# Mom, 555-Pound Son Found In Baltimore



## Wayne_Zitkus (May 21, 2009)

How often do you hear about kids being taken away because they're thin???

* * * * * * * * * * *

*Mom, 555-Pound Son Found In Baltimore*

*Alexander Draper, Jerri Gray Found Near Laundromat*

POSTED: 11:26 am EDT May 21, 2009
UPDATED: 6:14 pm EDT May 21, 2009


*GREENVILLE COUNTY, S.C. -- *A mother and her 555-pound son who fled South Carolina after the state planned to take the 14-year-old boy into protective custody were found hundreds of miles from their home. 



Alexander Draper and his mother, Jerri Gray, were found parked near a Laundromat in Baltimore, Md., by Baltimore County sheriffs deputies at about 4:30 p.m. 


Alexander was checked at the scene by emergency medical services and was turned over to the Maryland Department of Social Services. Investigators will work with them to have him returned to the Department of Social Services in South Carolina. 


Gray was taken into custody and will be held in Baltimore until extradition to South Carolina. 


According to the Department of Social Services, Gray was supposed to appear in family court with the boy on Tuesday, but they did not show up. Alexander was to be taken into protective custody in South Carolina after officials determined that he was considered to be at a critical stage of health risk.

<more>

http://www.wyff4.com/cnn-news/19526636/detail.html


----------



## 1300 Class (May 21, 2009)

'We' obviously don't know all the details about this yet, and what circumstances existed. So I think before anyone rushes to judgement about it, well we need to wait and see.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (May 21, 2009)

He'd sure be better off in Baltimore than South Carolina. Mom wasn't stupid in that regard at least.


----------



## Surlysomething (May 21, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> 'We' obviously don't know all the details about this yet, and what circumstances existed. So I think before anyone rushes to judgement about it, well we need to wait and see.



I agree. There could be a very dangerous co-dependent relationship going on there that we don't have information about.


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 21, 2009)

I think there is some reason to be concerned about a 14 year old that weighs 550 pounds.. there might be a health issue involved or possibly a dangerous relationship like Surly said. Maybe the state had a right to take away this kid, who knows?


----------



## 1300 Class (May 21, 2009)

Ok, I'll be blunt about this. We don't know what other conditions either mental, physical or environemntal existed in the relationship and surroundings. I would say that it is convenient for the purpose of a media story to rap it up in a simple [if inaccurate] headline as the one that was published, regardless of the general implications or assumptions. 

The issue remains though, that 555 pounds at 14 years of age is dangerous, if not phyically, then mentally and that is the situation should be examined. There is no sugar-coating this element of the story.


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 21, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> The issue remains though, that 555 pounds at 14 years of age is dangerous, if not phyically, then mentally and that is the situation should be examined. There is no sugar-coating this element of the story.



Yeah, I agree. There is no way this is a healthy weight for a 14 year old.


----------



## 1300 Class (May 21, 2009)

And before anybody jumps in shouting "hey, Acceptance this, that there, and the other thing", a line has to be drawn and certain things, no matter how unpalatable must be acknowledged and understood. This sort of thing can't be considered acceptable. Of course that being said we don't know the full story and the exact circumstances of the issue at hand. But whatever we do, we can not be seen to endorse this sort of action or attitude.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 21, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Yeah, I agree. There is no way this is a healthy weight for a 14 year old.



Agreed. The likelihood that a 14 year old boy is naturally 555 pounds is, let's say, extremely remote. 

More on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090522/ap_on_re_us/us555_pound_teen

"The South Carolina Department of Social Services contacted deputies Tuesday after Gray failed to make a scheduled court appearance so officials could begin investigating claims of child neglect and endangerment.

The agency doesn't get involved in such cases based on a child's weight alone, but will take action in "cases where health care professionals believe a child is at risk of harm because a parent is neglecting to provide necessary medical care," DSS spokeswoman Marilyn Matheus said in a statement"


----------



## HereticFA (May 21, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> 'We' obviously don't know all the details about this yet, and what circumstances existed. So I think before anyone rushes to judgement about it, well we need to wait and see.





Surlysomething said:


> I agree. There could be a very dangerous co-dependent relationship going on there that we don't have information about.



And I'm sure no one outside of the court and the medical staff will ever find out due to the secret nature of the family court system. We'll never find out if it's a case of co-dependancy, neglect, abuse, or if the mother objected to the court forcing her son to have a WLS procedure against his wishes. The kid will given whatever treatment the family court in North Carolina sees as appropriate with minimal interference or oversight from anyone with a different viewpoint or approach.


----------



## 1300 Class (May 22, 2009)

> or if the mother objected to the court forcing her son to have a WLS procedure against his wishes.


Thats clearly not the case. In none of the articles, has it said this, or suggested WLS. Or forcing this kid to do anything. 

This whole thing came about because the woman & kid did not show up at the court for the _start_ of the investigation into what was actually happening. In other words, this was the preliminary part of an investigation, not an actual trial/hearing. So basically, it was at the begining of the process.


----------



## Captain Save (May 22, 2009)

Given that the reasonable person standard would demand an investigation into the particulars of this case, and the mother fled the state with the son rather than pursue the unspecified avenues of treatment for him, she has effectively made the state's case of reckless endangerment for them. In addition, I'm surprised that the young man's name was given in the story; isn't there a rule of law prohibiting the disclosure of the names of minors in situations of this nature?


----------



## HereticFA (May 22, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> Thats clearly not the case. In none of the articles, has it said this, or suggested WLS. Or forcing this kid to do anything.
> 
> This whole thing came about because the woman & kid did not show up at the court for the _start_ of the investigation into what was actually happening. In other words, this was the preliminary part of an investigation, not an actual trial/hearing. So basically, it was at the begining of the process.


