Obese Child? They'll be taken away!
Replies
-
This is why we're friends.I'm considering fattening my kids up a bit.
0 -
The current foster care system is over burdened and under funded. Given what's going on with the nation's budget issues it's not likely to get better any time soon. I have been a social worker for 12 years now and I can categorically tell you that removing children from their family of origin is a last resort to be used in cases of neglect or abuse. Losing your family and bouncing in and out of the system for years is not "better" and it's certainly not the answer for "obese" children. What it will do, is cause serious psychological and emotional issues for kids. Good luck with that. For the person who said it's better to have some trauma as a child than to have heart problems from being fat? Tell that to the systems of subsidized mental health care, special education, social security disability, and Medicaid. Those systems already can't handle the multitude of kids who have suffered trauma as a child. Tell that to those kids whose lives were ripped apart.0
-
I've only read a couple pages of comments, but my immediate reaction is, are you f***in kidding me? Have seen things like "blame McDonald's", "set up the parents to succeed", and "educate parents". The article is not talking about chubby, fat, overweight, or even obese children. It refers to "super obese" children. Kids that are almost at 100% chance of developing serious conditions and dying early because of their weight...isn't this the same thing as child abuse/neglect?
The first two references to cases are a 90 pound three year old and a 400 pound thirteen year old. That's disturbing. Clearly, the parents did not give a sh** about their child's health or future. And clearly these children wouldn't just be thrown into foster care. They would have to be monitored to lose weight at a healthy/safe pace. If you lack the education to feed your child without them being 400 pounds, then I am confident in saying you lack the education (and should lack the option) to have a child at all.
Yes! I'm pretty sure most people judged this without even reading the article given some of the hasty responses. I agree with you 150%.0 -
but your comment was simply about the kids in the article it was about all obese children!0
-
but your comment was simply about the kids in the article it was about all obese children!
(CBS/AP) Parents should lose custody of super obese children.
That's what a controversial commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues. And its authors are not the first to say the government should intervene in extreme cases of childhood obesity.
Those are the first few lines of the article...key words being "super" and "extreme cases".0 -
I understand the idea of this, but unless it's OBVIOUS that the parents don't care, I don't see the point. I was overweight as a child (not obese, but still noticeably overweight) but it wasn't because my parents didn't care. It was because of a medical condition. I dislike when people assume others are overweight/obese because of bad habits.0
-
I've only read a couple pages of comments, but my immediate reaction is, are you f***in kidding me? Have seen things like "blame McDonald's", "set up the parents to succeed", and "educate parents". The article is not talking about chubby, fat, overweight, or even obese children. It refers to "super obese" children. Kids that are almost at 100% chance of developing serious conditions and dying early because of their weight...isn't this the same thing as child abuse/neglect?
The first two references to cases are a 90 pound three year old and a 400 pound thirteen year old. That's disturbing. Clearly, the parents did not give a sh** about their child's health or future. And clearly these children wouldn't just be thrown into foster care. They would have to be monitored to lose weight at a healthy/safe pace. If you lack the education to feed your child without them being 400 pounds, then I am confident in saying you lack the education (and should lack the option) to have a child at all.
Yes! I'm pretty sure most people judged this without even reading the article given some of the hasty responses. I agree with you 150%.
To be honest, I didn't even read the whole thing through. I read something about it a couple weeks ago. A couple other cases in there include a girl who almost died at 16 and a 555 POUND 14 YEAR OLD.0 -
I've only read a couple pages of comments, but my immediate reaction is, are you f***in kidding me? Have seen things like "blame McDonald's", "set up the parents to succeed", and "educate parents". The article is not talking about chubby, fat, overweight, or even obese children. It refers to "super obese" children. Kids that are almost at 100% chance of developing serious conditions and dying early because of their weight...isn't this the same thing as child abuse/neglect?
The first two references to cases are a 90 pound three year old and a 400 pound thirteen year old. That's disturbing. Clearly, the parents did not give a sh** about their child's health or future. And clearly these children wouldn't just be thrown into foster care. They would have to be monitored to lose weight at a healthy/safe pace. If you lack the education to feed your child without them being 400 pounds, then I am confident in saying you lack the education (and should lack the option) to have a child at all.
