Adoption - Should Fat People Be Allowed to Adopt?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.