The article I originally read had the info that she had lost custody. It didn't mention her failing to show up for the first hearing. 
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98AV2O04&show_article=1

Again, lacking an open court system, we'll probably never know the details. We only know this little bit due to the mother running from the court and the kid's weight catching the media's eye. Now if only some reporter would interview the mom and get her side of the situation (or maybe interview the kid). 

It is a little surprising she would flee the state before the first hearing. It makes me wonder if she had been told the hearing was only a formality and they were going to take her kid at the conclusion of the hearing.


----------



## HereticFA (May 22, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> I'm surprised that the young man's name was given in the story; isn't there a rule of law prohibiting the disclosure of the names of minors in situations of this nature?


Normally, yes. I suspect the NC court filed an "Amber Alert" which would reveal his name in an attempt to find him. Once revealed to the media, it's kind of hard to stop them from publishing the info.


----------



## katorade (May 22, 2009)

Also, children are taken away from their parents by Social Services for being too thin ALL THE TIME. Starving children is abuse.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 22, 2009)

Ned Sonntag said:


> He'd sure be better off in Baltimore than South Carolina. Mom wasn't stupid in that regard at least.



Wtf. Have you ever seen The Wire?


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 22, 2009)

katorade said:


> Also, children are taken away from their parents by Social Services for being too thin ALL THE TIME. Starving children is abuse.



Yeah, true that.


----------



## olwen (May 22, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> Given that the reasonable person standard would demand an investigation into the particulars of this case, and the mother fled the state with the son rather than pursue the unspecified avenues of treatment for him, she has effectively made the state's case of reckless endangerment for them. In addition, I'm surprised that the young man's name was given in the story; isn't there a rule of law prohibiting the disclosure of the names of minors in situations of this nature?



I think that might only apply to criminal cases where minors are victims, tho I'm not sure.


----------



## olwen (May 22, 2009)

katorade said:


> Also, children are taken away from their parents by Social Services for being too thin ALL THE TIME. Starving children is abuse.



While this is true, in cases involving neglect, I think what Wayne (if this isn't what you mean then please jump in here) means is that in cases where the children have been diagnosed as anorexic - rather than being neglected - child services doesn't take them away from their parents. 

If anorexic kids are allowed to remain in their parent's care, then it stands to reason that a fat kid who is that fat should be allowed to remain in their parents care as well. 

The thing that is the most annoying here is that the news outlets don't seem to think anorexia is newsworthy, but fatness is. What kind of a society are we living in where anorexia is so commonplace and accepted that the parents of anorexic children aren't really questioned or second guessed by the likes of child services, or the fashion industry, or mainstream news outlets? 

True we do not know all the facts of the case, but the fact that it got picked up by news outlets because of the kid's weight, and because they've spun it to make us think in part that his weight is the reason child services is involved - without giving all the details - is bad reporting for one, and just annoying to say the least. I hope everything turns out okay for him.


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 22, 2009)

Yeah, but this is just another form of neglect.


----------



## katorade (May 22, 2009)

olwen said:


> While this is true, in cases involving neglect, I think what Wayne (if this isn't what you mean then please jump in here) means is that in cases where the children have been diagnosed as anorexic - rather than being neglected - child services doesn't take them away from their parents.
> 
> If anorexic kids are allowed to remain in their parent's care, then it stands to reason that a fat kid who is that fat should be allowed to remain in their parents care as well.
> 
> ...



Not true. I know of cases where minors with anorexia have been removed from their parents when the parents neglected to attempt to get them medical/psychological help.


----------



## 1300 Class (May 22, 2009)

There have been plenty of cases where a child has been neglected via starvation or anorexia to the point of near death when they have been removed by health/family authorities. 

So I don't think there is any double standard as you are trying to play out here. Both are equally forms of abuse and neglect.


----------



## olwen (May 22, 2009)

katorade said:


> Not true. I know of cases where minors with anorexia have been removed from their parents when the parents neglected to attempt to get them medical/psychological help.





Australian Lord said:


> There have been plenty of cases where a child has been neglected via starvation or anorexia to the point of near death when they have been removed by health/family authorities.
> 
> So I don't think there is any double standard as you are trying to play out here. Both are equally forms of abuse and neglect.



Okay, that's good then and I stand corrected. The larger point tho is that it doesn't get reported in the news, while the opposite does. That, I don't like. They should both be considered equally bad, but somehow fatness is deemed worse.


----------



## Jay West Coast (May 22, 2009)

Guys, I think we should all chill out. Think about it. _Five-five-five_. It's probably all a fictitious phone number.

Okay, but seriously. They took the teenager into custody, immediately weighed him like a freak show determining that he's a headline-worthy 555 pounds, then released that information to the press... yet nothing else? 

North Carolina is a weird place. 


Question. Can they take your wife away from you if she's five-five-five pounds? If its child abuse to let a kid be that big, then isn't it spousal abuse to let your wife be that big?

Golly, I sure hope not...


----------



## steely (May 22, 2009)

Jay West Coast said:


> Guys, I think we should all chill out. Think about it. _Five-five-five_. It's probably all a fictitious phone number.
> 
> Okay, but seriously. They weighed the kid to determine that he's 555 pounds, released that information to the press, but nothing else?
> 
> ...



I take offense to that statement, NC is just misunderstood.


----------



## sweet&fat (May 22, 2009)

Jay West Coast said:


> Guys, I think we should all chill out. Think about it. _Five-five-five_. It's probably all a fictitious phone number.
> 
> Okay, but seriously. They weighed the kid to determine that he's 555 pounds, released that information to the press, but nothing else?
> 
> ...



I hope you'd agree that there's a huge difference in individual agency when it comes to an adult woman and a child. A person's responsibility vis a vis his/her child is radically different than for his/her spouse.


----------



## Rush.Pike (May 22, 2009)

Agreed. I weighed 370 at 15ish and I cannot imagine being almost 200 lbs heavier at that age and being any close to healthy. Hopefully the kid, like I did, can become healthier (which might not necessarily mean significantly lighter, although it did for me) and have a fulfilling life.


----------



## Jay West Coast (May 22, 2009)

sweet&fat said:


> I hope you'd agree that there's a huge difference in individual agency when it comes to an adult woman and a child. A person's responsibility vis a vis his/her child is radically different than for his/her spouse.



Of course there is. However, child abuse laws exist today because of earlier cases in which precedence for animal abuse successfully used to protect the child. If one can assume (entertain me here) that an assessment of the psychological quality of the relationship of a mother and her son based on her son's weight, then why wouldn't someone be able to make a similar judiciary assessment about the psychological quality of a marital relationship?

All I'm saying is that I saw Feeder and if you _like_ your wife fat, you're pretty fucked up.


----------



## HereticFA (May 23, 2009)

Jay West Coast said:


> Question. Can they take your wife away from you if she's five-five-five pounds? If its child abuse to let a kid be that big, then isn't it spousal abuse to let your wife be that big?
> 
> Golly, I sure hope not...


If they are handicapped and you act as their caregiver, possibly. 

The boyfriend of a SSBBW Wichita, Kansas woman who was stuck on the toilet for two years was charged with neglect. I've read articles and blog posts by social workers who are chomping at the bit to charge parents of fat kids and spouses of handicapped fat folks with abuse. It is not a question of if it will happen, only when it will happen.


----------



## HereticFA (May 23, 2009)

There seem to be about four versions of this story on the web. Here are additional bits I've found:



> Greenville sheriff's Lt. Shea Smith said, "There have been some opportunities that have come along for him to participate in some treatment programs and things such as that, and it's my understanding, that for whatever reason, he's not allowed to take part in those treatment programs."


(From http://www.wbaltv.com/cnn-news/19532838/detail.html )



> "The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that was not being provided for by his mother," Armstrong said.
> 
> Earlier in the day officials said the boy "is possibly at a stage of critical health risk."


(From http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/21/sc.missing.boy/index.html?eref=rss_crime )



> Baltimore County police say a South Carolina woman accused of neglecting her 555-pound son's health has been released from the hospital and transferred to the county jail.
> 
> Police had taken her to the hospital after her arrest because she showed signs of wanting to hurt herself.


(From http://www.goupstate.com/article/20...lps-track-Upstate-mother-555-pound-son-to-Md- )


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 23, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> If they are handicapped and you act as their caregiver, possibly.
> 
> The boyfriend of a SSBBW Wichita, Kansas woman who was stuck on the toilet for two years was charged with neglect. I've read articles and blog posts by social workers who are chomping at the bit to charge parents of fat kids and spouses of handicapped fat folks with abuse. It is not a question of if it will happen, only when it will happen.



I am a social worker. I don't "charge" people with anything. I'm not a law enforcement officer. And I certainly don't "chomp at the bit" to harm innocent people and place the blame label on caregivers simply because their loved ones are fat. That's ridiculous. I don't work with families and children, so I can't comment on the criteria used to determine abuse or neglect for minors (although I assume it is generally quite similar to the criteria used with vulnerable adults). In all the years that I've been doing this, I've never seen a coworker eager to march in and pin the abuse label on parents of fat children, spouses of fat partners. 

I have worked with super-sized women who were placed in long-term care facilities because they'd reached a point where they could no longer care for themselves, and had no loved ones willing or able to provide that care. Had I been involved in the case you highlighted, I certainly would have found the SO to be quite guilty of neglect. Textbook definition. Stuck on the toilet for 2 years, and it never crossed his mind that perhaps she needed professional intervention? Please don't tell me that you're suggesting otherwise. 

The parent of the 555 pound 13-year-old? If a care plan has been developed for her child (with input from his primary care physician, social workers and other medical professionals/specialists) and she hasn't been following that care plan, then ... yeah. She's guilty of neglect. Textbook definition.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 23, 2009)

Jay West Coast said:


> North Carolina is a weird place.



South Carolina, homey. There's a big difference.


----------



## Observer (May 23, 2009)

Not to derail this thread, but the "two years on the toilet" story, initially found here, turned out to be exaggerated. 

The girl apparently had had a history of mental problems related to going out in public. As the neighbor in the story notes, they hadn't seen her for six years. This guy was one of the few (perhaps the only?) person to have her trust. This time she had gone into the bathroom and refused to come out, insising that he bring her meals there until she was ready. 

Previously in such episodes she'd always eventually relented, so he brought her meals to her expecting the same outcome. She was literally living in the bathroom for two years of her own volition, resisisting his efforts to get her to come out, saaying only "maybe tomorrow."

Finally, when she'd regressed to the point of sitting on the commode for over a month (not the full two years!) and not bathing he did summon authorities. They discovered that she'd been on the commode long enough for it to become affixed to her skin - but it was a matter of weeks, not years. She had to be coaxed by the boyfriend and authorities into agreeing to go to the hospital against her wishes. This was never a case of involuntary confinement. 

Why didn't he call earlier? Stories at the time didn't reference whether it was a matter of money or simply contrary to her wishes His lawyer later claimed that he felt summoning authorities would have broken whatever bond of trust they shared. 

In a followup story, found here the boyfriend wound up pleading "no contest" to a charge of mistreatment of the girlfriend. Rhe story notes that he also pled no contest to an unrelated carge of indecent exposure to a minor.

So what happened to this strange couple? Read the "rest of the story" here. He was sentenced to probation and went on to win parts of the Kansas State lottery - twice! The girlfriend was released from the hospital after several months. There is no record of whether or not they're back together.


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 23, 2009)

Uh, she was in the bathroom for two years and he didn't think that was an issue? What the fuck?


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 23, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Uh, she was in the bathroom for two years and he didn't think that was an issue? What the fuck?



Come on, thatgirl ... it was only a month or so (just long enough for her skin to fuse to the porcelain) not two years. Surely, we can understand his reluctance to involve outside authorities when it was just a few months


----------



## mossystate (May 23, 2009)

Observer said:


> His lawyer later claimed that he felt summoning authorities would have broken whatever bond of trust they shared.



Rotting flesh and a real possibility of death seems to have been more palatable for this guy. Couldn't have her get mentally healthy while his own issssssues were brewing in the back 40 of his brain.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (May 23, 2009)

Jay West Coast said:


> Guys, I think we should all chill out. Think about it. _Five-five-five_. It's probably all a fictitious phone number.
> 
> Okay, but seriously. They took the teenager into custody, immediately weighed him like a freak show determining that he's a headline-worthy 555 pounds, then released that information to the press... yet nothing else?
> 
> ...


Wait it's SOUTH Carolina. North Carolina is a WAY more prosperous, educated and sane place.


----------



## Ben from England (May 23, 2009)

Jay West Coast said:


> If one can assume (entertain me here) that an assessment of the psychological quality of the relationship of a mother and her son based on her son's weight, then why wouldn't someone be able to make a similar judiciary assessment about the psychological quality of a marital relationship?



Because a guardian is entrusted with the responsibility to look out for the minors best interests. An adult does that themselves.


----------



## Friday (May 24, 2009)

Why would anyone think that the details of this need to be trumpeted to the public? I'm looking at you Heretic. This is their lives, their privacy and that trumps your need to pass your own judgment. How would you like it if all your personal info was shared with the public?


----------



## exile in thighville (May 24, 2009)

this thread


----------



## LisaInNC (May 24, 2009)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Wait it's SOUTH Carolina. North Carolina is a WAY more prosperous, educated and sane place.



Thank God someone else realizes this!


----------



## HereticFA (May 25, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I am a social worker. I don't "charge" people with anything. I'm not a law enforcement officer. And I certainly don't "chomp at the bit" to harm innocent people and place the blame label on caregivers simply because their loved ones are fat. That's ridiculous.



I mistyped. That should have read:
I've read articles and blog posts by social workers who are chomping at the bit to _see_ parents of fat kids and spouses of handicapped fat folks _charged_ with abuse.
I apologize for the errors.

The posts I read around 2002-2004 made me realize there are anti-fat activists who are social workers who will do whatever they can to fight obesity. Their posts made it quite clear they felt the end justified whatever means were at their disposal. While you may not be of that philosophy, there are certainly several that are. It certainly is ridiculous if not obscene that they would practice their profession in that manner. (However, I'm sure that's not the version of "ridiculous" you intended.)


----------



## HereticFA (May 25, 2009)

Friday said:


> Why would anyone think that the details of this need to be trumpeted to the public? I'm looking at you Heretic. This is their lives, their privacy and that trumps your need to pass your own judgment. How would you like it if all your personal info was shared with the public?


If I were having medical treatment forced on me against my will (as indicated by my attempt to escape), I'd like the full details published and made a part of the public record with the full names of those involved in forcing that treatment upon me. I certainly wouldn't want my fate (or treatment) decided in a closed court, then spirited away to be dealt with at the hands of individuals who ignored my objections. 

Friday, maybe you prefer secretive treatment. I see the illusion of privacy as just that, an illusion. I see openness as protection for my safety, just as it is for everyone else.


----------



## HereticFA (May 25, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Stuck on the toilet for 2 years, and it never crossed his mind that perhaps she needed professional intervention? Please don't tell me that you're suggesting otherwise.


There are certainly mental health issues involved. It was probably a heartbreaking circumstance where the boyfriend was probably trying to be respectful of the lady's wishes to not make a scene (due to her agoraphobia), but not realizing the legal predicament he had created for himself. I've met a few people who would fit into either of those two roles. _What's Eating Gilbert Grape_ perfectly showcases at least one half of the parties involved. Add in someone who goes along to get along and the stage is complete. All that's necessary is just the right little problem.



TraciJo67 said:


> The parent of the 555 pound 13-year-old? If a care plan has been developed for her child (with input from his primary care physician, social workers and other medical professionals/specialists) and she hasn't been following that care plan, then ... yeah. She's guilty of neglect. Textbook definition.


Would you require a care plan of losing 5 pounds a week, no excuses accepted? We've seen that type of care plan in the past. It usually results in disordered eating, not a "healthy weight". These days a more accepted protocol would be to require nutritional counseling, specified meal plans and gym or physical activity for at least an hour, three times a week. I suspect the "system" in South Carolina may still use the old school method of mandating "x" pounds lost per week (and is probably why the parent fled with the kid). It's also why openness really is the best for the patient. It helps minimize application of outdated or ineffective protocols and procedures by _exposing their use._


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 25, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> There are certainly mental health issues involved. It was probably a heartbreaking circumstance where the boyfriend was probably trying to be respectful of the lady's wishes to not make a scene (due to her agoraphobia), but not realizing the legal predicament he had created for himself. I've met a few people who would fit into either of those two roles. _What's Eating Gilbert Grape_ perfectly showcases at least one half of the parties involved. Add in someone who goes along to get along and the stage is complete. All that's necessary is just the right little problem.



I agree with you, which is why I assumed neglect rather than outright abuse. I don't believe that his inaction was influenced by sinister motives. He's probably operating with diminished capacity himself. Still, underneath all of that co-dependency and his own fear/desire to "go along to get along" he had to know that he was contributing to the problem. He allowed it to go on for more than 2 years. He was at least partially responsible for what happened to her. 




