Posted on 11/29/2011 5:49:42 AM PST by Libloather
Case of 200-pound 8-year-old in Ohio renews question: Should parents of obese lose custody?
Article by: THOMAS J. SHEERAN, Associated Press
Updated: November 29, 2011 - 7:16 AM
CLEVELAND - The case of an 8-year-old Cleveland Heights boy taken from his family because he weighs more than 200 pounds has renewed a debate on whether parents should lose custody if a child is severely obese.
The boy was removed from his family and was placed in foster care in October after county case workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight. The boy, at his weight, is considered at risk for developing such diseases as diabetes and high blood pressure. Government growth charts say most boys his age weigh about 60 pounds.
Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese — weighing significantly more than what's considered healthy.
Cuyahoga County removed the boy because case workers considered the mother's inability to get his weight down a form of medical neglect. The county's Children and Family Services agency said Monday it stood by its custody move, which was approved by a judge.
"We have worked very hard with this family for 20 months before it got to this point," agency Administrator Patricia Rideout said.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
At some point, allowing your child to get very obese must rise to the level of child abuse. Then, the state has a responsibility to get involved and protect the child that can’t protect himself. I’m not sure what that point is though, or who should decide it. A 200 pound 8 year old, barring some extraordinary medical condition, would seem to fit the bill though.
“Either way, the government has no business taking this kid.”
If doctors say the kid’s health is in imminent danger because of the obesity, then why doesn’t the government have business there? They can take a kid if you are beating them to death but not if you are feeding them to death?
That analogy makes no sense. You can’t make yourself taller or shorter by your action or inaction, short of some type of malnutrition or something stunting your growth, in which case social workers certainly would be looking at the parents too.
Also, being short doesn’t in and of itself endanger your life or health. Being grossly obese does.
I don’t think we’re just talking about a risk of high blood pressure or heart disease here. We don’t know how tall the kid is, but the article says the average weight for his age is 60 lbs, so if he is an average height, then he is 333% of the average weight. Comparatively, my average weight should be about 180 lbs, so if I was as obese as this kid, I would weigh 600 lbs. That would make me morbidly obese, or in imminent danger of dropping dead at any moment.
I am not saying that this child isn’t heavy. He obviously must be. That being said, has all medical issues and conditions been ruled out? I don’t like the average weight per age rule. For one thing, there are different body types. One cannot compare, for example, a short/thin eight year old vs a bigger boned eight year old. My best hope for this family is that the parents get some assistance/guidance with this child. I also hope the removal of a little kid from the family who loves him and shoved into a foster care home doesn’t present permanent psychological issues. I feel sorry for this little kid for a number of reasons.
The government should NEVER be involved in this kind of issue.
Not really. We're agreeing upon the end result regarding the child; but, I'm not sure we're agreeing on how we get to that result.
To see if we're agreeing on the path (in addition to the destination) I would ask this:
When you said that "the child should be removed ... until the investigation is done", who should remove the child, and who should do the investigating?
“If she was starving him into a life-threatening health condition for the past 20 months, and it was getting worse not better, despite home visits and home observations and other family support and interventions, would you decide it wasn’t anyone else’s business”?
A Constitution is difficult enough to maintain, A Republic under a Constitution is more difficult yet. If sticking your nose into other peoples business would net the end of the Republic and the Constitution, what would your decision be?
...and let’s carry it right to the end, the parents are abusing the child, sexually or at least there is a hint. No evidence yet, just a hint, a thought, a rumor.
...and despite the perceived snarkyness with sticking ones nose where it doesn’t belong, that is not aimed at anyone specific, it is a general question regarding the powers granted government by the people and Constitution.
The people cannot grant to government a power they themselves do not have.
“.. who should remove the child and who should do the investigating”.
IMHO, if a child is burned/starved/beaten with fractures/open cuts/etc... then the police should do the investigating. I see this as a crime, plain and simple. For example, if you (just for an example... I know you wouldn’t) went out, grabbed a neighbor and fractured his skull... the police would investigate. If you raped a woman in the parking lot, the police would investigate. As for who should remove the child? I guess Social Services under the authority/permission of a judge for protection of the child. Social Services has the list of foster homes etc... that can take the child. A judge should be available 24/7 since not all cases like this occur Monday through Friday (9-5). An injured/beaten/starved child should not go back to the same parents who injured them in the first place. IMHO.
aside from your completely overlooking the fact that almost 2 years ago, doctors who saw this child for sleep apnea filed a complaint with social services for parental medical neglect and child in need of supervision due to his morbid obesity - care to start your argument again?
I guess you could propose that mandated reporting by doctors (and teachers and other professions that work with kids) of child abuse and neglect is unconstitutional, “the people” should withdraw their consent to it, and go from there. And let families deal with their own kids as they wish, short of killing them, by commission or ommission.
and I say a judge decided that removing from the home has a better chance of getting him treatment than leaving him there, based on a hearing to explore 20 months of futile social service efforts to facilitate in-home treatment
So lets revisit this a year from now
“So lets revisit this a year from now”
lets not
Funny you mention peewee football. The 205 pound kid I knew was prohibited from playing because of his weight. He missed the maximum weight by 5 pounds. He did play goalie in hockey though.
OMG! Those pictures are priceless!!!! LMAO!!
We’re not the kid’s doctor so we can’t know what you are asking, but since this is the end result of a months long process, I’m sure that the authorities have already considered medical reasons before getting to this point.
“How about backing that up or defining exactly what danger is “imminent” with a 10 year olds health because he is overweight.”
As I said to another poster, a 200 lb 8 year old, if he is near the average height, is not just “overweight”. The equivalent would be for me, an adult male of average height, to weight 600 lbs. That’s morbid obesity, and the complications associated with that are many and serious. One of the imminent dangers is, in fact, death:
“Affected people may gradually develop hypoxemia (decreased blood oxygen saturation) and have problems with sleep apnea (periodic cessation of breathing while asleep).
Decreased blood oxygen and problems associated with sleep apnea may result in feeling drowsy through the day (somnolence), high blood pressure, and pulmonary hypertension. In extreme cases, especially when medical treatment is not sought, this can lead to right-sided heart failure (cor pulmonale), and ultimately death.”
http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/morbid-obesity/overview.html
As for the rest of your comments, I’m not a legislator and I never said word one about legislating to address this case or this issue. Yes, it’s probably not simply a “food problem”; of course the child is not exercising as well. The two have to go hand in hand for the obesity to get that drastic, barring some medical cause. I don’t think we need government guidelines or laws to address this, since we already have child abuse and neglect laws on the books, and they can be used to address cases like this.
“The people cannot grant to government a power they themselves do not have.”
The problem with this reasoning is that the parents are citizens of the nation also, and they do have the power to intervene in the child’s life, so they can grant a measure of that power to the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.