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
Christine_72
Posts: 16,049 Member
I just now heard this on the radio. It is incredibly difficult to adopt a child in Australia, and now on top of all that they now want to reject prospective parents for having a too high BMI. A woman actually had weight loss surgery to qualify for adopting.
What do you all think of this?
ETA: It seems some people cant access the link, so i'll copy and paste the article below.
What do you all think of this?
ETA: It seems some people cant access the link, so i'll copy and paste the article below.
2
Replies
-
It said I needed to have a subscription to read the article.
Did they base it purely on BMI and not on any other health-related factors? Were they morbidly obese or overweight?
I can see how they might want to make sure a prospective parent is going to be around to raise the child, but basing health only on BMI isn't the best way to evaluate that.0 -
They don't "want to" - they already do.
One of my closest friends adopted in Australia, and they made her lose weight because her BMI was above healthy.
BTW, Herald Sun is behind a paywall.0 -
That paywall thing is so weird! When i click on the link i posted i can't access it, but when i google it i can read it..
Try this:
https://www.google.com.au/search?source=hp&q=australians+turned+down+for+adoption+for+being+too+fat&oq=australians+turned+down+for+adoption+for+being+too+fat&gs_l=psy-ab.3...435.22052.0.25161.57.42.0.0.0.0.574.7519.2-6j8j1j5.20.0.foo,cfro=1,nso-ehuqi=1,nso-ehuui=1,ewh=0,nso-mplt=2,nso-enksa=0,nso-enfk=1,nso-usnt=1,nso-qnt-npqp=0-1701,nso-qnt-npdq=0-54,nso-qnt-npt=0-1,nso-qnt-ndc=300,cspa-dspm-nm-mnp=0-05,cspa-dspm-nm-mxp=0-125,nso-unt-npqp=0-17,nso-unt-npdq=0-54,nso-unt-npt=0-0602,nso-unt-ndc=300,cspa-uipm-nm-mnp=0-007525,cspa-uipm-nm-mxp=0-052675...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..37.7.2520.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1.-ulKs69LAQI1 -
I'll just copy and paste the article:
EXCLUSIVE
THEY’RE desperate to give Australian children a forever home, but prospective adoptive parents are being turned away because they’re “too fat”, according a new report.
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.
And the losers are the vulnerable children being shifted from one foster placement to another.
Body mass index is just one factor being used to justify rejecting local adoption, even when prospective parents are deemed to be otherwise healthy.
It is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in metres squared.
In one case a 25-year-old woman was told she could not adopt because her BMI was too high, despite having run three triathlons in the year prior and regularly attending the gym.
She went on to have gastric sleeve surgery — permanently removing a part of her stomach — just to meet the requirements and adopt a child.
In another case a 41-year-old adoptive parent’s BMI was too high because he had lost weight and built up more muscle mass.
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare there are more than 30,000 children who have been living separately from their birth families for over two years who need permanency in Australia.
Last year only 196 Australian children were adopted, five per cent less than the previous year and the lowest number on record.
A couple couldn't adopt as the husband was considered to be too fat based on his BMI being too high. Picture: David Caird
Adopt Change’s research of 1053 people found 83 per cent of survey respondents had experienced barriers in the adoption process.
A total of 57 per cent experienced delays, including 40 per cent who spent five or more years in the adoption process.
And 82 per cent found the entire experience overwhelming with only 33 per cent getting adequate support from their foster agency or department.
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”.
“The current system is broken and we need urgent change in order to provide these children with a more permanent and supportive environment, rather than barriers to belonging,” she said.
Assistant Minister for Social Services Zed Seselja said the state governments needed to do more to ensure kids weren’t missing out on the prospect of a forever home.
“Frankly some states need to show they are serious on this issue,” Senator Seselja said.
“They haven’t done enough to address the barriers that exist.”
Opposition social services spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said assessment criteria needed urgent reform and a rejection for reasons such as BMI was “not fair”.
“The adoption rules need to be focused on ensuring what’s best for the child,” Ms Macklin said.
