Adoption - Should Fat People Be Allowed to Adopt?

nrtauthor

This topic is inspired by the show My Big Fat Fabulous Life. The star of that show goes to an adoption agency and is told she can't adopt because her BMI is too high.

I don't know a lot about adoption in America but I know in Canada the criteria for being eligible to adopt is quite strict. You have to be a certain age (in comparison to the child), certain financial situation and married couples are higher up on the totem pole (that's just what I know from family members who wanted to adopt).

Now, initially my knee-jerk reaction to the adoption agency saying: People with this BMI aren't eligible, was: That's *kitten*.

But then I started to think about it.

We know, for a fact, that once you reach a certain level of obesity that there are significant health risks. Our society likes to preach that all bodies are beautiful (they are) and that all bodies are healthy (they aren't), but this narrative has created this denial about reality. Scientific fact is scientific fact, your feelings don't change facts.

So, if we know a certain level of obesity comes with significant health risks, and if we know BMI isn't 100% accurate but IS a good starting point (I mean when you hit a BMI of 40 and up I think it's fairly obvious if that's 'muscle' weight or fat weight) to determine where a person is at, can we really say it's unfair for adoption agencies to refuse adoption to obese people?

Wouldn't that be like handing a child over to someone we know has a lower life span and significant health issues on the horizon? Is that really the responsible thing to do for these kids?

I'm not sure. I still haven't quite figured out where I stand on the issue but what about you?

Should adoption agencies look at a person's overall health (including obesity) when considering if someone is suitable to adopt?

Or should those sort of things not matter because a loving home is more important than a stable home (health stability I mean)?

Thoughts?

urloved33

and god forbid what if someone significantly obese wanted to adopt to have a child to wait on them? (see my 600 lb life they all have people waiting on them)

jseams1234

What was the BMI cutoff the adoption agency is using?

nrtauthor

jseams1234 wrote: »

What was the BMI cutoff the adoption agency is using?

I honestly don't know (I'm pregnant. Information goes in one ear and out through my aching ankles LOL so I'm not sure if they said in the show or if it wasn't mentioned). What do you think would be acceptable?

nrtauthor

urloved33 wrote: »

and god forbid what if someone significantly obese wanted to adopt to have a child to wait on them? (see my 600 lb life they all have people waiting on them)

I hadn't thought of that but that's certainly a concern!

janejellyroll

nrtauthor wrote: »

urloved33 wrote: »

and god forbid what if someone significantly obese wanted to adopt to have a child to wait on them? (see my 600 lb life they all have people waiting on them)

I hadn't thought of that but that's certainly a concern!

Adopting and raising a child is *expensive*. I can't imagine this would be cost-effective, it would be cheaper to hire someone to just wait on you.

In any case, why would this be a concern specifically for overweight people? There are all sorts of inappropriate reasons one might adopt a child, so singling out overweight people because they potentially maybe might be really wanting a slave seems ridiculous.

janejellyroll

Are they restricting for other future potential health problems or just immediately visible and socially unapproved ones?

jseams1234

I found this..

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2743016&page=1

... a BMI of 40 is the cutoff

“China announced plans Wednesday to tighten restrictions on adoptions by foreigners. The nation will give last priority to foreign citizens who are older than 50 and ban adoptions to those who are obese, single, disfigured or on antidepressant medication.

Stated bluntly, if you are too fat, you can't adopt a Chinese baby.”

Edit: didn’t see anything about US based adoptions - but I’m doing three things at once this morning and may have missed it.

nrtauthor

janejellyroll wrote: »

Are they restricting for other future potential health problems or just immediately visible and socially unapproved ones?

From what I saw, and it was a TV show so I have no idea how accurate it was, they were restricting based entirely on potential health issues. The BMI itself was seen as a 'health problem'. From my understanding.

nrtauthor

I just thought of a question for those who, like me, had a knee-jerk 'this is wrong' reaction.

What about the health risks to the child? Because they will obviously be raised in a home where proper nutrition and eating habits aren't taught, so most likely they will also end up obese (which we know is unhealthy). I mean, we can argue that obese people eat healthy but don't we all know that's not true?

Source of opinion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671382/

"Another important risk factor for childhood obesity is having parents who are obese. Children with 2 obese parents are 10 to 12 times more likely to be obese."

amfmmama

A friend of mine was turned down, because her husband was obese. They tried to go the open adoption route, and they were not chosen, and the reason was that the birth mothers that were involved did not choose them because of their weight. This is a real thing.

pnst84ever

I have a friend who has an adopted son. She tells the story that when she went to get him (outside of the US) she had to buy 2 plane tickets because she is rather large. I don't think BMI should be a make or break decision.

bmeadows380

My thoughts are that considering the number of children in the system who are desperately needed a safe, stable, loving home, that I can't consider it a grand idea. Our population is growing in size and besides, BMI is an estimate of chances of becoming ill - it's not necessarily a guarantee. Furthermore, even if the obese person has a higher risk of certain illness, frankly, as we age, we all become higher risk for a lot of illnesses. It's trying to predict the future.

After all, even your loving, 30 something couple with perfect health may adopt and then go on to develop cancer or die in a car accident.

And I'd much rather see a child taken in by a loving obese couple who might have health problems but who will love that child than leave that child in the system, moving from home to home and being exposed to who knows what sorts of things.

janejellyroll

nrtauthor wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Are they restricting for other future potential health problems or just immediately visible and socially unapproved ones?

From what I saw, and it was a TV show so I have no idea how accurate it was, they were restricting based entirely on potential health issues. The BMI itself was seen as a 'health problem'. From my understanding.

Are they requesting family medical records to eliminate people who may have a higher risk of certain diseases or screening for things like the BRCA gene?

I realize that this post is based on a television show and you may not know the answer, but I think knowing this would determine how I felt about the overall policy. Limiting adoption due to the potential for obesity-related illness seems unfair unless it is in the context of identifying and limiting everyone with a higher risk of future health issues, not just one that is immediately visible.

SuzySunshine99

janejellyroll wrote: »

Are they restricting for other future potential health problems or just immediately visible and socially unapproved ones?

Friends of mine who adopted said they were asked whether either of them smoked and how much alcohol they typically drink, so maybe.

janejellyroll

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Are they restricting for other future potential health problems or just immediately visible and socially unapproved ones?

Friends of mine who adopted said they were asked whether either of them smoked and how much alcohol they typically drink, so maybe.

Those questions could be prompted by a concern for parental health, but it could also be motivated by concern for the environment that the child will be exposed to.

SuzySunshine99

janejellyroll wrote: »

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Are they restricting for other future potential health problems or just immediately visible and socially unapproved ones?

Friends of mine who adopted said they were asked whether either of them smoked and how much alcohol they typically drink, so maybe.

Those questions could be prompted by a concern for parental health, but it could also be motivated by concern for the environment that the child will be exposed to.

That's true. I'm not sure of the context of those questions.

My thought is that there are so many children who need loving homes. If an obese person has the means and the desire to open their home to a child, I don't think there should be restrictions based on BMI.

CSARdiver

I'm adopted. My parents were poor at the time, so assuming this would exceed the level of risk for an adoption agency by today's standards. Considering that demand vastly exceeds supply then prospective parents would do well to manage their weight.

If the option is for a child to either have obese parents or no parents, then obese parents would be preferable.

Due to the sensationalist nature of how this played out I question if this wasn't manufactured to increase the drama.

quiksylver296

CSARdiver wrote: »

I'm adopted. My parents were poor at the time, so assuming this would exceed the level of risk for an adoption agency by today's standards. Considering that demand vastly exceeds supply then prospective parents would do well to manage their weight.

If the option is for a child to either have obese parents or no parents, then obese parents would be preferable.

Due to the sensationalist nature of how this played out I question if this wasn't manufactured to increase the drama.

I don't watch that show anymore, but that was my first thought, too.

zeejane03

Huh, didn't know this was a thing. We have several friends who are either foster parents or have adopted. Most of them are overweight/very overweight. A couple of them also have health issues (both medical and mental health). One of them is also a smoker.

It doesn't bother me that they're overweight, every day that those kids don't have to be shuffled around is a blessing. I'm in excellent health, I could die tomorrow due to all sorts of unforeseen incidents.

panda4153

As someone who was in the foster system as a child this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. To deny a child in need of a loving home because the person who wants desperately to be a parent is too large in my opinion is so very wrong. This in no way protects the child. It probably puts the child at a higher risk. No child should have to live in the foster system or an orphanage. Honestly, these types of rules are made by people who have no idea what it’s actually like for the children living in those situations. 🤬

kimny72

Keep in mind, there is more than one way to adopt. If this is a private adoption agency who is arranging adoptions for birth mothers who have decided to give up their child, I don't think there is anything wrong with placing limits. Perhaps enough birth mothers wanted to avoid obese parents that the company took it on as a universal rule. If I'm choosing a family to adopt my child, I'll use whatever parameters I want, whether they are "fair" or not.

If you are talking about a government agency arranging adoptions of children in the foster care system, then I think this is short sighted as the child is IMHO better off having a possibly unhealthy parent over growing up in the system.

It's different when you loop in another country like China, as they have long had laws surrounding procreation and child rearing that I would strongly disagree with.

sijomial

UK experience perspective....

I was fortunate to adopt my two children and the process to become an approved adopter was extremely rigorous and very much keeping the current and long term needs of the child as paramount.
All aspects of our lives was gone through with a fine tooth comb from health (including smoking, drinking and medical history), to beliefs/attitudes, criminal records and strength of our relationship. Concerns for the long term health of the adoptive parents was a sensible major factor and I would agree that obesity would be a health factor to take into account.

At that time (27 & 24 years ago) it was recognised that being in the care system was the worst outcome for the child but for something so emotional there was also a big element of cold and logical "supply & demand".

There was a lot of "demand" for healthy young babies or children - the adoption agency could be really choosy with selecting adoptive parents. The adoption list was only briefly opened by our agency due to a sudden rise in babies coming up for adoption and those parents already approved and on the waiting list were deemed slightly too old - they really could be that selective. Heart breaking for those deemed "too old" but perfect adopters in every other regard.

There was unfortunately a low demand for older children, disabled, problem background, sibling groups and the adoption agency would be far more lenient with requirements for adoptive parents again recognising that growing up in a family environment was far superior to staying in the care system.

zeejane03

sijomial wrote: »

UK experience perspective....

I was fortunate to adopt my two children and the process to become an approved adopter was extremely rigorous and very much keeping the current and long term needs of the child as paramount.
All aspects of our lives was gone through with a fine tooth comb from health (including smoking, drinking and medical history), to beliefs/attitudes, criminal records and strength of our relationship. Concerns for the long term health of the adoptive parents was a sensible major factor and I would agree that obesity would be a health factor to take into account.

At that time (27 & 24 years ago) it was recognised that being in the care system was the worst outcome for the child but for something so emotional there was also a big element of cold and logical "supply & demand".

There was a lot of "demand" for healthy young babies or children - the adoption agency could be really choosy with selecting adoptive parents. The adoption list was only briefly opened by our agency due to a sudden rise in babies coming up for adoption and those parents already approved and on the waiting list were deemed slightly too old - they really could be that selective. Heart breaking for those deemed "too old" but perfect adopters in every other regard.

There was unfortunately a low demand for older children, disabled, problem background, sibling groups and the adoption agency would be far more lenient with requirements for adoptive parents again recognising that growing up in a family environment was far superior to staying in the care system.

This would make sense-of the several foster/adopting families I know, all of them took sets of siblings, which included older kids, and several of the children have behavioral/mental health issues. So maybe there was some leniency with the adults physical health.

manderson27

ETA: Deleted as too long and rambling.

nrtauthor

I hadn't considered different agencies would have different criteria!

Some excellent points being made in here.

I'm still not sure where I sit. But I keep imagining someone severely obese not the average overweight person and I think that's tripping me up.

CSARdiver

In the US there is no overarching federal entity and this is left to the states, so there is a great deal of variance.

The danger in viewing complex issues from such a myopic perspective is that you lose sight of humans as individuals and start collecting them in identity groups. This historically does not end well.

The concern from the agencies is that a mistake would be made, so a process is implemented to remove the humanity and accountability. I don't believe this is possible and the best practice is to humanize this entirely. Ideally parents and children mutually agreeing, but if this isn't possible rely on an individual with experience.

Duck_Puddle

I didn’t see the TV show and I only did a cursory Google search - which mentioned a BMI of 40 as a cutoff (for the ones that mentioned something specific). So my comments are based on that.

BMI of 40 is morbid obesity - not just a little (or even a lot) overweight. I’ve been morbidly obese. It’s a level of obesity where size affects qualify of life nearly all circumstances. While I was at the lower end of “fitness” for morbid obesity, I’m not sure that anyone could have any real reasonable level of fitness while also being so obese that surgical intervention is often encouraged because the risks of obesity outweigh the risks of surgery. I honestly don’t know. I just can’t imagine that being the predominant situation.

Anyway-I had trouble waking. I needed to rest going up stairs. I was too weak to carry more than a can of food at a time. I had to lean on grocery carts for support because it was too exhausting to walk down the aisles. It was exhausting just existing. Never mind the actual health risks.

Could I have provided a child a loving and stable home? Absolutely. Could I have chased a curious toddler to keep him/her safe? Ehhhh. Could I have managed to take a child to the playground or a walk around the neighborhood or simply playing in the yard? Unlikely. Gone for a bike ride with a child? Heck-I exceeded the weight limit for most bikes.

While I try very hard not to judge others for the choices they make and not assume a position of superiority because I have chosen to make changes in my life-I have also lived a life the past year that has caused me to reflect on the changes in my quality of life that have occurred because of the changes I made in my lifestyle.

One of those was an incrediblely active vacation in AZ including a trip to the Grand Canyon. While I was walking around the rim, I passed several families where parents appeared to be in a physical condition similar to where I was when I started (morbidly obese). The parents were sitting on the wall, obviously exhausted and completely spent. The children were anxious and eager to explore (as would be expected in such an awe inspiring place). The parents simply couldn’t. I’m obviously making a lot of assumptions about the parents’ condition (there could be a multitude of reasons).

But on the outset, I think of morbid obesity and I think of those kids at the Grand Canyon just begging their parents to walk another 100 yards-and the parents couldn’t. And I think back to my own experience and know that I lacked the fitness to be able to keep a very young child safe.

I would love that child with all my heart. And that child would know I loved them. But I don’t know that I disagree with a cutoff at morbid obesity.

Aaron_K123

I think that if there are far more children to adopt than families looking to adopt it is a stupid factor to consider. However if there are far more families looking to adopt than children available to adopt then I would think all considerations would be on the table. I mean if there was one child and hundreds of families looking to adopt them why would you not choose the family whose parents are most likely to not suffer debilitating health conditions?

The question for me isn't should health be considered at all...it is how does obesity get scored relative to other indicators that are used to determine who gets to adopt? For example I would consider education and criminal record and financial stability to all be of more importance than obesity.

If they are skipping over an obese person who is educated, has no criminal record and is financially stable in favor of a family who is not obese but isn't educated and has a felony then yeah that is stupid in my opinion. But if they are favoring the family that is educated, no criminal record is financially stable and in addition isn't obese then...well...makes some sense. We shouldn't pretend obesity doesn't represent a potential problem.

aokoye

Also keep in mind that there are children and babies that are up for adoption in the US who people flat out don't want to adopt. Hence the disproportionate amount of children of color and children with various disabilities who don't get adopted. That's in addition to the difficulty that lies in finding people willing to adopt older children.

Lounmoun

Should adoption agencies look at a person's overall health (including obesity) when considering if someone is suitable to adopt?

Or should those sort of things not matter because a loving home is more important than a stable home (health stability I mean)?

I think physical and mental health can be an important factor in someone's ability to physically care for a young child and should be considered. Young children need physical care and someone incapable of providing it should not be top of the list to adopt. A tv show like that probably exaggerated/manipulated the situation but there is some common sense in not adopting out to those who can not care for a child to a certain minimum standard.

I know one adoptive couple where one person had MS, was bipolar, unstable family background, older (had grown children/teens), smoker and they were able to eventually adopt an infant. Neither was overweight. They later divorced. They gave the child a home but it certainly was not a stable home environment over the years. If their only issue had been one of them was obese I think things would have been more stable.