Yes! I'm pretty sure most people judged this without even reading the article given some of the hasty responses. I agree with you 150%.
I read the article. I have seen kids in foster situations. I have seen some of the better foster situations. The government can't take care of their obligations as is. My thought is that in these extreme cases, there is likely a more 'routine' reason why these children should be in foster care. Neglect and other forms of abuse top this list. Assume that the particular child has a medical condition and the family is above the threshold for state sponsored health insurance, but don't make enough to buy their own. Does the state get to take that child away too? Then who does get to keep those children once they are taken away from their homes? Many foster homes (not all, some are excellent environments) provide low quality, high quantity, cheap food. That won't make the kids healthy. They may lose some weight, but they won't be healthy.0 -
I've only read a couple pages of comments, but my immediate reaction is, are you f***in kidding me? Have seen things like "blame McDonald's", "set up the parents to succeed", and "educate parents". The article is not talking about chubby, fat, overweight, or even obese children. It refers to "super obese" children. Kids that are almost at 100% chance of developing serious conditions and dying early because of their weight...isn't this the same thing as child abuse/neglect?
The first two references to cases are a 90 pound three year old and a 400 pound thirteen year old. That's disturbing. Clearly, the parents did not give a sh** about their child's health or future. And clearly these children wouldn't just be thrown into foster care. They would have to be monitored to lose weight at a healthy/safe pace. If you lack the education to feed your child without them being 400 pounds, then I am confident in saying you lack the education (and should lack the option) to have a child at all.
Yes! I'm pretty sure most people judged this without even reading the article given some of the hasty responses. I agree with you 150%.
Your comment wasn't just about children in the article. Also, you didn't give a definition of what the cut-off was. I was close to super-obese as a child and adolescent. When I was 12 years old, my BMI was over the 95th percentile. Does this mean my mother didn't love or care about me as your sweeping generalization in your first post stated?0 -
but your comment was simply about the kids in the article it was about all obese children!
(CBS/AP) Parents should lose custody of super obese children.
That's what a controversial commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues. And its authors are not the first to say the government should intervene in extreme cases of childhood obesity.
Those are the first few lines of the article...key words being "super" and "extreme cases".
I think this ABSOLUTELY needs to happen. Children are not "born" obese. Children become obese because their parents don't love them enough to nurture them and give them good health. Children aren't "born" craving McDonalds and other *kitten* foods. They crave those things because their parents are too lazy to make them a healthy, balanced meal. And who are they supposed to learn physical activity from if their parents won't get off the couch and MOVE around with them? Unhealthy habits stay with a child their entire life, just like the emotional scars of abuse. THIS is why children deserve better and SHOULD be placed in a home where they will get a better life!
I am sorry this is talking about obese...nowhere is super obesed mentioned it this post! Fist sentence "children are not born obese" no mention of super obese there.
if i was 16 and my size (which I wish I was) I would be considered obese and taken from my parents...0 -
Even if the child is 500 pounds.....that doesn't mean the parents don't love them, it means they are weak. I have watched fat camp shows and there was a girl who was 16 i believe and 520 pounds....her parents sent her there as a last resort. she said she would sneak food, go in the fridge without anyone knowing and the parents have tried to work with her but when a child complains, lashes out, or even throws a fit and starts crying, the parents feel bad and give in, with the thinking that "one piece can't hurt them, they have been doing so good:"
Should those GROSSLY obese children be taken away? I don't hink so, but knowing the government and the raidcals, soon it will be children who are just overwieght will be taken, and it will spiral into this mad witch hunt from the community, because people don't have anything better to do than judge their neighbors.
Yes, when i see children eve just obese it makes my heart sad, but i think to myself "why don't the parents step in" not "oh man those parents must hate their children" because 9 times out of 10 thats not the case, its just they are weak and are enablers0 -
I've only read a couple pages of comments, but my immediate reaction is, are you f***in kidding me? Have seen things like "blame McDonald's", "set up the parents to succeed", and "educate parents". The article is not talking about chubby, fat, overweight, or even obese children. It refers to "super obese" children. Kids that are almost at 100% chance of developing serious conditions and dying early because of their weight...isn't this the same thing as child abuse/neglect?