“That should mean reforming the assessment criteria so that it’s focused on factors directly related to the likely success of an adoption.”
Australian Medical Association President Michael Gannon said he was “shocked” that BMI was being used as a consideration to deny adoption.
“BMI is a long way from being a perfect measure of someone’s weight or wellbeing,” Dr Gannon said.
AMA President Dr Michael Gannon said hse was shocked by the BMI being used as a way of denying adoption. Picture: Ray Strange.
‘I HAD RUN THREE TRIATHLONS’
SHE’D just completed her third triathlon in a year, and was going to the gym daily, but was told she couldn’t realise her dream of adopting a child... because she was too fat.
Or rather, the politically correct message was her BMI was too high.
And so began a seven-year battle for Melissa* and Chris* to start their own family.
Today, with their beautiful two-year-old boy James* in their arms, it all seems a distant nightmare.
But most people wouldn’t have survived the rigorous scrutiny and changes demanded by authorities to have the couple meet the criteria to adopt.
Melissa said she had to undergo gastric sleeve surgery — permanently removing a part of her stomach — to continue their adoption dream.
“I was 100kg at the time we were rejected on the basis of BMI. Absolutely I was overweight but I had run three triathlons in that year beforehand and I was not unhealthy or unable to care for a child,” she told News Corp Australia.
“I also had polycystic ovarian syndrome and one of the side effects of that is being overweight.”
Melissa said she lost 50 kilograms to ensure the couple could be approved for adoption.
But even after the surgery they were told they could not adopt because they did not have enough experience with children — despite Chris being a teacher.
Eventually they got a break and were approved to adopt little James, but the whole process took more than seven years.
Melissa said it should not have been so hard, with the assessment criteria outdated.
“I recognise the need for vetting of adopted parents but BMI should not be a knockout indicator of whether or not we could care for a child,” she said.
“I think there are a lot of wonderful people who could be great parents who haven’t been approved because of these arbitrary measures that really don’t contribute to how good a parent they could be.”
1 -
BMI is *kitten*. I just put in my lean body mass (as in no fat) which would have me at a body weight of 220 at 6'2. According to that, I am over weight and should lose between 26 and 75 pounds. According to that, I would be a healthy weight at 150lbs at 6'2???? Put in my normalbody weight of 280 and I am obese...7
-
Wow. BMI as the only measure of health being used to disqualify prospective adoptive parents? Disagree.3
-
Going by just this article it seems outrageous - children should be in permanent homes and it seems that's not happening? I have a problem with that.
I don't know enough (or anything really) about adoption to say any BMI restrictions are unreasonable or a bad idea altogether though. China has restrictions for BMIs above 40 and that doesn't seem outrageous to me considering that a BMI of 40+ is extreme, class III obesity.1 -
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, those poor kids deserve a loving parent.. so naturally I have my own opinion on refusing prospective parents who want to adopt but make under a certain amount of money. I get not handing them over to those on welfare, but if they work and have shown that they are responsible with their finances, make allowances.
Obesity.. Again, on the one hand, children deserve to know what it's like to have a loving parent. But the health of the child should also be taken into consideration. I don't know about every state or town or country and their ratios of obese parents raising obese kids, but I have lived in 5 different states (and moved between 10 towns) and in those towns the majority of obese mothers towed around obese children. I don't mean slightly pudgy either. Now it wasn't in every case. A few obese parents had healthy weight children and even fewer slender moms had little porkers. (I'm aware that sounds rude but we can't fake flatter people into opening their eyes to reality.)
The obese parents with healthy children had their kids in a sport of some sort generally. But most of the time the moms felt guilty about stuffing pastries and cookies down their throats in front of their dumplings so to not appear as hypocrites, lovingly did the same to their kids. This rather disgusts me. I'd rather be that hypocrit and teach my children NOT to be like me. My responsibility is to make sure I protect them from all harm and teach them to take care of themselves when they become adults.
So I can see the government worried about the kind of example these kids will be given if the experience I've seen in 5 states is the norm for most of the world.
