# taking obese mom's kids



## jbourne678 (May 28, 2010)

OMG how can they just take a mother's kids away because somebody thinks they're obese and need help? Even in the UK. And check the link and all the comments. How can people be so rude. Nobody even jumps in to defend the big people against bigotry or question the rights of a government that would do such a thing. Incredible.

http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/109635-mother-obese-children-pregnant-seventh-time.html


----------



## The Fez (May 28, 2010)

She sounds like a case of somebody who absolutely shouldn't be looking after kids. Also seriously concerning:

'Their kids include a 12-year-old boy who is 16st'

People can be overweight and relatively healthy, but this clearly isn't one of those cases.


----------



## imfree (May 28, 2010)

.............Sadly, OBESE=NONHUMAN for too many people, it's
just as simple as that. Granted, the family could live a better
lifestyle, but it appears that the woman has enough mobility
to keep her kids safe. Human Services should have no right
to take kids from parents without just cause to believe the
kids are in danger or being neglected. Then, too, it could be
argued that the mom is neglecting the kids by overfeeding
them, I guess.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 28, 2010)

The Fez said:


> 'Their kids include a 12-year-old boy who is 16st'



Is this the lad seated on the floor in the top picture? He appears to be about twelve, but he doesn't look as if he weighs 16 stone -- half that, maybe. In fact, the children described in the article don't seem to match the ones in the picture. What's going on here?


----------



## Jes (May 28, 2010)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Is this the lad seated on the floor in the top picture? He appears to be about twelve, but he doesn't look as if he weighs 16 stone -- half that, maybe. In fact, the children described in the article don't seem to match the ones in the picture. What's going on here?



Was this article published in the Wall Street Journal? LA Times? ...No?


----------



## joswitch (May 28, 2010)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Is this the lad seated on the floor in the top picture? He appears to be about twelve, but he doesn't look as if he weighs 16 stone -- half that, maybe. In fact, the children described in the article don't seem to match the ones in the picture. What's going on here?



Media providing random photos so haterz can get their hate on?


----------



## T_Devil (May 28, 2010)

I didn't read the article. I couldn't get past the comments. People are stupid. 
We only have 937 more days until it all doesn't matter anymore. Or not in which case, it'll all be a very big disappointment.

I have a very unusual way of looking at things.


----------



## lozonloz (May 28, 2010)

FFS...

I'm 24 stone and a size 30 and I can run around and play football with my godson just fine. And I do. This shouldn't be about her being fat, it's about her being a bad parent who doesnt watch what her children are consuming, although honestly thats still not a good enough excuse to take them away from her in my view.

Another case of social services sticking their nose in where it isnt wanted or needed...

Sorry, I have massive issues with social services ever since they started sniffing around my mother when I was a teen. Apparently my brother smoking at 16 (legal) my weight (none of their damn concern) and my parents seperation (something that happened 8 years previously) meant that we were "concerning". I was 17, frankly, abit late to be concerned about me. Idiots.


----------



## Saoirse (May 28, 2010)

the boy weighs the same as me. :happy:


----------



## Tooz (May 28, 2010)

The Fez said:


> 'Their kids include a 12-year-old boy who is 16st'
> 
> People can be overweight and relatively healthy, but this clearly isn't one of those cases.



So, I was unhealthy because I weighed the same at 12?


----------



## Lamia (May 28, 2010)

The Fez said:


> She sounds like a case of somebody who absolutely shouldn't be looking after kids. Also seriously concerning:
> 
> 'Their kids include a 12-year-old boy who is 16st'
> 
> People can be overweight and relatively healthy, but this clearly isn't one of those cases.



This is what 16 stone looks like on a 12 year old...that's me at 218lbs at age 12 doing the splits. I also did track, softball etc. Weight is just a number and means little about health or quality of life. 





[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

So where are these kids going? Into the loving arms of a waiting foster parent? I seriously doubt it. Trust me kids would rather be with their parents....good or bad. 

Just because we don't like how someone lives or raises their kids doesn't mean we get to interfere in their lives. It just opens the door for more meddling in people's affairs.


----------



## BBW Goddess Anna (May 28, 2010)

Lamia said:


> Just because we don't like how someone lives or raises their kids doesn't mean we get to interfere in their lives. It just opens the door for more meddling in people's affairs.



Amen. Abused kids are being returned to their parents a murdered, but these children who don't really seem to the dangerous point of obese are needing social services why? Maybe there is more to the story, maybe there is severe neglect, or maybe people are just bastards. :doh:


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 28, 2010)

"*It's not just the obesity that worries us.* They annoy their neighbours. They have trained the kids to be aggressive - they're like a family from HELL."

From the article.. bolding mine. I don't really think this is even mostly about the weight. It's probably a tiny part of the big picture this crappy newspaper decided to blow up into a big deal because it's sensational.. people love anti-fat shit in the news.


----------



## The Fez (May 29, 2010)

Tooz said:


> So, I was unhealthy because I weighed the same at 12?



Um, if you say so, because that's not what I was saying.

I said this case specifically is one where the kids clearly aren't healthy (if the article is accurate, anyway). Read the rest of it.


----------



## Lamia (May 29, 2010)

thatgirl08 said:


> "*It's not just the obesity that worries us.* They annoy their neighbours. They have trained the kids to be aggressive - they're like a family from HELL."
> 
> From the article.. bolding mine. I don't really think this is even mostly about the weight. It's probably a tiny part of the big picture this crappy newspaper decided to blow up into a big deal because it's sensational.. people love anti-fat shit in the news.




I had many different types of friends growing up and they all had crappy parents to one extent or another. One girl's house was always a mess and the mom was sort of emotionally vacant. *dishes and clothes piled high poo on the bathroom walls etc* Another the family was very tidy, but the parents were never home and the kids parented themselves. My family my dad was a raging alcholic and verbally abusive. He also refused to heat the upstairs so we slept with ice on the windows in the winter. 

We all grew up and are happy people. None of us would have benefitted from having social services or anyone else interfering. They cause more problems than they solve or they don't do anything in the extreme cases where they should have. 

My cousin's family were avid church going folk, house was immaculate and beautifully decorated. They were apparently beaten and abused quite regularly. He would go on trips and she would line them up so he could beat them with a stove shovel before he left in case they were bad while he was gone. All of these kids have some severe social problems. Drugs, prostitution, beat their own kids, jail time, etc. 

You can't just look at someone's house and their surroundings and decide "oh these people are unfit" because you never know who really is unfit. It's not our job to police other people and their families unless a kid is being physically assaulted or molested. Actual criminal behavior. 

Being fat, lazy and having a shitty personality isn't a crime....yet.


----------



## joswitch (May 29, 2010)

I'm not going to comment on the actual case / article cos the information we have is SO sparse and from such an unreliable source... 

But - in general - social Workers in UK do seem to have a "I see fat people" thing going on....

Maybe because: Fat is visible to any moron, whereas bruises etc. can be hidden (e.g. baby P case), thus requiring actual investigation / intelligence...
:sigh:


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 29, 2010)

Lamia said:


> I had many different types of friends growing up and they all had crappy parents to one extent or another. One girl's house was always a mess and the mom was sort of emotionally vacant. *dishes and clothes piled high poo on the bathroom walls etc* Another the family was very tidy, but the parents were never home and the kids parented themselves. My family my dad was a raging alcholic and verbally abusive. He also refused to heat the upstairs so we slept with ice on the windows in the winter.
> 
> We all grew up and are happy people. None of us would have benefitted from having social services or anyone else interfering. They cause more problems than they solve or they don't do anything in the extreme cases where they should have.
> 
> ...



I have no idea why my quote was linked with this because my only point was that everyone is overreacting because the article states that the obesity is a small part of a big picture..


----------



## Lamia (May 30, 2010)

thatgirl08 said:


> I have no idea why my quote was linked with this because my only point was that everyone is overreacting because the article states that the obesity is a small part of a big picture..



I wasn't in disagreement with you, but using your post as a way to say that the bigger picture beyond the obesity is also just social traits that we find unsavory; being lazy, messy, rude, mean. None of these traits are illegal so I am wondering what legal grounds they have in the UK.


