If a parent or parents were beating/burning/sexually abusing a child... take the child. If a parent or parents were allowing a child to starve, wander the streets as little ones etc... take the child. My point is if there is direct abuse/neglect then the child is in imminent danger. This boy is in danger of possibly getting high blood pressure or possibly having heart disease. Social Services... if they really wanted to help this boy would give the Mother access to a nutritionist (I’m sure there are government ones already) and advise the Mother to take him to a gym with a trainer (someone trained in exercise/the body etc). There is a good chance that this boy will NEVER be thin (it may not be his particular body type and metabolism). He could be healthier but not fit into the exact range on a chart. IMHO.
Once again, I am in full agreement with you.
There are definitely times when interference by government is a necessary thing, but the problem is government has overstepped its boundaries.
Unfortunately, we, as a society, have actually brought this upon ourselves by our insistence the government do more and more for us (we/us being used collectively not specifically) and until this mindset of dependence is rolled back, it is only a matter of time before it gets worse.
Do you not think that over the past 20 months social services has not tried all of that?
Taking the child is not the first resort it is definitely the last resort
and the social workers have a complete case file documenting 20 months of their efforts at intervention and her neglect, because they always expect parents to hire a money grubbing lawyer and take them to court
Unfortunately due to confidentiality they generally cannot tell their side of the story to the press like mama’s lawyer
No, no, NO!
Where does a government get this power to seize children as a REGULATORY/BUREAUCRATIC measure? Without benefit of trial, jury, evidence, proof, and conviction?
If you're saying that a child should be temporarily taken from parental custody WHILE a trial is pending; then that is reasonable. But to suggest that the power to take children from their parents lies with unaccountable administrative employees of the government without benefit of trial; then, NO! NEVER.
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.