresses.

His mother came in and picked him up one day and yelled and screamed at me.  Said that if his father ever knew he dressed up in dresses at school, he'd beat his child, her then ME.  I stared at her.  And then I hated her.  I couldn't believe this kid, this beautiful boy, was in the hands of these monsters.  I mean, she was trying to be funny about it, but to me, it's not a joke.  That kid was on his way to being fairly screwed up if wearing a dress for play was a matter for a beating.

I used to see prostitution as a simple, black and white no-no...both for the sex worker AND for the john/jane soliciting.  And then I watched shit shows like HBO's Cathouse and Real Sex, and I saw it's a bit different when the folks running it are attracting people who desire to be there.  There are prostitutes working actively, right now, for rights to health care, rights to "come out of the closet" as sex workers, so that they are protected.  They want to work in this industry, and they feel slighted by society's sense of morality in that they can't get equal representation in labor laws because what they do is by and large illegal still.

But then I've seen documentaries on the world behind porn, the sex industry vis a vis hookers on the street, strippers at clubs, etc.  The world these women (and young men) are locked into is a dank, dark hellhole.  Add to that the worldwide phenomenon of child slavery, the picture becomes even darker and akin to outright evil.

So my thoughts on "the oldest profession" have widened and deepend past the initial white-person's-religion-of-the-West knee jerk reaction.  I still don't see going to hookers for sex as a healthy thing.  I see watching porn and going to strip clubs as walking a bit on the wild side because you need an extra bit of titillation than you are getting otherwise.  And perhaps it's always all lumped together because the people making this industry work tend to have to make the more morally degrading decisions and deal with the ugly underbelly of society because they're forced to in order to get it done.

I haven't lived in a culture where there isn't this pervasive guilt about sex and all things exploitative about it.  So I don't know what that really looks or feels like.  I know in America we're a many-headed hydra on the subject--our taboos almost outweigh our permissives.  Which makes the permissives that much more boring.

In my mind's eye, I juxtapose the crack whores on the streets of Chicago with the bunny ranches in Nevada, and the child beauty pageant 3 year old toddlers and their screeching harridan mothers with the porn stars with their pasties and brazillians...and I have no answers.

I do know that I think Nigel is right.  I don't want a partner who seeks sex from a prostitute, and neither do I think I ever would, either.  I do not want my sons to do it, and I don't want them becoming prostitutes, either.

I want better.  And I think I'm quite ok with thinking "other than THAT" is better.

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.

It's an ol' gaffer!

I has not a chillax. 

BUT I DOES HAS A FROST HEAVES CD!

A package in return shall be yours, Alphadude!  Thankees!