----------



## jbourne678 (May 30, 2010)

I'm just glad I was born in America and not in the U.K., because I was a skinny kid but my parents were overweight, so the government would have taken _them_ away from _me_!


----------



## Gspoon (May 30, 2010)

My father works in this sort of field, about child neglect, parentage and abuse and what have you, so I will try to use my bits of knowledge about this sort of stuff (In other words: I am not a professional, this is merely my opinion from what I have learned in the past ).


The question I have is this: Was said mom able to take care of her kids? Would these children be better not living with their mom if she couldn't take the best of care she possibly could have given them?

From what I read, it seems that she wasn't properly taking care of her kids. She was being lazy and letting them do what ever. Thats not a parent, thats barely even a sitter. This woman may be fat, and probably earned a lot of our respect due to that, but these are children that need to be taken care of. Letting them sit in front of the tv and letting them get fat isn't the worst thing in the world, but it isn't the best either.

This woman doesn't care enough about the well being of her children. That is a worthy offense of losing her children.

Reading from what Thatgirl08 quoted. It wasn't because of her being obese, it is because she is making her children obese by letting them eat like her lifestyle. Children need to know that is important to have a somewhat healthy diet. Blimping up on Pizza and Cola may be great for some of us, because we know better, but these kids eat what their parents give them to eat. These kids are dependent on this woman and their father.

Removal of these children is the right thing to do. They may not lose the weight, which is fine... but at least in proper care they can learn better eating habits and try to stay healthy. Just my opinion.


----------



## joswitch (May 30, 2010)

We've had a few threads on this kind of case recently and at least one carried links to official stats that showed kids in "care" suffer very badly (more likely to be abused for instance) and have much worse outcomes as adults... So I'd say you need MUCH better reasons to remove these kids than anything mentioned from the article... "learn to eat healthy" certainly isn't a good enough reason for such action...


----------



## Lamia (May 30, 2010)

Here is an article I found while trying to find more information about this case. 

http://www.ukmedix.com/weight-loss/weight-loss-obesity-children.cfm

"A doctor in the United Kingdom has come out with a bold and extraordinary statement regarding the problem of childhood obesity. Dr Matthew Capehorn said that parents who had obese children under the age of 12 should be charged with parental neglect, meaning that they could have their kids taken away from them."

here is another article about this case different spin not much more info though

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2009/10/22/seven-children-taken-away-from-fat-family/


----------



## Lamia (May 30, 2010)

joswitch said:


> We've had a few threads on this kind of case recently and at least one carried links to official stats that showed kids in "care" suffer very badly (more likely to be abused for instance) and have much worse outcomes as adults... So I'd say you need MUCH better reasons to remove these kids than anything mentioned from the article... "learn to eat healthy" certainly isn't a good enough reason for such action...



:bow:exactly! 

I mean once we start pulling kids out of homes because we don't like how they parent where does it end?

My neighbors are Christian and homeschool their kids. The mom can barely read, but she's their "teacher". I think that sucks, but that's their business. I find it much more offensive to keep your kids ignorant than fat. It's not my right to tell them what to teach or how to teach their children or anyone elses. I realize that we would love to live in a perfect world, but once you start dictating to people how to live their lives it opens the door for more and more control and oppression.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 30, 2010)

I don't know what the economic circumstances of this family are, but the impression I get from the article is that they're poor. And one thing I have noticed over the years is that, in my own home state at least, poor families are much more likely to have their children taken away than middle-class families. It may mean that Social Services assumes that bourgeois values about parenting are the "right" ones, or it simply may be that Social Services doesn't want to mess with anyone who can afford a lawyer. I can't help wondering to what degree economics are involved in this case.


----------



## bigmac (May 30, 2010)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> I don't know what the economic circumstances of this family are, but the impression I get from the article is that they're poor. And one thing I have noticed over the years is that, in my own home state at least, poor families are much more likely to have their children taken away than middle-class families. It may mean that Social Services assumes that bourgeois values about parenting are the "right" ones, or it simply may be that Social Services doesn't want to mess with anyone who can afford a lawyer. I can't help wondering to what degree economics are involved in this case.



This is very true. My wife is a CPS social worker. Most of the children her office takes into custody live in the western half of her county (i.e. were all the poor people live). Interestingly when they do get east county cases they're usually severe ones. So yes, it does look like parents who are not poor get a pass on marginal child neglect/abuse cases.


----------



## Saoirse (May 30, 2010)

I highly doubt the kids were removed *simply* because the parents are fat.


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 30, 2010)

Lamia said:


> I wasn't in disagreement with you, but using your post as a way to say that the bigger picture beyond the obesity is also just social traits that we find unsavory; being lazy, messy, rude, mean. None of these traits are illegal so I am wondering what legal grounds they have in the UK.



Ohh, I see what you're saying now. The problem with these types of articles is that we rarely get all the facts.


----------



## bigmac (May 30, 2010)

Lamia said:


> This is what 16 stone looks like on a 12 year old...that's me at 218lbs at age 12 doing the splits. I also did track, softball etc. Weight is just a number and means little about health or quality of life.


[/QUOTE]


Great pic -- looks like you, my best friend (who was also a 200lb cheerleader), and my wife (who was a 180lb soccer player) all had the same hairstylist back in the day. Its always good to see fat people out enjoying life.


----------



## bigmac (May 31, 2010)

Regarding weight and government action it should be noted that the extreme cases requiring intervention are extremely rare (far less than even one percent of children). However, when doctors and social worker hear that a child is in the 99th percentile for weight//BMI they in many cases jump into misguided action. Since there are about 74 million children in the USA if social workers use the 99th percentile as a guideline there are about 740,000 children at risk of being removed (this would include my own 18m daughter). Obviously the vast majority of these kids are perfectly fine -- but subject to scrutiny because of some numbers on a growth chart.


----------



## LoveBHMS (May 31, 2010)

bigmac said:


> Regarding weight and government action it should be noted that the extreme cases requiring intervention are extremely rare (far less than even one percent of children). However, when doctors and social worker hear that a child is in the 99th percentile for weight//BMI they in many cases jump into misguided action. Since there are about 74 million children in the USA if social workers use the 99th percentile as a guideline there are about 740,000 children at risk of being removed (this would include my own 18m daughter). Obviously the vast majority of these kids are perfectly fine -- but subject to scrutiny because of some numbers on a growth chart.



I'm going to guess it's more than numbers on a chart. We've had several of these discussions and in some of the cases on the news, the kids were immobile or nearly immobile or the parents were interviewed saying the kids refused to eat fruit and veggies and would only eat potato chips or fried chicken so that's what they ate. In one situation the kid wasn't going to school anymore because he could not walk the distance to get there.

Nobody thinks kids should be removed for crappy parenting, but if a kid is too fat to walk to school and thus is not going to school, the authorities do need to step in.


----------



## bigmac (May 31, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm going to guess it's more than numbers on a chart. We've had several of these discussions and in some of the cases on the news, the kids were immobile or nearly immobile or the parents were interviewed saying the kids refused to eat fruit and veggies and would only eat potato chips or fried chicken so that's what they ate. In one situation the kid wasn't going to school anymore because he could not walk the distance to get there.
> 
> Nobody thinks kids should be removed for crappy parenting, but if a kid is too fat to walk to school and thus is not going to school, the authorities do need to step in.



True but the numbers on the chart are what get the ball rolling. Remember, a 3 three year old who's 15 pounds above the norm and a 3 year old who's 100 pounds above the norm will both be in the 99th percentile. To the social worker reading a report they appear the same. Decisions get made before anyone even interviews the kid -- and once made decisions are hard to overturn.


----------



## LoveBHMS (May 31, 2010)

bigmac said:


> True but the numbers on the chart are what get the ball rolling. Remember, a 3 three year old who's 15 pounds above the norm and a 3 year old who's 100 pounds above the norm will both be in the 99th percentile. To the social worker reading a report they appear the same. Decisions get made before anyone even interviews the kid -- and once made decisions are hard to overturn.



If a three year old kid is a hundred pounds overweight, there is a problem.

Not sure where these charts come from, but presumably a doctor's office where the doctor or nurse would know if the kid was fifteen pounds or a hundred pounds overweight.


----------

