Thanks for the replies so far and some very good points are made here.
Where do we draw the line?
Maybe instead of taking the child away, the parent and the child should be forced into nutritional counseling? Because, honestly, putting myself in her shoes (even though I don't agree with the way she's raising her son) there is NO way somebody is going to take my child away from me. Who's decision is that and what right do they have? That's MY kid. Not theirs.
On the flipside, the child's life is probably in danger. But like other points that were made, what about kids that live with parents who smoke? Where's the difference there? The child's health is still at stake. Are they going to find every parent that smokes around their kids and remove these kids from the home?
Well, I really think this family needs not to have their children taken away, but they need a nutritional "Supernanny" of a sort..... Someone to come in, clean out the cupboards, stock the house with healthy foods and snacks, monitor the food intake of the child, monitor the excercise of the child, monitor the foods mom cooks and teach her healthier ways to prepare her meals, and help her develop a backbone concerning her child's temper tantrums when he cannot have treats that he wants....
Take the child away only if the problem continues to get worse...
Well, I really think this family needs not to have their children taken away, but they need a nutritional "Supernanny" of a sort..... Someone to come in, clean out the cupboards, stock the house with healthy foods and snacks, monitor the food intake of the child, monitor the excercise of the child, monitor the foods mom cooks and teach her healthier ways to prepare her meals, and help her develop a backbone concerning her child's temper tantrums when he cannot have treats that he wants....
Oh, what a wonderful idea! And if these people that want to take the child away are THAT concerned about the child's health, then hey, they can eat the cost of whatever it would take to get this child healthy.
I'm in favour of intervention of some sort. My in-laws used to be bigtime members of the (then) Children's Aid. They did all kinds of things to help families in their homes before removing children.
I guess we don't know the entire history. If this has been ongoing thru several injuries, illnesses etc ... Or maybe we're just getting the noteworthy media scoop.
Intervention and providing assistance is one thing...criminalizing obesity is another, and I think that taking a child away from a parent because the child is obese does criminalize obesity. In the articles I've read, the "experts" and the family have all declined to say whether or not there were medical issues contributing to his weight -- note, they didn't say that there weren't, they refused to discuss it at all.
I understand that it's a sad situation and that the parents really, really need to get a backbone if their child is running the show nutritionally, but seriously, it's not that far a stretch to go from, "It's criminal to endanger your child by letting him be overweight" to "It's criminal to endanger yourself by being overweight" and quite frankly, I don't want my government deciding what weight I should be and issuing penalties if I don't measure up.
I feel they need to use stiffer "guidance" for this mother, but with all the children in the world being physically abused with no one defending them, I think the efforts and money could be better spent elsewhere.
I've also worked in the juvenile justice sytem - as a "child care worker," basically a nanny-jailer.
Through the job I've seen how poorly the "system" often works for some kids - many of them taken too soon, too late, bounced around too often, or to the wrong family. The last place I would put this child is a foster family.
Foster parents are rarely taught how to deal with severe behavior problems, and are often abusive as a result. And "tough love" is likely to feel very abusive to a child who eats under stress, and while being torn away from family is further traumatized with food denial.
The family not being able to "cooperate" may indicate that they don't fully understand how to make changes. The 95% failure rate for morbidly obese dieters does not prove that we are stupid or evil - but that this kind of change is difficult. It's difficult for single adults, it's difficult for thin parents of obese children, and it has to be doubly difficult for obese parents of ovese children.
"Lifestyle" coaching has more place with this family than legal intervention.
Telling them what not to do, is virtually useless, they need to be taught to prepare healthy meals. The sorry fact, though, is that I would bet all of the authorities involved in making the decision of removal - would disagree on what healthy is - other than not what they're eating.