The first two references to cases are a 90 pound three year old and a 400 pound thirteen year old. That's disturbing. Clearly, the parents did not give a sh** about their child's health or future. And clearly these children wouldn't just be thrown into foster care. They would have to be monitored to lose weight at a healthy/safe pace. If you lack the education to feed your child without them being 400 pounds, then I am confident in saying you lack the education (and should lack the option) to have a child at all.
Yes! I'm pretty sure most people judged this without even reading the article given some of the hasty responses. I agree with you 150%.
Your comment wasn't just about children in the article. Also, you didn't give a definition of what the cut-off was. I was close to super-obese as a child and adolescent. When I was 12 years old, my BMI was over the 95th percentile. Does this mean my mother didn't love or care about me as your sweeping generalization in your first post stated?
^^^^^^
Schwig = 1
OP= 00 -
Even if the child is 500 pounds.....that doesn't mean the parents don't love them, it means they are weak. I have watched fat camp shows and there was a girl who was 16 i believe and 520 pounds....her parents sent her there as a last resort. she said she would sneak food, go in the fridge without anyone knowing and the parents have tried to work with her but when a child complains, lashes out, or even throws a fit and starts crying, the parents feel bad and give in, with the thinking that "one piece can't hurt them, they have been doing so good:"
Should those GROSSLY obese children be taken away? I don't hink so, but knowing the government and the raidcals, soon it will be children who are just overwieght will be taken, and it will spiral into this mad witch hunt from the community, because people don't have anything better to do than judge their neighbors.
Yes, when i see children eve just obese it makes my heart sad, but i think to myself "why don't the parents step in" not "oh man those parents must hate their children" because 9 times out of 10 thats not the case, its just they are weak and are enablers
*this*0 -
the initial post was not about the parents in the article.... it was a general statement related to families w/ overweight / obese children. i am hoping that this was coming from good intentions and that, just like the possibility whenever something is written, it just came across horribly incorrect. And, if in fact people think that this is a good thing then let's see...
1 - at what % overweight does the intervention to remove child begin?
2 - how much more will this cost tax payers having another child in an over crowded foster care system in relation to paying the foster family and the psych bills?
3 - how will you be sure that those kids considered to be healthy weight are also being fed nutritious food (not just fatties eat bad)
4 - where will this end? what will the next reason be to take kids away???0 -
I'm ALL for this. For all parents, actually. If you want the great responsibility and moral privilege of raising a child, then you need to be educated. You need a license to drive, fish, hunt. Why not to become a parent?Why not start with mandatory meetings/classes for these parents?
And I don't buy the argument that the parents are just "weak." Grow a pair and be a parent!0 -
Maybe I didn't read the original comment closely enough. I was going by what the article was talking about. Super crazy, extreme cases. I also think you have to look at the simple decision - whether to remove the child from the home when, as the article says, all other reasonable options have been exhausted. You could argue for years about the foster care system or post-removal conditions, but that's not the point and I don't know enough about it to comment.
Love also has nothing to do with it. You could, in exactly the same way, love someone and feed them drugs. You're excuse would be weakness? Being an enabler? The one girl in the article almost died at 16? It would have been okay that she died because her parents loved her?
This will be just come down to a difference in opinion, but yes, I think if your child is a teenager and weighs 500 pounds (which means immediate and future health risks, including death) they should be removed and monitored. The parents are clearly incapable of caring for a child.
What if that child died and then they have another child who also became super obese and died as a teen? By your logic, it's okay for this to continually occur. It's not.0 -
but your comment was simply about the kids in the article it was about all obese children!
(CBS/AP) Parents should lose custody of super obese children.
That's what a controversial commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues. And its authors are not the first to say the government should intervene in extreme cases of childhood obesity.
Those are the first few lines of the article...key words being "super" and "extreme cases".