> Would you require a care plan of losing 5 pounds a week, no excuses accepted? We've seen that type of care plan in the past. It usually results in disordered eating, not a "healthy weight". These days a more accepted protocol would be to require nutritional counseling, specified meal plans and gym or physical activity for at least an hour, three times a week. I suspect the "system" in South Carolina may still use the old school method of mandating "x" pounds lost per week (and is probably why the parent fled with the kid). It's also why openness really is the best for the patient. It helps minimize application of outdated or ineffective protocols and procedures by _exposing their use._



I wouldn't be involved in developing a care plan addressing the child's weight loss. That would be addressed by the child's primary physician, dietician, and other medical professionals.It would be my job to work with the family to ensure that they understand the plan, and are able to cooperate with it - i.e., that there are no significant financial, emotional, psychological or other barriers standing in the way. I would have major problems with a care plan that dictated X pounds per week lost, and I don't think that a responsible practitioner would require that. 

That 555 pound child didn't just get referred to social services because he was fat. His doctor must have felt that the mother was actively contributing to the problem in some way. Once his case has been referred to the judicial system, a team of experts would have found compelling evidence that there was parental abuse or neglect involved. From what I've read, the mother failed to appear for her initial court appearance. It would have been thoroughly explained to her that if she did not cooperate, her child would be removed from her custody and placed in foster care. That she chose to flee with him anyway, rather than do whatever it took to keep him in her care, speaks volumes in and of itself.


----------



## Friday (May 25, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> If I were having medical treatment forced on me against my will (as indicated by my attempt to escape), I'd like the full details published and made a part of the public record with the full names of those involved in forcing that treatment upon me. I certainly wouldn't want my fate (or treatment) decided in a closed court, then spirited away to be dealt with at the hands of individuals who ignored my objections.
> 
> Friday, maybe you prefer secretive treatment. I see the illusion of privacy as just that, an illusion. I see openness as protection for my safety, just as it is for everyone else.



Then it's up to you yourself to make that info, your info only, available. Demanding that the court systems be open so that you can poke your nose in anywhere you like is a whole 'nother ballgame. The court has a legal obligation to protect people from voyeurs like yourself. If she and her son want details out, they'll get them out. Until then stay out of their business and quit building ridiculous assumptions out of zero information.


----------



## HereticFA (May 25, 2009)

Friday said:


> Then it's up to you yourself to make that info, your info only, available. Demanding that the court systems be open so that you can poke your nose in anywhere you like is a whole 'nother ballgame.


Gee, with your view of the ethics of jurisprudence, we'd still have slavery and women would still be considered chattel. Thankfully many busybodies were willing to poke their noses into the affairs of slave owners and abusive husbands. 



Friday said:


> If she and her son want details out, they'll get them out.


Assuming they are able to contact the media _and_ aren't under a gag order.



Friday said:


> Until then stay out of their business and quit building ridiculous assumptions out of zero information.


I hope you can enjoy total privacy in any and all of you encounters with the legal system. Just you, law enforcement, the judge and your attorney. That way there will be zero information whether your rights are being abused. Good luck with that.

I think we have expectations of the legal system that are diametrically opposed. I doubt we'll close the gap between our views in this lifetime.


----------



## stillblessed23 (May 27, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> Wtf. Have you ever seen The Wire?



Hey Hey now, It's not all like the Wire...Baltimore county is a completely different world and a lot of parts of the city... Stay away from the blue light areas and you are fine.


----------



## Friday (May 27, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> Gee, with your view of the ethics of jurisprudence, we'd still have slavery and women would still be considered chattel. Thankfully many busybodies were willing to poke their noses into the affairs of slave owners and abusive husbands.
> 
> 
> Assuming they are able to contact the media _and_ aren't under a gag order.
> ...



Your problem is you're seeing conspiracies behind anything that doesn't go the way you want it to. Comparing this case with slavery is so over the top. Just a side note, in case no one told you...slavery was not settled in court nor were womens rights.

The court can't 'gag' them. If they want to talk to the media they can and will but most people, well, at least the normal ones, don't want their personal lives aired in public. You want to play like just because the whole thing isn't open for your approval there must be a dungeon involved. I don't need you to tell me if my rights are being abused and I'm pretty sure this family doesn't either.


----------



## Observer (May 27, 2009)

Actually the court likely CAN issue a gag order and incarcerate anyone who violates it. Generally such an order would be issued on the motion of an attorney for one of the parties if the court agrees. 

In this case the moving party would most likely be a court appointed attorney for the underage minor if mama has had him taken away from his mom's authority and the attorney wants to protect the minor's privacy. 

There is nothing here, however, to indicate that such an order has even been requested.


----------



## Friday (Jun 1, 2009)

I understand 'gag orders' Observer but I can assure you that if I thought I was getting screwed their gag order would be useless.


----------



## joswitch (Jun 7, 2009)

Friday said:


> Your problem is you're seeing conspiracies behind anything that doesn't go the way you want it to. Comparing this case with slavery is so over the top that it makes you a cartoon. Just a side note, in case no one told you...slavery was not settled in court nor were womens rights.
> 
> The court can't 'gag' them. If they want to talk to the media they can and will but most people, well, at least the normal ones, don't want their personal lives aired in public. You want to play like just because the whole thing isn't open for your approval there must be a dungeon involved. I don't need some dimwit like you to tell me if my rights are being abused and I'm pretty sure this family doesn't either. You have delusions of grandeur and paranoia battling it out in your head for ascendancy. Good luck with that



The idea of closed or "private" court systems is a dangerous one - where people can be imprisoned without it being public knowledge they are inevitably vulnerable to and often suffer abuse/torture/starvation/death... 

Hence the "writ of habeus corpus" which is one of the oldest planks of English law (and is a fundamental part of American law too)

"Of English origin, it is also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person; if not, the person shall be released from custody forthwith. The prisoner, or another person on her behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The British jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

In countries where this right is lost/not enforced invariably the powerful use it to "disappear" those they suspect, or perhaps find merely irritating... see Chile, Pakistan etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Friday (Jun 14, 2009)

Refusing to publish the proceedings of a court case involving a minor, especially one that could be traumatically embarrassing for the child is not an example of a "closed or "private" court systems is a dangerous one - where people can be imprisoned without it being public knowledge they are inevitably vulnerable to and often suffer abuse/torture/starvation/death..." and to compare them is asinine. Just the mob mentality shown in this thread is reason enough to protect the boy from John Q Public. Do you think being fought over in public by people that are more interested in their personal agendas than the welfare of the child is a good thing. :doh: 

How many pedophiles and rapists do you think go free because their victims don't want to be subjected to the drooling gawking of people who think they have some right to invade the privacy of others? A closed record is not a non-existent record and can be accessed by someone who can prove any actually need as opposed to mere prurience.


----------



## Fatfanplus (Jun 16, 2009)

Hey everyone.
I was following this story when it originally unfolded in May.
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the ONE photo that has been posted in the news of this supposed 555 pound kid.

It only shows his face, and it contains a badly photo-shopped double chin.
I know a faked photo when I see one, and this one is obviously fake.

Nowhere else on the web or tv has there been a single news story showing another photo or video of this child. Google it, you'll see.

I think the story is either a fake, or that his weight was exaggerated and he was nowhere close to being 555 pounds at all.


----------



## joswitch (Jun 22, 2009)

Friday said:


> Refusing to publish the proceedings of a court case involving a minor, especially one that could be traumatically embarrassing for the child is not an example of a "closed or "private" court systems is a dangerous one - where people can be imprisoned without it being public knowledge they are inevitably vulnerable to and often suffer abuse/torture/starvation/death..." and to compare them is asinine. Just the mob mentality shown in this thread is reason enough to protect the boy from John Q Public. Do you think being fought over in public by people that are more interested in their personal agendas than the welfare of the child is a good thing. :doh:
> 
> How many pedophiles and rapists do you think go free because their victims don't want to be subjected to the drooling gawking of people who think they have some right to invade the privacy of others? A closed record is not a non-existent record and can be accessed by someone who can prove any actually need as opposed to mere prurience.




Okay- 
"asinine" is just a fancy way of saying "stoopid" - pretty pointless in a rational debate... 
The test of a law/procedure's justice is not what happens in the situation it was conceived for but when what happens when it gets applied in all the other situations that can be fiitted to it... see the abuse of "anti-terror" legislation here in the UK:
One old fella arrested for shouting "nonsense" at Jack Straw - just !2weeks! after the law was brought in, another one for wearing a T-shirt demanding Blair and Bush be tried for war crimes, one woman for reading out a list of Britain's latest war dead at the cenotaph, councils have been spying on parents to check they fit in school cachement areas, and peeking into the contents of bins to check they are recycling... there's loads and loads more and yes I can provide refs... it's just waaay late here now...

I think from the further details that have emerged (see below) that both mother and child could do with all the help they can get from informed lawyers and health professionals, and indeed help funding the mother's case... 
Given, entirely unastonishingly*, that social services want to take the child based purely on his weight, and the state's programs, it seems, are based solely on weight reduction... 

(*if you've been following the news here in the UK over the last year or two - social services here have frequently threatened to take much less heavy children away from parents, see even further below)

I mean maybe the kid is suffering from Prader-Willi syndrome or some such? It's usual in medicine to examine, test and diagnose *before* treatment of any diagnosed disorder... the mother seems to be claiming this has not been done, and the level of the state's intervention is "KID TOO FAT MUST MAKE SMALLER"

Where the accused and the accusation is publicly identified (that's habeus corpus right there) publicity will hopefully bring help to this kid and his mother, without which the machinery of state would be left to grind blindly along working on it's assumptions....

Your "pedo / rapist" question is a two strike loss - first because it's an attempt to drag in these two "red flag" issues where they are blatantly irrelevant - the debate equivalent of shouting "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" and secondly because the answer to your question is-
I don't know.
and you don't know.
and indeed, no-one knows. 
You're basically asking how many people do NOT report/or attempt prosecution of their abusers, and why, which BY DEFINITION cannot be known. 
Congrats on hitting all the definitions of empty rhetoric.

Oh and for the record sadly I know of at least 5 people who have suffered from abuse/rape and of those 2 of them shared with me that they chose not to report it and their reasons - neither were to do with publicity... 

I don't know where you're getting "drooling" from either - in this case it's clear 
a kid is suffering and it *seems* the mother wants to get proper help, whereas the state intends to imprison the mother and force an intervention on the child which may not lead to a healthy outcome... that's bad and sad.... what's to "drool"??? 

from 
http://the-f-word.org/blog/
*Mom of fat teen arrested, jailed for medical neglect*

South Carolina has arrested and jailed the mother of a 555-pound teenage boy on charges of medical neglect for refusing to enter him in treatment programs recommended by the state. I only heard about this story today, but heres the gist of what Ive been able to discover thus far:

Jerri Gray, 49, was ordered to family court on May 19 on charges of medical neglect after the state says she refused to allow her son, Alexander Draper, to participate in several treatment programs, including hospitalization at a facility in New Hampshire (Gray and attorney Grant Varner say this isnt true). The panicked mom fled with the boy and the state subsequently ordered him to be taken into custody during the missed hearing and issued a missing endangered alert for him.

Mother and son were found in a Baltimore laundromat on May 22 and the boy was taken into custody. The mom is now charged with one count each of custodial interference and unlawful neglect towards a child. On June 13, a judge denied a request to reduce her $50,000 bond, meaning that shes been in jail now for a month. The boy is in foster care. Calls of support have been coming in from all over the country and efforts are underway to establish a fund to help the family, said Varner.

*Varner and Gray argue that the boy has a serious medical problem causing the weight gain and that he and the mother are looking for a full treatment program whereas the South Carolina Department of Social Services wants to put him on a treadmill and get him to lose 100 pounds and say, Job done.* I havent been able to determine if such a fund has been established, but I would definitely contribute to it. Ill keep you posted as I learn more.

Update: As of June 17, Grays two charges unlawful conduct towards child and custodial interference remain pending. If convicted, heres what she faces:

CDR Code 2481 Unlawful conduct toward child: Fine in the discretion of the court or imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both.
CDR Code 2522 Unlawful to transport child outside state to violate custody order: Misdemeanor - Fine in discretion of court or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. (Had Gray not been found within three days, it would be a felony punishable by a fine and up to 5 years prison time).
Related Links:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/19526636/detail.html
http://www.wbaltv.com/cnn-news/19532838/detail.html
http://wjz.com/local/custody.order.son.2.1016606.html
http://www.wyff4.com/news/19739046/detail.html

*this kind of thing is happening in the UK with some frequency* and generally involving fat kids of much lower weights than the lad in the case above....
for your reference by the way a Stone (st) in weight = 14lbs

http://news.scotsman.com/childrensdiet/39Your-children-are-too-fat.3907187.jp

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article1444033.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cial-workers-draconian-ultimatum-parents.html

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4929/

all this thanks to lobbyists like Tam Fry
http://www.bigfatblog.com/uk-expert-calls-removing-fat-kids-homes

So social workers in the UK are wasting time threatening fat families whose kids are not suffering health problems as such - they just !LOOK FAT! - and so the assumption is they *must* be unhealthy (and if you don't already know this goes against the majority of the available evidence either go digging yourself or hang fire and watch for my future posts on the science of fat and health... I've PhD in biochemistry and I've been digging into this issue for some time now) 

Meanwhile, because it's a little bit harder than just LOOKING at someone and going "OMIGODTEHFATZ" social workers in the UK are screwing up and babies like Baby P are dying in horrifying agony...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5140511.ece

fair warning if you haven't already come across this case before, it's truly grim... like burst-into-tears holy f*ck! grim... 

So folks are right to get riled about this case in South Carolina, cos here in the UK, we already have a situation where *real* abuse goes unnoticed while fat families are victimised and split up... And without publicity and public outcry this kind of thing will just get worse.


----------



## Friday (Jun 30, 2009)

My points were, which you obviously missed, that 1) Not everyone wants their private life dragged through the media and 2) It's no one elses fucking business unless they choose to make it public in which case they get what they get.

Whether you liked my comparison to pedophiles and rapists or not, the fact of the matter is that those are just the tip of the iceberg in cases that never make it to court because the victims don't want or need a bunch of nosy assholes in their lives.

Asinine, stoopid, lacking in a life...call it what you want. Those that want to make a circus act of the lives of others for their personal gratification need to fuck the hell off.



joswitch said:


> Okay-
> "asinine" is just a fancy way of saying "stoopid" - pretty pointless in a rational debate...
> The test of a law/procedure's justice is not what happens in the situation it was conceived for but when what happens when it gets applied in all the other situations that can be fiitted to it... see the abuse of "anti-terror" legislation here in the UK:
> One old fella arrested for shouting "nonsense" at Jack Straw - just !2weeks! after the law was brought in, another one for wearing a T-shirt demanding Blair and Bush be tried for war crimes, one woman for reading out a list of Britain's latest war dead at the cenotaph, councils have been spying on parents to check they fit in school cachement areas, and peeking into the contents of bins to check they are recycling... there's loads and loads more and yes I can provide refs... it's just waaay late here now...
> ...


----------



## HereticFA (Jun 30, 2009)

Friday said:


> Whether you liked my comparison to pedophiles and rapists or not, the fact of the matter is that those are just the tip of the iceberg in cases that never make it to court because the victims don't want or need a bunch of nosy assholes in their lives.



It's interesting you cite pedophiles and rapists as your example. One of the hallmarks of those criminal acts is secrecy. The perpetrator frequently threatens the victim or their loved ones if the victim tells anyone else about what happened. 

I'd say your references to pedophiles and rapists concerning issues of secrecy in legal proceedings is _perfect_!


----------



## joswitch (Jun 30, 2009)

Friday said:


> My points were, which you obviously missed, that 1) Not everyone wants their private life dragged through the media and 2) It's no one elses fucking business unless they choose to make it public in which case they get what they get.
> 
> Whether you liked my comparison to pedophiles and rapists or not, the fact of the matter is that those are just the tip of the iceberg in cases that never make it to court because the victims don't want or need a bunch of nosy assholes in their lives.





No I understood your points.

re. your choice of comparison I didn't say I didn't like it, (which I don't but that's besides the point) I said it was irrelevant and empty rhetoric. There's a difference. You use the phrase the "fact of the matter" - but you don't back that up with anything. What "fact"? Where did you get that "fact"? where's your reference for that? or did you just... pull it out thin air maybe? I'm supporting my arguments with real world substance... how about you do the same, huh?

Again you have missed my point, deliberately I think, (did you even read my post?) -* I'm not arguing for identification of victims - I'm arguing for identification of accused and for public knowledge of what they are accused of... *
in this at least I'm in sync with UK law which protects, with force of law, the IDs of rape victims and child victims too... (there has been extensive griping among those accused of such and then acquitted that they want similar anonymity until proven guilty, ... cos they claim, their lives are ruined just by the accusation - because of the wider implications I outlined in above posts I think this is a bad idea...)
and it seems that (from a swift googling) while the First Amendment in the US prevents similar laws there is a convention, adhered to among your press similarly to not identify your victims....
It seems the vic. was only IDed in this case because he went missing and the court wanted him tracked down...

So once more your point about all this "fear of publicity" falls down flat.



> Asinine, stoopid, lacking in a life...call it what you want. Those that want to make a circus act of the lives of others for their personal gratification need to fuck the hell off.



How about those people who help the families who are experiencing a gross miscarriage of justice, coupled with size and race discrimination? Should those people "fuck the hell off" too? Or should they do what lawyer Sondra Solovay, and author and activist Marilyn Wann did - which was to successfully help reunite a three year old girl with her loving family after she was removed by an ignorant/predjudiced medical profession and biassed legal system...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2347/
Here's an excerpt (as I guess from your response that you didn't read any of my previous case examples)... I suggest you read the whole article - if this doesn't convince you that *the workings of the state empowered to seize people from their homes ought at the very least be exposed to public scrutiny* then I guess you won't change your mind until someone you love is seized... for whatever pretext... and if you think that won't happen to you and yours where you are...
*sigh*
excerpt begins:
_
....On the morning of 25 August, they were forced to explain to their three-year-old that &#8216;you will be going to stay with some different people now, but mommy and daddy will come to visit’. Her mother recalls that, as a nurse pushed the child away down the hospital hall in a stroller &#8216;she kept screaming that she wanted her daddy to push her. But we knew there were armed guards outside, so we couldn’t do anything. It was so difficult to sit there and do nothing because you could hear her scream all the way down the hall’.

It is difficult to describe the sheer irrationality of the decision process that led to this appalling abuse of state power. Here are just some of the aspects of this fiasco that illustrate the depths of the craziness to which the war on fat can drive public officials:

*—At the time she was taken into state custody, there was no evidence that Anamarie’s health was in danger. Despite her extraordinary size, an almost endless battery of tests had concluded that she was not suffering from any detectable cardiovascular problem, or any other major difficulties. Despite this, the state social workers’ affidavit claimed Anamarie was in grave danger of suffering &#8216;fatal heart damage’ if she was not taken from her parents immediately.*

—Although the justification for taking Anamarie from her parents was that she was in immediate medical danger, *the state took her from the hospital into which her parents had admitted her three times in the previous few weeks, and moved her to a private foster home*, where she remained for the next two-and-a-half months.

—The state’s affidavit charged Anamarie’s parents with being unable or unwilling to keep the child on an appropriate diet, when in fact they had, on the advice of a constantly shifting cast of healthcare experts, placed her on a series of diets, all of which they followed faithfully. These diets began at 1200 calories per day, then declined to 1000 calories, then 900, and finally 550. This final diet, which Anamarie was on at the time she was taken from her parents, consisted of two Kindercal drinks (two such drinks might make up perhaps a third of a normal three-year-old’s daily caloric intake). In other words, *Anamarie’s parents were being told to starve their child - yet even after agreeing to do so they were accused of causing, or at least seriously exacerbating, her still-mysterious condition, by feeding her &#8216;too much.*’

That there could even be a discussion about whether the state ought to take a child away from her parents under these circumstances indicates how severely the topic of fat distorts public debate in America today. It should be unnecessary to point out that the whole idea that parental dietary practices might play a significant role in producing a 130-pound three-year-old is absurd. Such a theory is every bit as bizarre as the idea that Anamarie’s parents were damaging her health by forcing her to become twice as tall as other children her age. Anyone who has ever parented small children knows how difficult it is to get them to eat something they would prefer not to eat.

As for &#8216;overfeeding’ a toddler, lax parental supervision of a toddler’s eating habits might result in a three-year-old weighing five or perhaps even 10 pounds more than she would otherwise weigh - but at the time of her third hospitalization Anamarie weighed 90 pounds more than the average three-year-old.

Anamarie’s mother is not an obesity expert, but she is perfectly capable of critiquing the bizarre idea that her daughter is three times heavier than a normal toddler because her parents have made her that way. *&#8216; If we are overfeeding her, then why is she so tall?’ Martinez-Regino asks. &#8216;Why did she have all her teeth by the time she was a year old? Why does she have thick hair, adult kind of hair? Can overfeeding do all that?’ *Martinez- Regino is also well aware of the subtext of *the state’s claim that Anamarie’s family &#8216;does not understand the threat to their daughter’s safety and welfare due to language and cultural barriers’. A working-class woman of Mexican heritage living in Albuquerque, married to a man who does not speak English well,* doesn’t need a doctorate in sociology to understand the threat to her parental rights emanating from that sentence. When she read those words in the affidavit, Martinez-Regino says, &#8216;I knew they decided about us before they even spoke to us’.

Leslie Prichard, a paralegal and the wife of Anamarie’s parents’ lawyer, Troy Prichard (the Prichards took on the case for free) asks the obvious question: if her parents had been white, upper-class professionals, would they have been charged with child abuse simply because their daughter was unusually large? Troy Prichard has little doubt about what led the state to take such drastic action. &#8216;There were so many veiled comments which added up to: “You know those Mexican people, all they eat is fried junk, of course they’re slipping her food.” That’s what they wanted to see.’

Yet whatever part class and ethnic prejudice may have played in the decision to take Anamarie from her parents, it seems clear that another factor played an even bigger role. &#8216;Everybody we were dealing with was skinny. There were no overweight doctors’, said Martinez-Regino. &#8216;People sometimes look at her and think she sits in front of the TV and eats and eats. But ever since she was a baby she’s been moving around…. It comes down to people are fat because they have a condition. But the public, they don’t look at it as a medical problem. They look at it as a mental problem. Her weight will go up and down. She will never be a Barbie.’

Anamarie’s story has a happy ending, at least to this point. Largely through the heroic efforts of many size acceptance advocates, most notably lawyer Sondra Solovay, and author and activist Marilyn Wann, a fierce legal and political battle was fought to return Anamarie to her family. These and other advocates volunteered countless hours of time - as well as their professional expertise and a good deal of money - in order to bring Anamarie back home. They played the most crucial role in an ultimately successful battle: a role that was almost completely ignored in media accounts of the conflict._


HereticFA - surely all the more reason that the accused should be publicly IDed - that's a helluva a deterent in itself...


----------