I strongly disagree, because I've seen who foster children are placed with. We'd like to think that when children are taken from bad families, they're given to good ones, but that isn't always what happens. Far too often, and even if the child is lucky, he/she is taken from a bad family and given to slightly less bad family. When they're not lucky, they can end up somewhere far worse. While it's true I may have seen the extremes, many of these kids have changed families as often as their underwear. And children who don't understand what the " terrible abuse" was, grow up trusting no one. Working in the home truly is better than taking the kids out of it in almost all cases. Because most kids would rather take a punch to the face than feel like they belong to no one. They've often learned behaviors that make them hard to like, let alone love, so they don't find that instant loving family we'd like to hope they get. I've had so many of these kids cry on my shoulders that as bad as their familie were, they knew they were loved, but now they're living with "nice" people who can barely hide the fact that they dislike the child. Even when they're placed with foster parents who want to love them, the kids feel too betrayed by previous foster parents, or too afraid to fall in love with a family they may be removed from (which kids often are, with or without the consent of the kid and the foster families themselves - I've actually seen a kid removed from a foster familiy because the family was getting too attached to the kid, and since adoption wasn't an option, they wanted to break up the family before the kid got hurt - yeah too late on that one).
Exactly how much power over our lives and our children are we willing to give the system?
Are we going to have the Snooze Patrol knocking on doors making sure kids get enough sleep? Are we going to have guys in white coats recording every bite we nibble on?
Yes, the child's health is at risk, but how much more damage is going to be done by removing him from his mother? Then you're going to have an obese child in a crappy emotional state, which is honestly no better than the situation he's in now.
If abuse is abuse is abuse, then children could be removed from their parents for anything at all that someone wants to label abuse. Sometimes counseling works, sometimes other forms of third-party mediation are effective, sometimes having someone monitor the child's progress weekly or bi-weekly can be a great tool.
It sounds to me like the mother needs just as much help as her son. How can one instill healthy eating habits in their child when they themselves have none? Rather than break a family apart, I think they BOTH need help. Help a mother help her child. Give it a chance, see what happens. If she can make positive changes for herself and for her child, then lovely. If not, then get tough on her.
This kid has LOST like 22 lbs since authorities have gotten involved, I don't get why losing custody is still on the table? The family IS obviously cooperating and making progress. Is it not "enough" for the authorities, or
is this just media hype and losing custody was never really at risk?
As it stands, 22 lb weight loss in less than a year for a CHILD, no less, sure seems like cooperation to me.
This kid has LOST like 22 lbs since authorities have gotten involved, I don't get why losing custody is still on the table? The family IS obviously cooperating and making progress. Is it not "enough" for the authorities, or
is this just media hype and losing custody was never really at risk?
As it stands, 22 lb weight loss in less than a year for a CHILD, no less, sure seems like cooperation to me.
This. That's progress, maybe not full cooperation, but still progress.
If you google "+jerad +amanda +obese" you'll get a case here in the states that was featured on Dr. Phil. What pushed the judge over the edge? The mother bringing him fast food for her visits and even when he was in the hospital. I think it's a sad, sad case, and I hope his mother gets her life in order and learns about healthy eating/lifestyle before she has more kids. I don't doubt she loves the two she had, but with a history like that love isn't enough. She's going to have to prove it to the court if she even wants a chance of keeping any future kids. (Her first was taken away at 3 years and 120lbs, freed for adoption before she had her second who was taken at birth)
No child, absent of true medical conditions, should be over 100lbs at three years old. There's no reason, and if the family refuses to move in the right direction I do feel that action should be taken.
It may be that they want to make sure that the progress continues.
From what I've read, which may or may not be accurate information based on the current media blitz, losing custody is still being held out as an option, but not a very probable one.
First I noticed this child lives in England, and I'm not familiar with the laws there regarding child neglect and abuse. Also the article says that the 8 year old can't dress himself, and is missing lots of school because of health problems. It's also hinted that the child might be stealing junk food if his mother doesn't supply it. It sounds to me like this child needs some kind of help, and that the child's mother isn't interested in providing it.