Ah, she quoted an article then made a blanket statement about obese, not super obese, children. If she had simply quoted the article and not thrown in her random .02 rant in there about obese children in general this would be a completely different discussion all together. I read some of the article and the post all at the same time.0 -
but your comment was simply about the kids in the article it was about all obese children!
(CBS/AP) Parents should lose custody of super obese children.
That's what a controversial commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues. And its authors are not the first to say the government should intervene in extreme cases of childhood obesity.
Those are the first few lines of the article...key words being "super" and "extreme cases".
Ah, she quoted an article then made a blanket statement about obese, not super obese, children. If she had simply quoted the article and not thrown in her random .02 rant in there about obese children in general this would be a completely different discussion all together. I read some of the article and the post all at the same time.
Yea, I'm starting to understand that just now unfortunately haha. Still, I think it's a good article to debate.0 -
but your comment was simply about the kids in the article it was about all obese children!
(CBS/AP) Parents should lose custody of super obese children.
That's what a controversial commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues. And its authors are not the first to say the government should intervene in extreme cases of childhood obesity.
Those are the first few lines of the article...key words being "super" and "extreme cases".
Ah, she quoted an article then made a blanket statement about obese, not super obese, children. If she had simply quoted the article and not thrown in her random .02 rant in there about obese children in general this would be a completely different discussion all together. I read some of the article and the post all at the same time.
ditto0 -
No WAY!! Children should not be taken away from their parents!! I think providing help and education for the parents on how to fix the problem would be a much better solution! That is just cruel.....0
-
Ignorance MUST be bliss. It is the only explanation I can find for this idiotic proposition, there are so many things wrong with it. I've been overweight since the 3rd grade due to sexual abuse, my parents knew nothing about, by a babysitter. Textbook psychsematic response by women with these experiences. Their subconsious tricks their mind into eating to stave off any unwanted male attention. My parents loved me more than anything, but when a kid is trading **** for candybars at school, there's not much parental intervention to be done. Please think before you write. Or, God forbid, do a little research. You clearly have too much time on your hands.
Wow...I'm so sorry you went through that........breaks my heart.....0 -
What needs to happen is to figure out why a two working parent home cannot afford eating healthy in this "rich" country.
THANK YOU, to the poster that said this. This has been the hardest challenge as a parent! As a single person when I didn't have the expense of a family I was eating organic, lean meats, super healthy food. Now as a parent...we barely have groceries to scrape through between paychecks. And now that my daughter is eating what we eat and I am trying to cook meals healthily 100% of the time...it just isn't happening. I know what my child needs to eat and we can't afford to provide those meals every single day so the unhealthy cheaper choices that I know I should not be feeding my child are served some times.
That being said, when I say we can't afford groceries that means we can not afford McDonalds and my child had never had McDonalds and I hope she never does.
Education and making healthy food available to families is the answer here not ripping families apart.0 -
SOOOO everyone seems judgemental, simply answer this.
Would you rather have your child (Sibling, grandchild, etc) go through some trama early in life, or increase the chance GREATLY that they die young with health problems?
I think thats the core of whether they should be taken away.
anyone who thinks a child should go through Trauma, for any reason, including living longer, is just sick.
Thats entirely untrue, As a human being you should understand that trama is part of life and sometimes better than the lack of the trama e.g. Resetting a broken bone, setting someone in a tub of ice water to lower and extreme fever. If you think putting a child through any type of trama is "sick" i would say you would rather watch your children die/suffer rather than help them in a way that in the long run will be better. You obviously don't care to think on the subject, please don't try to post as if you do.
Forgot to add amputations0 -
Maybe I didn't read the original comment closely enough. I was going by what the article was talking about. Super crazy, extreme cases. I also think you have to look at the simple decision - whether to remove the child from the home when, as the article says, all other reasonable options have been exhausted. You could argue for years about the foster care system or post-removal conditions, but that's not the point and I don't know enough about it to comment.
Love also has nothing to do with it. You could, in exactly the same way, love someone and feed them drugs. You're excuse would be weakness? Being an enabler? The one girl in the article almost died at 16? It would have been okay that she died because her parents loved her?
