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.
Adoption - Should Fat People Be Allowed to Adopt?
Options
Replies
-
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.15 -
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.26 -
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.0 -
ETA: Deleted as too long and rambling.2
-
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.2 -
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.7 -
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.
46 -
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.12 -
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.6
-
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.
3 -
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.
I think this is a good point. Someone previously mentioned "my 600 lb life". Those are cases of extreme obesity, there are mental health reasons behind one getting that large, and lots of physical restrictions with being that large that I think would prevent you from being an acceptable care taker. I do not allowing someone in that situation adopt.
I have not seen this specific show, but googling images these people appear overweight, but still able to function normally. I would place less emphasis on BMI and more on interviews and interactions with the person if I were making the decision. If they want to be loving parents I say let them. There are plenty of biological parents that are just as large and/or larger than the people I am seeing from this show that are good parents to their children.0 -
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.
Well and assuming the person with bipolar had a stable diagnosis, it's the unstable family background (I'm assuming you mean the home wasn't stable), a chronic progressive terminal illness, and smoking that were the issues.0 -
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.
Well and assuming the person with bipolar had a stable diagnosis, it's the unstable family background (I'm assuming you mean the home wasn't stable), a chronic progressive terminal illness, and smoking that were the issues.
It was 19 years ago. The couple was not prevented from adopting a child despite any of their issues.
Unstable family background means close relatives in jail frequently, abusive family, drug abusers/alcoholics, undertreated mental illness. After adopting the home and adoptive parents became more unstable as well.
0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »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.
You have described the state my health was in at a BMI of 40. While obese I also became diabetic which permanently alters my chance at a long life, even though I have lost serious weight and become more fit now.
For me, the BMI scale was an accurate reflection of my fitness - at 40 I had to lean on grocery carts to get around the store. At 30 I could happily walk, but running was too hard on my feet and my stamina. Below 30, I started to be able to do most things, but not well. Below 25 I was able to do most activities well.
I know BMI is not an accurate scale for everybody. I am a slightly taller than average middle aged white woman with average bones and muscle mass, which means it works well for me. It seems to me that while obesity might be one factor to consider when there are more available parents than children, BMI should never be the sole criterion for determining obesity. A health care professional should be able to override the BMI in case of outliers such as very muscular people.5 -
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.
Well and assuming the person with bipolar had a stable diagnosis, it's the unstable family background (I'm assuming you mean the home wasn't stable), a chronic progressive terminal illness, and smoking that were the issues.
It was 19 years ago. The couple was not prevented from adopting a child despite any of their issues.
Unstable family background means close relatives in jail frequently, abusive family, drug abusers/alcoholics, undertreated mental illness. After adopting the home and adoptive parents became more unstable as well.
What I was pointing out was that bipolar (among various other mental illnesses), if treated, shouldn't be an issue with regards to adopting a child (or raising a child really). I too know someone with bipolar who is an adoptive parent. In her case it was 7 or 8 years ago and she had been stable for a very long time. Saying someone has bipolar doesn't actually tell one anything about how functional the person is.
But yes, it sounds like the situation you're talking about was not a good one for a number of reasons. So many reasons.3 -
As someone who has looked into adoption. It all depends on the agency and sometimes the country.
There are agencies who won’t let you adopt with them if you aren’t the right religion, too fat, health issues or a history of depression.
Some countries have limits on BMI, income, mental health etc.
0 -
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. 🤬
My knee jerk reaction was "that shouldn't be a rule" and the response above sealed the deal.
I could see it being a true issue if the prospective adoptive parent was both a single parent AND already had serious medical issues due to their weight. Otherwise, not so much.
While it's not that closely related, I feel similarly about some of the rules on surrogacy. My friend was 27 years old, a mother of three young children, who had easy pregnancies and deliveries, but was 50 or 60 lb overweight post-partum (and had always been at least 30 lb overweight even as a college basketball player). She was very healthy otherwise and she deeply wanted to be a surrogate for her sister-in-law, but the doctors warned that her obesity would prevent this from being an option at all. I don't know all of the ins and outs but in her particular situation, I found that absurd. I believe there may have been some added risk but for the most part it sounded like she would be an ideal surrogate.1 -
I believe the concern is that the parent will die or be incapacitated to the point of not being able to care for the child. The agency is charged with the heavy responsibility of finding the best possible long-term situation for the child-- the wishes/feelings of the potential parent are secondary.10
-
In 1971 I adopted a child categorized as hard to place. The financial requirements were waived, but my husband, two children and I were required to pass physical exams and mental evaluations. I understand the need to insure the child's well-being, but my heart hurts for those children who fail to be adopted due to overly-rigid regulations. Very few families are ideal, in my experience.3
-
spinnerdell wrote: »In 1971 I adopted a child categorized as hard to place. The financial requirements were waived, but my husband, two children and I were required to pass physical exams and mental evaluations. I understand the need to insure the child's well-being, but my heart hurts for those children who fail to be adopted due to overly-rigid regulations. Very few families are ideal, in my experience.
Isn't that the truth?
I was adopted. So was my husband and all but one of our siblings. I am grateful to have had a family -- we all are. But it's an odd business 'giving' children to families, isn't it?
10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions