Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Morbidly obese children put in foster care - good idea?Follow

#1 Jul 15 2011 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
If a child is neglected by their parents and are severely malnourished, there's never a question that the child should be removed from their parents and placed in foster care. It's obvious that their well-being and health is in imminent danger.

Now, what about a morbidly obese child? One of my family law paralegal friends is actually dealing with a case now where the parents are trying to get their child back. The kid, at the age of 8, weighs almost 250 pounds. It wasn't the child's weight that was the original issue as to why he was removed from his parents' care, but it is now an issue as to why the child's foster parents are fighting back. And CPS really is taking it seriously. The birth parents fulfilled all the original requirements to get their kid back (parenting classes, anger management, complying with probation) but in the last review, the child's health was brought up. And it looks like the kid is on a verge of having congestive heart failure. At the age of 8. I will say that her office is completely split down the middle on this issue. They are representing the birth parents and are arguing that the birth parents did everything that was required of them initially. To put up more barriers against family reunification is wrong at this point. The birth parents might be required to take a health class to see how they can help their kid lose weight, but honestly, after that, I'm not sure what else could be required.

Now, the foster parents want to keep the kid until the kid loses some weight, learns healthy habits, and the birth parents are willing to feed the kid healthy meals and make sure he gets adequate physical activity. But that's not a guarantee that the kid would maintain his weight once he's back with his birth parents.

Is the foster system (read - the government) have the right to decide this? If so, that means a hell of a lot of kids should be taken away by their parents. The system as it is right now is not equipped to handle this kind of issue. More pressing matters for the foster system is for the kids that have been abused in more severe forms. Is allowing your kid to become this heavy a form of child abuse/neglect?

After Googling this issue sounds like it is an issue that will become more common in years to come. "Opinion" piece by AMA supports the idea.
#2 Jul 15 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The local radio stations poses a question to it's listeners everyday and this is the exact question raised today.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#3 Jul 15 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Thumbelyna wrote:
Is allowing your kid to become this heavy a form of child abuse/neglect?
Yes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Jul 15 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yes, it's probably neglect. No, I wouldn't ordinarily be in favor of foster care in this situation. Severely malnourished children die. Obese children can suffer health problems but I think have more of a long-term chance than a kid who starved to death at age seven. I would be in favor of counseling or even tying other government benefits to working at solving the problem but I think the foster care system has enough issues as is without adding children wide-scale under this criteria.

With that said, I'd entertain individual cases of exceptional merit. Verge of death is verge of death regardless of the path taken to get there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jul 15 2011 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Holy ****, 250 pounds at age 8?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#6 Jul 15 2011 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
bsphil wrote:
Holy sh*t, 250 pounds at age 8?

I've been big all my life, but I didn't hit the 250 mark until my 20s. I can't imagine what the kid looked like.
#7 Jul 15 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
*
240 posts
Give the kid back and if he isn't losing 2+ pounds a week put him back into foster care then spay and neuter his birth parents. Or get the kid to a healthy weight first then give him back and make sure he isn't gaining an abnormal amount of weight every month. His birth parents have slowly been killing him so he needs to be monitored closely if given back.

Edited, Jul 15th 2011 2:59pm by blueazaka
#8 Jul 15 2011 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
blueazaka wrote:
Give the kid back and if he isn't losing 2+ pounds a week put him back into foster care then spade and neuter his birth parents.


To plant some begonias?

Edited, Jul 15th 2011 12:45pm by Belkira
#9 Jul 15 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think he means to beat them to death with a shovel.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Jul 15 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Thumbelyna wrote:
Is allowing your kid to become this heavy a form of child abuse/neglect?
Yes.

This, at least it's neglect.
And while I don't know if foster care is the right answer, the parents are quite obviously unaware of how to raise a kid and with such a weight at that age something has to be done.
#11 Jul 15 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
I think he means to beat them to death with a shovel.


I really, really tiny shovel.
#12 Jul 15 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're thinking of a trowel. A spade is just a flat faced/edged shovel.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jul 15 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
blueazaka wrote:
Give the kid back and if he isn't losing 2+ pounds a week put him back into foster care then spade and neuter his birth parents. Or get the kid to a healthy weight first then give him back and make sure he isn't gaining an abnormal amount of weight every month. His birth parents have slowly been killing him so he needs to be monitored closely if given back.


That would work in an ideal world where the foster system and the social workers aren't overloaded with kids who have more serious cases. The kid may or may not die tomorrow from a heart attack or a stroke vs. a kid who is going to die because the parents haven't fed him in 5 days.
#14 Jul 15 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
It is a form of neglect, and the only way to counter it is to give the kid to some other neglectful parents who will starve the kid until they are back in shape.

Remember, two wrongs make a right.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#15 Jul 15 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Overeating is usually a sign of food addiction. When we start allowing crack addicts who give their kids crack to keep their children, then I'll start thinking about letting the morbidly obese start keeping their statistics.
#16 Jul 15 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
You're thinking of a trowel. A spade is just a flat faced/edged shovel.


So it is. Learned somethin' new.
#17 Jul 15 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
*
240 posts
Whoops mt. I meant spayed, but beat them with a shovel would work too. Yeah it's sad how our foster care is overloaded.
#18 Jul 15 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
Now, what about a morbidly obese child?


Yes, the child should be taken away, but only if the obese child is under 14, because after that point, the kid knows damn well that he/she should not be eating so goddamn much. They also have to allow for glandular issues, genes, etc. But if a parent is so goddamn dumb as to continuously feed their kid junk food instead of making junk food be more of an occasional treat, then put the child in a better environment.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#19 Jul 15 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Can we just execute the parent and leave the child with a family member? I'd really like to reduce costs here, not increase them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Jul 15 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Can we just execute the parent and leave the child with a family member?

...and twice as much to eat? We're trying to solve problems here, not make them worse.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Jul 15 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Can we just execute the parent and leave the child with a family member?

...and twice as much to eat? We're trying to solve problems here, not make them worse.


Someone's been playing his shiny new Fallout 3 with the Cannibal perk, I see.
#22 Jul 15 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really, I just meant there'd be an extra share of groceries to go around.


Weirdo Smiley: um
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jul 15 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Really, I just meant there'd be an extra share of groceries to go around.


Weirdo Smiley: um


A likely story.





....





Okay, I totally outed myself. Been playing New Vegas......IT'S A GOOD PERK, DON'T JUDGE ME.
#24 Jul 15 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm juggling my time between Portal 2 & Just Cause 2.

Just Cause 2 is probably the best $5 I've ever spent on a game.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jul 15 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I'm assuming this IS a case of them just giving him 10 sodas a day his whole life but has never moved on his own, right? He's seen doctors to confirm that it isn't because of some health problem?

That's one of the only real issues I have with taking kids because of obesity. The parents might not actually be at fault in that situation, but those health problems can be really hard to find/diagnose.

I can't even begin to comprehend how an 8 year old could hit 250 pounds without some kind of chemical problem...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#26 Jul 15 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Wouldn't just shooting all obese kids in the face be easier? It's proven that shity fat little kids are 90 times more likely to grow up to dog rapists. I don't know about you people, but I happen to like dogs.

Seriously though, fat children are disgusting. I teach Hannah new ways to insult the fat children at her school every day. For their own good, of course.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 219 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (219)