Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Too fat to adopt a child

Options
2

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    sijomial, I'd agree that they can afford to be choosy if there isn't a shortage of parents wanting and able to adopt. However, it seems from the figures given that Australia might not be in that situation. In that instance, they should allow any parent to adopt who can provide a better life than the care system - which probably isn't a high enough barrier to justify making BMI a barrier for otherwise suitable people who are able to lead normal lives despite their weight. An advisory to lose it, sure, maybe even seeing them start the process before they're approved, but not to get all the way down to a healthy BMI.

    @Rosemary7391
    I agree that children remaining in care is a systemic failure and is a far worse outcome for the child when suitable homes with loving parents are available. Would take issue with the very low goal of just being better than a care home though. Need to aim a lot higher than that.
    By the way normally there isn't just one set of criteria - the criteria for baby adopters can be very different than if you are offering a home to an older or handicapped or emotionally disturbed child for example.
    It may seem cold and unemotional but it is supply and demand.

    Don't know the Australian system but my we started our application to get on the adoption waiting list when we had a barrier to eventually getting approved. Background: Four miscarriages and four failed donor egg IVF attempts.
    We had to demonstrate with certainty we had given up on IVF attempts as we had to be fully and solely committed to adoption - which we did.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options

    News Corp Australia can today reveal the Adopt Change ‘Barriers to Adoption’ research which uncovers a shocking picture of delays and unfair hoops families are having to jump through in order to achieve their dream of giving a child a permanent home.

    Pretty good revelation, considering that the research is supposed to start tomorrow
    https://www.adoptchange.org.au/events/10/barriers-to-adoption-national-research-launch

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options

    News Corp Australia can today reveal the Adopt Change ‘Barriers to Adoption’ research which uncovers a shocking picture of delays and unfair hoops families are having to jump through in order to achieve their dream of giving a child a permanent home.

    Pretty good revelation, considering that the research is supposed to start tomorrow
    https://www.adoptchange.org.au/events/10/barriers-to-adoption-national-research-launch

    News Corp Australia is not exactly the pinnacle of reporting prowess.
  • seltzermint555
    seltzermint555 Posts: 10,742 Member
    Options
    I am not super knowledgeable about the adoption processes in the U.S. but a friend of mine is an attorney who handles family law including foster-to-adoption situations and he says that they DO take the health of prospective adoptive parents into consideration and weight is one of the BIGGEST ways they determine health/fitness. He had a couple who were both morbidly obese, but full-time employed and reasonably physically active, who fostered a preteen boy for 7 years of his life but were turned down for adopting the boy due to their "disabilities". They aren't disabled aside from their obesity and like I said, full-time employed, etc.

    As another post mentioned, they'll pretty much let anyone foster a child (barring criminal offenses)...old, fat, sick, whatever. But when it comes to permanent placements they're pretty picky, which can be a safeguard, but more often would seem unfortunate in my opinion.
  • Mezzie1024
    Mezzie1024 Posts: 380 Member
    Options
    I'd like to foster, but can't because my husband's and my work schedules don't allow us to go to the trainings at the same time (nevermind the fact that that schedule would allow us to be available to a kid in crisis 24/7). It's truly a frustrating process -- even more so for those trying to adopt, I would imagine.

    Meanwhile, I have teenage students bouncing from foster home to foster home while I could easily give at least one a stable home through adulthood (and beyond -- it's not like family support ever ends) if I could just jump through the right hoops.
  • richardgavel
    richardgavel Posts: 1,001 Member
    Options
    It's one thing to call it an automatic disqualifier, but I don't have a problem with the idea that it's something that would go in the minus column in terms of evaluation. And in terms of being told to lose weight to adopt, I would imagine that is probably of of the minus evaluation points that can be changed the quickest anyway.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    I am not super knowledgeable about the adoption processes in the U.S. but a friend of mine is an attorney who handles family law including foster-to-adoption situations and he says that they DO take the health of prospective adoptive parents into consideration and weight is one of the BIGGEST ways they determine health/fitness. He had a couple who were both morbidly obese, but full-time employed and reasonably physically active, who fostered a preteen boy for 7 years of his life but were turned down for adopting the boy due to their "disabilities". They aren't disabled aside from their obesity and like I said, full-time employed, etc.

    As another post mentioned, they'll pretty much let anyone foster a child (barring criminal offenses)...old, fat, sick, whatever. But when it comes to permanent placements they're pretty picky, which can be a safeguard, but more often would seem unfortunate in my opinion.

    Yeah, agreed. It seems a different situation than when qualifying for an infant adoption (when generally there are a lot more potential adoptive parents than infants too). Kids who have been in the foster system may have a tough time getting adopted and it seems like having legal parents if they are otherwise qualified and caring and had the longstanding relationship and were actually not disabled in that situation would be more beneficial.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    skymningen wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »

    Fat =\= drug addicted
    Fat =\= felons
    Fat =\= chronically ill

    1) What about food addicted? There are very similar biochemical 'reward' reactions for people with eating disorders after a binge than for drug addicts after a fix or gaming addicts after gaining a level.

    The obvious problem with drug addicted parents is that they are likely to neglect or even abuse the child or to be unable to provide a safe environment. On the other hand, being a smoker does not make one a bad parent, and neither would so called food addiction (probably "eating addiction" is a better term).
    2) No. Sure. Nobody said that.

    Yes, the clear point was to equate the two situations. Among other things, having felons as parents could be problematic as being in prison makes it hard to parent. Former, rehabilitated felon who served his time? (Or prior felon of many stupid sorts: I had a friend who had to get a criminal record expunged to be a lawyer as he'd stolen a mailbox when drunk in college.)

    With respect to someone who had been to prison for a felony, I understand why they'd have strikes against them in the adoption line, but I think they could be perfectly good parents.
    3) As @jdlobb said, debatable.

    One can be fat and not chronically ill. One can be chronically ill and not fat.

    You need to be able to provide a stable home. If you are so fat that you cannot do so or do the things parents do, yes, sure, that's a problem. Being in an obese BMI doesn't mean that's the case.

    Completely agree. Thanks for typing it out so that I didn't have to. :)
  • Aerona85
    Aerona85 Posts: 159 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    jdlobb wrote: »
    This forum gets its hackles up over BMI far too easily. No, it's not a perfect measure, but it is the best there is. For the overwhelming majority of people it is an incredibly reliable predictor of weight problems. The people it doesn't work for are statistical outliers, not at all the norm.

    Actually, no it is not all there is. Body composition tests anyone? BMI was created as a way to track obesity in a large population. The statistician who created it (in the 1800s) even said it cannot and should not be used at an individual level.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    I adopted my children as babies.
    (I'm in the U.K. so my experience reflects that...)

    You need to keep in mind it's primarily about the child and not about the parents.
    There's a whole load of selection criteria for parents to meet to even get on the waiting list - current health plus attempting to predict the future health and longevity of prospective adoptive parents is just a small part of that. It's to try as much as possible to ensure the child has a loving and stable family through to adulthood.

    Being overweight is clearly a risk factor, one of many risk factors. BMI isn't the best way to look at overall health but let's face it you don't need BMI to know someone 50kg overweight has a serious health problem right now and good prospects of a shortened life span.

    Adoption agencies can afford to be choosy - there's no shortage of parents wanting to adopt.

    Yes that's tough on the parents who get rejected but it's about the child's needs and not not the parent's needs or wants.

    Adopt Change CEO Renée Carter said some of the barriers to adoption, such as BMI but also age and length of marriage, were just “bizarre”.

    This comment is ridiculous!
    Of course age is a factor in not just longevity of the parents but also in providing the best match for the child.
    Length of marriage (or other relationship) is a sensible thing to take into account - adopting a child is an even longer term commitment.

    So, in the U.K. there are no kids languishing in foster care or orphanages because there are so many parents waiting? It's definitely not like that in the US with several 100,000 waiting for permanent homes. Many will age out of the system without ever being adopted.

    We both agree that BMI isn't the best measure of overall health, and I'm not sure where their cut off is--is it overweight or obese? The discussion jumped to morbidly obese which typically does increase co-morbidity factors, but a couple of examples in the article made it seem like even being a little overweight ruled people out.

    What if parents gain weight, are they going to take children away? From just adoptive parents?
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    I adopted my children as babies.
    (I'm in the U.K. so my experience reflects that...)

    You need to keep in mind it's primarily about the child and not about the parents.
    There's a whole load of selection criteria for parents to meet to even get on the waiting list - current health plus attempting to predict the future health and longevity of prospective adoptive parents is just a small part of that. It's to try as much as possible to ensure the child has a loving and stable family through to adulthood.

    Being overweight is clearly a risk factor, one of many risk factors. BMI isn't the best way to look at overall health but let's face it you don't need BMI to know someone 50kg overweight has a serious health problem right now and good prospects of a shortened life span.

    Adoption agencies can afford to be choosy - there's no shortage of parents wanting to adopt.

    Yes that's tough on the parents who get rejected but it's about the child's needs and not not the parent's needs or wants.

    Adopt Change CEO Renée Carter said some of the barriers to adoption, such as BMI but also age and length of marriage, were just “bizarre”.

    This comment is ridiculous!
    Of course age is a factor in not just longevity of the parents but also in providing the best match for the child.
    Length of marriage (or other relationship) is a sensible thing to take into account - adopting a child is an even longer term commitment.

    So, in the U.K. there are no kids languishing in foster care or orphanages because there are so many parents waiting? It's definitely not like that in the US with several 100,000 waiting for permanent homes. Many will age out of the system without ever being adopted.

    We both agree that BMI isn't the best measure of overall health, and I'm not sure where their cut off is--is it overweight or obese? The discussion jumped to morbidly obese which typically does increase co-morbidity factors, but a couple of examples in the article made it seem like even being a little overweight ruled people out.

    What if parents gain weight, are they going to take children away? From just adoptive parents?

    My friend had to get to a healthy BMI from an "overweight" one before they were allowed to adopt.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    Options
    I wasn't aware of these restrictions. My cousin's wife is obese and they have adopted 3 older kids from the foster system. She is heavy, but she's very active, involved in her kid's lives, and is a great mom. She's not the best role model for fitness and health, but the kids absolutely love her and they are well taken care of. It would have been a total waste if they had been denied and those adorable kids were still rolling around in the system.

    I can see limiting obese people to a point, but only in extreme cases. Some super morbidly obese persons might not make the best parents simply because many of them are incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone children. (Thinking of the bed-ridden people, and those with so many health problems they aren't expected to live much longer.) You want to set kids up in stable, healthy families that are able to care for kids long-term...
  • joannastanmfp
    joannastanmfp Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    Just my two cents here...I'm a psychologist and previously worked with children in foster care providing trauma therapy. The majority of the children were placed in non-familial homes with other children being fostered. I don't feel that BMI correlates with healthy parenting. Not one bit. Now, if a person wanted to adopt a child with a BMI that was high AND had severe health issues caused by morbid obesity, than they might not be an appropriate candidate to adopt as their healthcare issues might impact their ability to take care of a child long-term. More than anything, I'd love to see children placed with blood relatives but that just doesn't happen all the time. And yes, foster parents are typically supposed to be temporary until parents get their act together. Sadly, that doesn't always happen and children stay in foster until they reach adult age and transition.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    I adopted my children as babies.
    (I'm in the U.K. so my experience reflects that...)

    You need to keep in mind it's primarily about the child and not about the parents.
    There's a whole load of selection criteria for parents to meet to even get on the waiting list - current health plus attempting to predict the future health and longevity of prospective adoptive parents is just a small part of that. It's to try as much as possible to ensure the child has a loving and stable family through to adulthood.

    Being overweight is clearly a risk factor, one of many risk factors. BMI isn't the best way to look at overall health but let's face it you don't need BMI to know someone 50kg overweight has a serious health problem right now and good prospects of a shortened life span.

    Adoption agencies can afford to be choosy - there's no shortage of parents wanting to adopt.

    Yes that's tough on the parents who get rejected but it's about the child's needs and not not the parent's needs or wants.

    Adopt Change CEO Renée Carter said some of the barriers to adoption, such as BMI but also age and length of marriage, were just “bizarre”.

    This comment is ridiculous!
    Of course age is a factor in not just longevity of the parents but also in providing the best match for the child.
    Length of marriage (or other relationship) is a sensible thing to take into account - adopting a child is an even longer term commitment.

    So, in the U.K. there are no kids languishing in foster care or orphanages because there are so many parents waiting? It's definitely not like that in the US with several 100,000 waiting for permanent homes. Many will age out of the system without ever being adopted.

    We both agree that BMI isn't the best measure of overall health, and I'm not sure where their cut off is--is it overweight or obese? The discussion jumped to morbidly obese which typically does increase co-morbidity factors, but a couple of examples in the article made it seem like even being a little overweight ruled people out.

    What if parents gain weight, are they going to take children away? From just adoptive parents?

    @Psychgrrl

    Not sure why you feel the need to put words into my mouth? If you want to ask me a question then ask it in non aggressive manner and I'll happily respond and share my experience as someone who has gone through the process.

    Once you have adopted legally the children are yours - they can only be taken away under the same circumstances as if they were your biological children, they have exactly the same status. The adoption agency's job and involvement is complete unless some ongoing contact with the birth parents is agreed.