(For the safe zone folks who require everything clarified, before you have a hissy fit and cry fowl, first: Your hot coffee is hot. Don't spill it on your lap. Second: I'm talking about the 99.9% of obese children and parents who got that way because they confuse a whole pizza with a bowl of salad.. NOT the .1% minority who are obese because of a rare medical conditions that the other 99.9% like to pretend is wrong with them.)9 -
But what happens when adoptive parents put on weight a year or two after the adoption? That makes no sense at all.3
-
-
This article is only one of a few covering the research, which hasn't been released yet - launch day is tomorrow, 4 September.
https://www.adoptchange.org.au/events/10/barriers-to-adoption-national-research-launch
The only outlets taking this angle so far are the Murdoch/Fox outlets, and they're beating it up into an anti-BMI issue, and even an anti-male issue in one story.
The actual issue of adoption in Australia is far more complex than the two solitary examples here of people who were eventually approved.5 -
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.11
-
What's worse for a kid?
Having fat parents or having no parents?7 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »What's worse for a kid?
Having fat parents or having no parents?
What's worse?
Having drug addicted parents or no parents?
Having felon parents or no parents?
Having chronically ill parents or no parents?
I'm not saying you should have to be perfectly fit and thin to adopt. But there must be a line somewhere that the health of the child is in danger.9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »What's worse for a kid?
Having fat parents or having no parents?
What's worse?
Having drug addicted parents or no parents?
Having felon parents or no parents?
Having chronically ill parents or no parents?
I'm not saying you should have to be perfectly fit and thin to adopt. But there must be a line somewhere that the health of the child is in danger.
Fat =\= drug addicted
Fat =\= felons
Fat =\= chronically ill14 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »What's worse for a kid?
Having fat parents or having no parents?
What's worse?
Having drug addicted parents or no parents?
Having felon parents or no parents?
Having chronically ill parents or no parents?
I'm not saying you should have to be perfectly fit and thin to adopt. But there must be a line somewhere that the health of the child is in danger.
Fat =\= drug addicted
Fat =\= felons
Fat =\= chronically ill
True
True
Highly debatable
Would you think it would be fine for 2 parents that each weigh over 400 pounds to adopt a child?11 -
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.
2) No. Sure. Nobody said that.
3) As @jdlobb said, debatable.
Where I live, there are rules for the maximal age of parents to adopt a child. So they will be alive and healthy long enough to actually care for it. So it does not go through losing them or not being able to rely on them but instead having to care for them. The same applies to morbid obesity. You put the child in a position where it could have severely ill parents soon, parents that need care instead of giving it. I would not want an orphan child into this position.3 -
My parents got denied for adoption in the 1980s in the USA because my mom was "too fat". she was 5'11" and about 250 lbs at the time. They both came from large families and wanted a large family, but my mom had uterine cancer and then developed Cushing's Disease. Social Services told them that my mom had to reach a "healthy weight" or she couldn't adopt. My dad, a triathelete, was no issue.
My parents were absolutely AMAZING parents. They would've been great parents to more children. They were interested in taking on older kids (5+ years of age) who have the hardest time being placed. But the state said "no, you're too fat, you'd be bad for kids". And this was before the BMI craze.
Reading the article you referenced, @Christine_72 it looks like BMI is being used here as a tool of government coercion in a way it was never designed to do. I'm appalled that self-righteous anti-fat bigots are so stuck on their hatred of people failing to be appropriately "virtuous" they are taking and defending such a position. Kids need a stable home and love. They need parents who will take care of them. Being overweight conveys exactly nothing about your character, willingness to sacrifice for kids, or capacity for love. The state here is abjectly wrong to the detriment of children and families.14 -
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.6 -
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.0
-
My major issue is that these kids are in the foster system, and the requirements to foster are NOWHERE near as stringent. Fat, old, single, ill... you can foster kids. But want to actually give them permanency? All of a sudden the bar is winched way up higher, and the kids are the ones who miss out and stay transient.8
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »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.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
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
2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
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.2 -
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.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.3 -
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.3 -
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.4
-
seltzermint555 wrote: »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.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions