# Should parent's lose custody of their obese kids?



## Surlysomething (Jul 14, 2011)

http://www.news1130.com/news/world/...-lose-custody-of-obese-kids-in-some-cases-mds

You know, I think the parents should be given resources to learn to help their kids and make healthier choices etc. What about the family as a whole? And if things never get better and the child gets so unhealthy, then reassess.

It's such a complicated issue in my opinion.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 14, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> http://www.news1130.com/news/world/...-lose-custody-of-obese-kids-in-some-cases-mds
> 
> You know, I think the parents should be given resources to learn to help their kids and make healthier choices etc. What about the family as a whole? And if things never get better and the child gets so unhealthy, then reassess.
> 
> It's such a complicated issue in my opinion.



I think we'd be better served making sure that healthy food is more readily available and affordable than fast food. A parent can feed their family for less money with fast food or processed junk than they can veggies and meat bought from the grocery store, that's a big problem. 

We subsidize corn, so that crap can go into all our foods. Why not subsidize broccoli or free range meat farms? Make those foods more afforable so that everyone can afford to feed their family healthy foods. We can't keep pumping hormones into our kids and expect there to not be any side effects, and really the skinny kids can be just as unhealthy from eating these foods as the fat kids.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jul 14, 2011)

Too much social engineering for me. Whats next Dump a kid for being epileptic? dump a kid for being sick or born with a childhood illness? dump a kid because they got brown eyes instead of green eyes.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Jul 14, 2011)

I can definitely see a case for negligence in the extreme situations. If health is an issue and nothing's being done about the problem, then I would be in favor of intervention. However, I'm not 100% certain removal from the home is a must. Though certainly there are those situations where the parents are a problem factor that needs to be pulled from the equation of the childrens' lives, I would think the same basic ends as temporary foster care could be achieved through state intervention on the diet/activity level of the obese children, while keeping them in their homes.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 14, 2011)

My brother used to sneak food, mom would always find wrappers under his bed when she'd go in to clean or whatever. It got to a point that they even put a lock on the fridge. Not because my brother was fat but just because he'd eat and eat and eat, and they weren't able to stop him from doing it. Whatever steps they took, he'd find a way. 

Sometimes its not the parents fault and short of strapping the kid down and monitoring them 24/7 there isn't a whole lot they can do.


----------



## Jes (Jul 14, 2011)

[parents]

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87029


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 14, 2011)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I think we'd be better served making sure that healthy food is more readily available and affordable than fast food. A parent can feed their family for less money with fast food or processed junk than they can veggies and meat bought from the grocery store, that's a big problem.
> 
> We subsidize corn, so that crap can go into all our foods. Why not subsidize broccoli or free range meat farms? Make those foods more afforable so that everyone can afford to feed their family healthy foods. We can't keep pumping hormones into our kids and expect there to not be any side effects, and really the skinny kids can be just as unhealthy from eating these foods as the fat kids.


 
I wish it was that easy. I think even if you offered healthy choices more readily people would be hesitant to try their new options. It's so ingrained in people to eat poorly. I think Michelle Obama had a good idea with the Lets Move campaign, unfortunately people hate being told what they should be doing and would prefer to actually mock her efforts.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 14, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> I wish it was that easy. I think even if you offered healthy choices more readily people would be hesitant to try their new options. It's so ingrained in people to eat poorly. I think Michelle Obama had a good idea with the Lets Move campaign, unfortunately people hate being told what they should be doing and would prefer to actually mock her efforts.




I think at first people would be hesitant, but just like when introducing new food to a child you have to put it on their plate 5 times before they will actually eat it, eventually people would start taking advantage of the healthier options offered to them.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 14, 2011)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I think at first people would be hesitant, but just like when introducing new food to a child you have to put it on their plate 5 times before they will actually eat it, eventually people would start taking advantage of the healthier options offered to them.


 
True! "Come on, just try a little. Ok, just one bite! How about two bites now?"

Haha.


----------



## Keb (Jul 14, 2011)

My mom got a bit depressed by reading about this issue. I was fat by the time I was 7, and I've never been thin. (Before that, I was still always at the top of the charts, but that's when they sent me to the nutritionist who suggested that Mom "only take me to McDonald's once a week," which sounded like nirvana to a kid who got happy meals as rarely as I did.) 

She was going on about how they would have taken me from her if I'd been born a decade or two later than I was. 

And the thing is, Mom did do everything right. Her other two kids came out skinny. We WERE sent out to play all the time. We ate homemade, healthy meals on a regular basis. There were never chips in the house until after I went to college. 

I was still fat. In a non-abusive household. Unless you count having to wash the dishes occasionally as abusive, which I did when I was eleven or so. 

That's a fact that some people need to learn to deal with.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jul 14, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> I wish it was that easy. I think even if you offered healthy choices more readily people would be hesitant to try their new options. It's so ingrained in people to eat poorly. I think Michelle Obama had a good idea with the Lets Move campaign, unfortunately people hate being told what they should be doing and would prefer to actually mock her efforts.



I think you're right. And as you guys have said, those eating habits are entrenched. This is why it's important to try to encourage kids to eat healthy foods early, because those habits become ingrained early in life.

What got my kids excited about vegetables? Gardening. Once they became part of the process of growing veggies, suddenly it was fun and vegetables were tasty. My kids would eat carrots they pulled right out of our carrot box, barely bothering to rinse them off. They'd pull peas off the vine and eat them. They got excited about pulling lettuce apart to make salad, or even just eating the leaves whole. The next best thing was teaching them how to cook, which got them excited about playing with flavors. As a result, my son is a very good cook, eats a healthy diet, and is currently in South Africa for school, and trying every different food he can find.

I realize this isn't reasonable for most people, however. I was a stay at home mom, and had the time and inclination to have an organic garden. However, farmer's markets are getting better and better in most communities and you can get fresher veggies which taste tons better than what you get at your supermarket. Finding new recipes is also easier than ever, with the internet providing countless recipes to try.

It takes time, intention and effort, however, something we don't always have a lot of. Or maybe for some of us it's a matter of choice.

But I really don't think the plan is to take healthy fat kids away from their parents. I think the idea is more that a child who is so fat that they have significant, life threatening health problems and whose parents can't care for them appropriately be placed in a home where that can happen temporarily while the parents are given the resources they need to be able to take over. It's not a sudden thing, and shouldn't come as a great surprise. In my experience with OCS, they really hate to take kids unless there are no other options. There aren't enough foster homes and their goal is on keeping families together. So it's not as though there are tons of case workers out there, waiting to grab unsuspecting fat kids and take them away from loving, fat parents.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 14, 2011)

Miss Vickie said:


> But I really don't think the plan is to take healthy fat kids away from their parents. I think the idea is more that a child who is so fat that they have significant, life threatening health problems and whose parents can't care for them appropriately be placed in a home where that can happen temporarily while the parents are given the resources they need to be able to take over. It's not a sudden thing, and shouldn't come as a great surprise. In my experience with OCS, they really hate to take kids unless there are no other options.


 
Exactly. I don't think your average fat kid is going to warrant as much attention as a 400 lb - 12 yo will. 

Keb, you were probably safe. Haha.


----------



## Sydney Vicious (Jul 14, 2011)

My tax dollars should not be spent on children arbitrarily taken from their homes.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jul 14, 2011)

Sydney Vicious said:


> My tax dollars should not be spent on children arbitrarily taken from their homes.



What do you consider arbitrary? If the kid had a chronic illness that the parents weren't treating, like, say, asthma? Would that be arbitrary? At what level do you think it's appropriate for the state to intervene?


----------



## Shan34 (Jul 14, 2011)

Short answer No.

I think it would all depend on just how fucked up the family is as a whole. If they are being uncared for and neglected, then perhaps. But if they are loved, cared for and looked after, then I don't believe the absolute answer is removing them from the home.


----------



## MissAshley (Jul 14, 2011)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I think we'd be better served making sure that healthy food is more readily available and affordable than fast food. A parent can feed their family for less money with fast food or processed junk than they can veggies and meat bought from the grocery store, that's a big problem.
> 
> We subsidize corn, so that crap can go into all our foods. Why not subsidize broccoli or free range meat farms? Make those foods more afforable so that everyone can afford to feed their family healthy foods. We can't keep pumping hormones into our kids and expect there to not be any side effects, and really the skinny kids can be just as unhealthy from eating these foods as the fat kids.



That's true and I agree.

I don't think parents should lose custody at all, unless there is proof that they are overfeeding their children crappy foods without a care, then there should be an investigation because that would be argued as a form of child abuse.


----------



## bigmac (Jul 14, 2011)

Miss Vickie said:


> What do you consider arbitrary? If the kid had a chronic illness that the parents weren't treating, like, say, asthma? Would that be arbitrary? At what level do you think it's appropriate for the state to intervene?



Social workers -- like most people -- tend to take the path of least resistance (i.e. cops give out tons of speeding tickets but when was the last you saw a cop give a ticket for an illegal lane change -- for speeding he just writes down what the radar says in a preprinted box but for an illegal lane change he'll have to actually write a narrative). Likewise -- social workers have lists and guidelines for what justifies removal of kids -- if its on the list or fits the guidelines the kids get removed (or at least the burden shifts to the parents to convince the social workers not to remove). There is also the catchall of general neglect which social workers can use for unusual circumstances. However, social workers have to do more than just go through a checklist before they can remove a child for general neglect -- therefore -- removals for general neglect are rather rare.

We need to make sure that obesity does not become just another box to check to justify removal on agency forms. If people (i.e.like the AMA authors) keep pushing, social service administrators may very well do just that -- and once removal for obesity gets management approval the number of removals will skyrocket.

As is often the case, the best course of action is to do nothing new. Social workers already have the power to remove extremely obese kids under the rubric of general neglect. In the very few cases were removal may be justified the plight of the child will encourage the responding social workers to do the work a general neglect removal requires -- is all other case the kids will (as is proper) stay in the home.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jul 14, 2011)

Surlysomething said:


> http://www.news1130.com/news/world/...-lose-custody-of-obese-kids-in-some-cases-mds
> 
> You know, I think the parents should be given resources to learn to help their kids and make healthier choices etc. What about the family as a whole? And if things never get better and the child gets so unhealthy, then reassess.
> 
> It's such a complicated issue in my opinion.



I worked in Child Protection as an investigator for nearly 5 years and the amount of parents I have come across that don't feed their children at all is still more of a safety concern than those that "don't make the right choices with food". At least they are giving their kids food! Making the kids wards of the state solely because they are eating the wrong food and are obese is ridiculous because for every one of these kids that go into the system the kids that get raped, beaten, live in filth etc slip through the cracks.

Unless there are other factors that pose a physical risk to the child as well as their obesity such as domestic violence, neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc then removing them from their homes is excessive. Being taken from your family and being placed in state care is a traumatic experience for a child, even the ones who are facing trauma inside their homes, and really it should be a last resort. Why can't this "education" of the parents be done with the kids still in the home? Their backpeddling statement by saying that every effort would be made to reunite the family is pure crap because it takes months just to prove a case to the court for the removal of a child but then to prove a case saying the child should then go home will take even longer and so you're looking at months or even a couple of years before that child gets to go home. The Child Protection system is ridiculously beauracratic and slow and although gives the appearance of caring for the child, it only really is working to protect the bearacracy.

I'm sorry for the rant but this really sounds like a stupid idea for a policy and the people who are thinking about it really have no insight into the Child Protection system or how it impacts on a child to be taken into state custody. The statement "Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child" is a joke. Discomfort doesn't even cover it and yes of course it can be necessary but this is one example of where it is not necessary (unless, like I said, there are other risk factors involved in the child's obesity such as the child's mistreatment).

Ok, I think I have done enough ranting... but this sort of thing does piss me off because I have seen too many kids slip through the cracks and I have also seen too many kids put into care for stupid reasons.


----------



## GratefulFA (Jul 14, 2011)

I remember being weighed in school and the note "short and heavy" next to my name. It seemed strange and bothersome to me because I had no idea I was "short and heavy" or that I might be perceived that way.

I was jealous of my "better off" friends because they got treats, fluffernutter sandwiches, pop and all the stuff we couldn't get because we were "poor".

My mom pulled off the miracle of keeping us fed with home made meals and lunches to bring to school for many years and the food was not overly rich or over the top in any way.

Portions were split up with everybody and portions were reasonable. There wasn't much left for seconds especially after the meat or popular items were divided.

Yet, I was "short and heavy".

Today I'm "normal" many years later...not sure what that means or why either.

When there is profit and power at stake for drug companies and government, the concept of having these entities step in and "help us" in ways that "we cannot help ourselves" may be subject to some amplification and distortion.

GFA


----------



## Jes (Jul 14, 2011)

I had a baby once, and my friend is a social worker and I told her that I once fed my toddler a cookie, and the state came and took her away for good. it was just awful.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 14, 2011)

i think that in very extreme cases something must be done, but what is an extreme case and what is the something to be done? i also think its important to be careful not to punish fat children and to be careful of their emotional health. if you remove a fat child from a home how will he/she view it? he/she is going to feel its his own fault. instead of removing children why not add a therapist/nutritionist to the household. they could make house visits everyday and institute things to help the child as well as the rest of the family. maybe they could also be given vouchers for free food that's healthy as an added financial incentive for the family. but overall i think its sick to remove children from the people they love. they'll never get that time back and there are so many other alternatives. there is something very punitive about removing a child from the home. in most cases whats being done to them is not abuse but simple mismanagement. it might be helpful to be able to have the threat of taking the child away but it should never actually be done.


----------



## JulianDW (Jul 14, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> i think that in very extreme cases something must be done, but what is an extreme case and what is the something to be done? i also think its important to be careful not to punish fat children and to be careful of their emotional health. if you remove a fat child from a home how will he/she view it? he/she is going to feel its his own fault. instead of removing children why not add a therapist/nutritionist to the household. they could make house visits everyday and institute things to help the child as well as the rest of the family. maybe they could also be given vouchers for free food that's healthy as an added financial incentive for the family. but overall i think its sick to remove children from the people they love. they'll never get that time back and there are so many other alternatives. there is something very punitive about removing a child from the home.* in most cases whats being done to them is not abuse but simple mismanagement*. it might be helpful to be able to have the threat of taking the child away but it should never actually be done.



I agree with this, those are certainly better alternatives than completely removing the child from his/her home. I think fat has such a negative stigma to most people that when they see something like this, they blow it out of proportion when they try to 'help'. I think the bolded part is important because mismanagement can be fixed without removing a child from home and potenitally doing more harm than good.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jul 14, 2011)

In my experience with OCS which, while not vast, at least involves at risk kids, the following is true.

1. OCS is loathe to take kids away from their parents. It requires huge amounts of paperwork, confirmation from experts that it needs to be done, and takes lots of time. 

2. OCS doesn't take kids away from their parents without lots and lots of warning. For ongoing problems there is a clear parenting plan that needs to be in place for the parents to keep the child. Before they take the child, there is a meeting that takes place involving social worker, OCS worker, psychologist, etc etc etc

3. If there are any family members who can step in and either supervise or take temporary custody, the OCS caseworker will encourage that before putting a kid in the foster care system. They are urgently short on foster families for kids who are in danger, especially older kids (most parents only want babies), so they would have a hard time placing a child.

3. If OCS takes a child away from their parents, there is a clear set of actions that parents need to take to get the child back. It involves providing resources that include parenting classes, if the child had a chronic illness, it involves education with a nurse and opportunities to demonstrate that they can care for the child with the illness. They have to show they have the resources to get the kid to doctor's appointments, therapy appointments, etc.

4. It is really really really really really really hard to get OCS to take a child away from their parents. I've had OCS not take kids whose moms had done hardcore drugs like heroin and cocaine during the pregnancy because their urine test at delivery was negative (baby was positive). I've had OCS not take kids where there was domestic violence in the home, even when it's been directed at the mom during her pregnancy. I've had them not take kids whose moms live on the streets being chased by an abusive boyfriend. 

I can't speak for the author of the article, but he speaks for himself. The idea is that this is an alternative to WLS (whatever -- that's pretty lame, like there are only two options) for kids who are so unhealthy that their health is in immediate danger. This is not the fat kid who likes McDonalds and maybe isn't picked first for dodge ball but can ride a bike, swim, and hang with his buddies. This is a four year old whose bones are bending because of excess weight. This is a six year old who is diabetic and asthmatic and has sleep apnea because of their weight. And these are kids whose parents, despite education by pediatricians and nutritionists about their kids' medical problems, are either unable (it happens) or unwilling (it also happens) to make the changes necessary to get these kids on a healthier track. Believe it or not, there are some parents who can't figure out how to feed kids, limit their sweets, set limits at ALL, in fact. There are parents who can't figure out that a kid needs a car seat, that a kid needs regular meals, that a kid needs regular sleep, a place to sleep, socialization, etc. I know we've all seen these parents and wondered why they still had their kids. Well, this article discusses those parents who can't handle figuring out how to manage their kids' diets so they don't grossly overeat to the point of illness.

If a kid lived in a home where the parents smoked and he had severe asthma,
If a kid was severely underweight and his parents refused to feed him,
If a kid needed medication for a life threatening disease and his parents refused,

I would feel the same way.


----------



## Sydney Vicious (Jul 15, 2011)

Miss Vickie said:


> What do you consider arbitrary? If the kid had a chronic illness that the parents weren't treating, like, say, asthma? Would that be arbitrary? At what level do you think it's appropriate for the state to intervene?



I think the state removing children for being fat is arbitrary.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jul 15, 2011)

Sydney Vicious said:


> I think the state removing children for being fat is arbitrary.



I agree. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about them removing a child with a life threatening illness that the parents are unable or unwilling to address, treat, or possibly even acknowledge. A child whose life is in danger. As a NP student, I've cared for fat kids whose parents were super involved and super involved about the kids' health problems and were proactive for the family to make changes. But I've also known parents who were clueless and the kids just got sicker and sicker (these weren't fat kids -- it was another health issues that the parents were in denial about).

I'm just curious what each person's line for when the state must step in is. For some it's when a parent steps out of line and chooses alternative therapies to treat a child's illness. I'm just curious -- I have no agenda at all. Just trying to understand where people are coming from.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 15, 2011)

Sydney Vicious said:


> I think the state removing children for being fat is arbitrary.



but it might not always be arbitrary


----------



## Dex (Jul 15, 2011)

NO....to the first post....keep the kids with real parents. I grew up being a fat kid....if I had been taken away from them, I would be totally screwed up now, taking my anger out on society...the so called professional middle class who know best are 4 king wrong! Its all about profit per unit of labor (bod) bloody capitalists.


----------



## Cynthia (Jul 16, 2011)

This JAMA opinion piece will probably affect relatively few child protection decisions. And those children who are indeed in serious medical danger deserve appropriate and urgent intervention, whatever that may be.

I believe that the resulting public dialogue will have a ripple effect over a broader set of issues. It will quietly influence legal decisions involving obesity and further desensitize a society that already tolerates a high level of fat bias. With their publication in a respected journal, ideas that might have once been dismissed as radical have inched their way onto the outskirts of mainstream thought.

And people ultimately won't remember details of the commentary or the author's emphasis on foster care as a last resort. It will boil down to one simple message: Fat kids represent parental failure and should elicit shame. As a result, obesity may factor more prominently into adoption decisions and divorce custody cases. And, more insidiously, it may negatively affect parent-child dynamics and deepen alienation among fat youth.


----------



## Sydney Vicious (Jul 16, 2011)

Miss Vickie said:


> I agree. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about them removing a child with a life threatening illness that the parents are unable or unwilling to address, treat, or possibly even acknowledge. A child whose life is in danger. As a NP student, I've cared for fat kids whose parents were super involved and super involved about the kids' health problems and were proactive for the family to make changes. But I've also known parents who were clueless and the kids just got sicker and sicker (these weren't fat kids -- it was another health issues that the parents were in denial about).
> 
> I'm just curious what each person's line for when the state must step in is. For some it's when a parent steps out of line and chooses alternative therapies to treat a child's illness. I'm just curious -- I have no agenda at all. Just trying to understand where people are coming from.



...that's not at all what the doctor was talking about though..
he wasn't talking about sick kids, hurt kids, or even unstable kids.. he was talking about fat kids.


----------



## Jes (Jul 16, 2011)

Sydney Vicious said:


> ...that's not at all what the doctor was talking about though..
> he wasn't talking about sick kids, hurt kids, or even unstable kids.. he was talking about fat kids.



did you read the piece you're talking about? he's not talking about fat kids or even obese kids. He's talking about the very small number of kids whose very lives and health are at risk b/c of factors in the home (also meaning the inability of caretakers to do an effective job for whatever reason) or b/c of their own undiagnosed genetic factors.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jul 16, 2011)

I give up.


----------



## Sydney Vicious (Jul 17, 2011)

Jes said:


> did you read the piece you're talking about? he's not talking about fat kids or even obese kids. He's talking about the very small number of kids whose very lives and health are at risk b/c of factors in the home (also meaning the inability of caretakers to do an effective job for whatever reason) or b/c of their own undiagnosed genetic factors.



I watched a short interview he was in, and read a few of the other articles about it. In the interview, all he was speaking on was the matter of fat kids and how typically kids lose weight when put in a 'better' family.

If a kid's in actual danger, by all means help it out, but the his words were solely about fast kids in the interview.


----------



## bigmac (Jul 17, 2011)

Cynthia said:


> This JAMA opinion piece will probably affect relatively few child protection decisions. And those children who are indeed in serious medical danger deserve appropriate and urgent intervention, whatever that may be.
> 
> I believe that the resulting public dialogue will have a ripple effect over a broader set of issues. *It will quietly influence legal decisions involving obesity* and further desensitize a society that already tolerates a high level of fat bias. With their publication in a respected journal, ideas that might have once been dismissed as radical have inched their way onto the outskirts of mainstream thought.
> 
> And *people ultimately won't remember details of the commentary or the author's emphasis on foster care as a last resort. *It will boil down to one simple message: Fat kids represent parental failure and should elicit shame. As a result, obesity may factor more prominently into adoption decisions and divorce custody cases. And, more insidiously, it may negatively affect parent-child dynamics and deepen alienation among fat youth.



Yes! Very well stated.


----------



## Jes (Jul 18, 2011)

Sydney Vicious said:


> I watched a short interview he was in, and read a few of the other articles about it. In the interview, all he was speaking on was the matter of fat kids and how typically kids lose weight when put in a 'better' family.
> 
> If a kid's in actual danger, by all means help it out, but the his words were solely about fast kids in the interview.



Well then we're all speaking at cross purposes b/c I (and I think Vickie) are unpacking the article he wrote but I can't speak to all of the articles written about his JAMA opinion piece.


----------



## Pitch (Jul 18, 2011)

I think its utter crap. Not everyone gets fat because of overeating or processed foods; children including. No child needs the experience of being shuffled through foster home after foster home if they have a thyroid disorder or something else.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm pretty sure what they mean by pointing out that the kids lose weight when put in a better situation is precisely that they weren't fat due to a medical condition or some other uncontrollable factor.

There's also no way this type of thing refers to garden variety fat kids. They're talking about cases where the child's lifestyle is causing severe current and future health problems. If a kid is 300 pounds at age 10, there's something wrong. If a kid's weight interferes with his or her health and mobility, there's something wrong.

Society simply does recognize a divide between young and old people. We believe that if you're under 18, you don't have the tools to make certain decisions. A small child needs parent or caregivers to dictate eating and exercising habits.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 18, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm pretty sure what they mean by pointing out that the kids lose weight when put in a better situation is precisely that they weren't fat due to a medical condition or some other uncontrollable factor.
> 
> There's also no way this type of thing refers to garden variety fat kids. They're talking about cases where the child's lifestyle is causing severe current and future health problems. If a kid is 300 pounds at age 10, there's something wrong. If a kid's weight interferes with his or her health and mobility, there's something wrong.
> 
> Society simply does recognize a divide between young and old people. We believe that if you're under 18, you don't have the tools to make certain decisions. A small child needs parent or caregivers to dictate eating and exercising habits.


 

Exactly. I highly doubt your average little chubster isn't on their radar.


----------



## KittyKitten (Jul 18, 2011)

I was thinking about this for a long time. As in the case of child starvation, yes, I think a parent should lose custody of a child *if* he/she is overfeeding that child. If a parent is constantly feeding that child junk food with poor nutrition, that is a case of neglect! It gets fuzzy where to draw the line. 

Sure an adult can make a choice on what to do with their own body, but a child does not.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jul 18, 2011)

I found it odd that they wanted to force the parents to take the kids to the gym. Gym memberships can be extremely pricey and it would be a hardship for many low-income families. Before forcing someone to go, is money being handed out to them so they can afford it? I'm thinking not.

Also, the fact that many kids from low incomes live in neighborhoods that are not safe for them to walk alone in prevents them from exercising. But I don't suppose the idiots from the government thought that one through very well.

As for junk food, has anyone thought to teach these parents how to cook healthy food? Not everyone knows how to cook or has the access to the Internet to learn how.

Income has a lot to do with health, more so than most people realize.


----------



## Jes (Jul 18, 2011)

EMH1701 said:


> I found it odd that they wanted to force the parents to take the kids to the gym. Gym memberships can be extremely pricey and it would be a hardship for many low-income families. Before forcing someone to go, is money being handed out to them so they can afford it? I'm thinking not.
> 
> Also, the fact that many kids from low incomes live in neighborhoods that are not safe for them to walk alone in prevents them from exercising. But I don't suppose the idiots from the government thought that one through very well.
> 
> ...



Tea Party! Tea Party! Tea Party! I don't think we should be handing money out to anyone for anything, ever. If the gym is too expensive, build your own!


----------



## Surlysomething (Jul 18, 2011)

EMH1701 said:


> I found it odd that they wanted to force the parents to take the kids to the gym. Gym memberships can be extremely pricey and it would be a hardship for many low-income families. Before forcing someone to go, is money being handed out to them so they can afford it? I'm thinking not.
> 
> Also, the fact that many kids from low incomes live in neighborhoods that are not safe for them to walk alone in prevents them from exercising. But I don't suppose the idiots from the government thought that one through very well.
> 
> ...


 
Families here in British Columbia get a fitness allowance that i'm pretty sure they can claim on their income tax or something like that.

Pretty cool if you ask me.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jul 26, 2011)

Jes said:


> Tea Party! Tea Party! Tea Party! I don't think we should be handing money out to anyone for anything, ever. If the gym is too expensive, build your own!



I'm not saying the govt. should hand it out. I'm Libertarian. What I'm saying is, they should think twice about judging these parents and forcing them to go to the gym, because poverty is an issue that is related to health. Too many govt. officials do NOT think before they act. They should definitely NOT take kids away from parents just because the parents are poor.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (Jul 29, 2011)

I feel like obesity in a child could be considered a possible warning sign that there _may_ be an issue with nutrition/exercise/etc. at home. If it turns out the kid is *not* being fed properly, etc. then of course actions should be taken. 

However, if the child happens to be obese _despite_ the parents' efforts to keep their child's diet/health in check? Obviously, the issue is not the parents, and taking their child away would be counter-productive.

Basically, a child's obesity may signal a need for further investigation, but just because a kid is fat doesn't mean they're being neglected/don't eat properly/etc.


----------



## Lamia (Jul 29, 2011)

If foster care were this glorious process where stable loving people were waiting with open arms to nurture these children and help them grow into healthy happy adults; I might be inclined to say in extreme cases maybe someone should intercede for the child, but for the most part foster care is a very traumatic experience for children. 

There are good foster parents out there. I know some of them and they are very loving people. I also know that there are some horrible foster families. 

Not to mention the trauma of being taken away from your family whom you love despite any trauma they've caused you.

I detest people interfering in other people's lives. 

I think removal from the home should be a last resort, especially when you're dealing with something as abstract as obesity. 

I think working with the families to help them make healthier choices etc would be far more beneficial than removing a kid because they're fat.

What a horrible burden to put on a child....you can't be with your family anymore fatty.


----------



## idontspeakespn (Aug 5, 2011)

I wanted to think about this a little before I replied.

First, I didn't view the article everyone is mentioning, so don't take my response as if I have, I'm just posting some thoughts on the topic area.

I think that in most cases, it probably isn't necessary and may even cause psychological trauma to the family involved to have a child removed from the home for being overweight. The reason why the child is overweight needs to be carefully examined. It may be that the parents are just very busy parents and don't have time to encourage a practice of healthy eating. It may be that the kid is just chubby and when his growth spurt hits, its will be fine. It may be a medical conditional the family doesn't know about. In these cases (and many others, I'm sure), I think it is doing more harm to break apart the family unit if it looks as if it is somewhat functional. I think that's all we can pretty much ask for from anyone in today's world.

I would think the small number of cases in which removing the child out of the home was of some other warning bells going off in Child Services' radar. It would have to be that the obesity is not the problem itself, but a symptom of other types of neglect and/or abuse as a whole. 

I would have felt devastated being taken away from my parents, as I'm sure they would have been, because it wasn't a systemic practice of neglect on their part. 

I know that I was a chubby kid, and I liked reading books instead of playing outside because I hated bugs and didn't want deerticks or mosquitoes sucking on me. I also was a sneaky little wretch who would go and get an extra piece of cake or some cookies and stash them for later when no one was looking. My mother and father always encouraged a practice of balanced daily nutrition so I can't really blame them for the way I turned out, weight wise. And neither should the government.


----------