This will be just come down to a difference in opinion, but yes, I think if your child is a teenager and weighs 500 pounds (which means immediate and future health risks, including death) they should be removed and monitored. The parents are clearly incapable of caring for a child.
What if that child died and then they have another child who also became super obese and died as a teen? By your logic, it's okay for this to continually occur. It's not.
The point here isn't just that the child is obese. The parents are neglecting their child (Physical neglect (i.e., failure to meet adequately the physical needs of children)) that is not the same thing as removing a child because they are obese. Many of the responses on here are from parents who have small children. The big question for all of us is - what is the definition of too much? Who makes it? At the younger ages, the range of what defines normal, obese, and super obese is not a large range. Yes, some babies are even born super obese. I had a friend with a newborn so chubby you couldn't see his eyes. He eventually grew out of it, but when you just say because of someone's size that they should be removed, you miss what has happened to that child and still won't be able to properly care for them.0 -
The reason to remove these kids is not obesity. It is neglect....eyes are so squished by fat that they are little more than slits...maybe the threat of losing losing their kids could and would work for some but for this woman I doubt it. Chav born n bred. I don't think taking kids away is the answer but not sure what is for the likes of her
Well said!0 -
Yeah, I should have my kids taken away from me. They aren't obese, but I took them to McDonald's and Peter Piper Pizza before. Where the *kitten* is CPS when you need them?0
-
What do you think CPS will feed them? The same garbage they get at school? Your choices are still better.Yeah, I should have my kids taken away from me. They aren't obese, but I took them to McDonald's and Peter Piper Pizza before. Where the *kitten* is CPS when you need them?0 -
Yeah, I should have my kids taken away from me. They aren't obese, but I took them to McDonald's and Peter Piper Pizza before. Where the *kitten* is CPS when you need them?
It’s about taking away children whose immediate wellbeing is being threatened by neglect, you’re making a wildly absurd statement by taking an action out of context. Hopefully you were just being sarcastic0 -
I would agree on taking the children and putting them in a medical facility where the parents could visit them everyday. I watched this program on super obese people that go to brookhaven where they are taught to exercise and eat right, etc.....but the parents would have to be searched everytime they enterened because they could bring in snacks from the outside at the childs request. This would just be for the SUPER obese children.....and their should be vending machines in the school with just healthy snacks....not oreos and cheese its.
On a different subject At my highschool, we had the BEST food EVERRRRRR......we were allowed a dessert at lunch and the cookie alone had 1000 calories, but it was DELICIOUS......and we had things like chicken fried steaks and such. for breakfast we were allowed hasbrowns or cowboy potatoes, sausage and bacon, eggs, and we could either get waffle sticks or pancakes.....we got a fruit, a donut and 2 drinks(juice, milk).....all that food for 1.25....and the lunch was 2 dollars.....we had two lunch lines, one was prepared food like chicken fried steak and the other was brought in food like pizza ,corn dogs, hamburgers and fries....and as much soda at the soda machines as you wanted...a lot of kids were on a free food program for low income familes.....do you honestly think a teenager is going to choose fruit over a little debbie snack EVERYDAY???/ During highschool i got more into nutrition, so i thought "hey i can have this 1000 cal cookie if i have a bowl of iceburg lettuce drenched in ranch dressing" or" i can eat this mound of fries if i have some milk"......even though i wasn't in any sports and didn't burn off any of those Cals
Some parents can't afford to make their children's lunch or even breakfast everyday, which leaves them to getting on the "food program" at school, so i think there should be a food program at the school every year you are in school to teach you how to eat and portion control and the importance of working out.
So what i'm saying is the nutitional education should be more important in school0 -
Alcohol is legal. People buy it, they drink and drive, kill people, and the stores still sell it. Why has the gov not stepped in?
People smoke cigarettes (former smoker here). Second hand smoke kills and tobacco has been proven to be a killer. Why hasnt the gov stepped in?
I could go on and on all day....obesity is an issue, yes that is true. But you dont just steal kids away from their homes. Period.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions