Obese 8 year old taken from mother

[pam]

CLEVELAND (AP) - 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.

Ohio officials take 200-pound boy from mother | ksl.com

Should any state be allowed to take a child away from a parent for this reason? Your thoughts?

Edited November 29, 2011 by pam

[Jennarator]

Poor kid. I read about this a day or so ago. I wish they would tell us more so we know if it is fair. Did they have a warning? Was he tested for other problems that could make it hard to lose weight? Either way this is sad. I have a daughter that is overweight and I tried everything to slim her down. DOn't know what I would do if anyone threatened to take her away. I already watch her diet and make her play outside everyday. In the winter she can only watch tv when bouncing on the mini trampoline. Still she is over weight and doesn't fit into many clothes. It's a hard thing.

[Jennarator]

I'm thinking that if the child was interviewed and told CPS that the parents never paid attn to him, so they just gave him a food to keep him quiet and out of the way. Then I could see taking him out of the home. The child is old enough to know if his parents are concerned about his health or not. My kids know that I am concerned if they get outside enough, if they brush their teeth, if they eat enough veggies and fruit, things like that. If he really in neglected, he would know. He might not consiously aware, but you could tell.

[Dravin]

Should any state be allowed to take a child away from a parent for this reason? Your thoughts?

I suppose ultimately the question is if the state is ever justified in stepping in when there are cases of neglect (that may not be the case here due to some extenuating circumstances but I'm talking the general case). And I'm inclined to say yes. The only problem is where is the line? When do we crossover from sub-optimal parenting to neglect? It's a very tricky line.

[Guest gopecon]

This is a tough type of situation. The state should not be removing kids without a compelling interest in the child's welfare. I would hope that some serious warnings were issued, or that there was clear neglect going on before a child would be removed just for their weight. As others have noted, the trick is where the line is drawn. There are a lot of chunky kids out there that may be watching too much TV, but who are basically in loving homes. I don't think anyone wants to remove every kid who is carrying a few extra pounds around. At least with regard to the weight of the kids, the cases that go public tend to be pretty extreme. It's just hard to say where the line should be drawn between 80 and 200 pounds, or if it should be drawn at all if there are no other signs of abuse or neglect.

[Guest]

Poor kid. I read about this a day or so ago. I wish they would tell us more so we know if it is fair. Did they have a warning? Was he tested for other problems that could make it hard to lose weight? Either way this is sad. I have a daughter that is overweight and I tried everything to slim her down. DOn't know what I would do if anyone threatened to take her away. I already watch her diet and make her play outside everyday. In the winter she can only watch tv when bouncing on the mini trampoline. Still she is over weight and doesn't fit into many clothes. It's a hard thing.

Case workers have been working on the family for 20 months. I'm sure within that time they would have learned if the kid has a medical condition and I'm sure the mother would have known something is up when case workers start to get involved.

There's overweight and there's obesity - two different beasts.

But, I firmly believe that the power of the government is given to it by the people. Hence, if I have no moral right to go to that person's home and take away a fat kid for child abuse, then the government shouldn't have it either.

Ohio is super messed up. It's the same state that is about to pass a ban on exotic pets just because some guy allegedly opened the cages to his exotic collection and shot himself (highly unlikely but the police aren't asking questions. There is a lot of fishiness involved). So, it might come out that it will now be illegal to have a pet cornsnake in the state of Ohio - yeah, that monstrous, scary corn snake! And the news story comes out "It's About Time a Ban Was Put In Place" citing that a ban is necessary before somebody else gets killed by exotic pets... well then, ban automobiles! Idiots.

Yeah, that's a neon sign pointing to a government run amok.

By the way Jenn - about your daughter - I go to a holistic pediatrician and the #1 recommended solution to weight control is organic food, hormone-free all-natural meats and dairy, grass-fed beef, free range poultry, and the like. So, if you haven't tried it yet, try grocery shopping at Native Sun or something equivalent. Note: Whole Foods and the like have a lot of organic and healthy stuff but they also have a bunch of artificial chemical laden offerings. A great source for natural and organic meats, grains, and veggies is a local co-op or some farmer's markets that have deliveries in your area. In addition to the food, you can go on an all-water liquid intake. That is, no other liquid intake (no juice, no soda, etc.) except for pure filtered water... and lots of it. At least half your weight in pounds in ounces of water. For example, if you weigh 100 lbs then consume at least 50 ounces of water a day.

In any case, overweight is not as big a problem as long as they are in good health otherwise. Now, severely overweight is a problem - because it's a symptom of some kind of imbalance.

But no, I believe the parents of overweight/obese children should not stand to lose their children - they may have to go to mandatory counselling and the like, but they shouldn't have to lose their kids.

[RescueMom]

The article said the state tried to work with the parents for 20 months to help them help the kid. I read in another article (which I can't find now) that the mother had basically refused to follow the doctors suggestions and opted to do what she wanted to do, regardless of if it worked or not. Also in the same article it said that the family had been investigated for child neglect of other children....If I can find the link I will post it. It was much more eye opening.

I was sort of upset the state took the kid until I read that article, sounded like the mother had some real parenting issues and was refusing real help.

[prisonchaplain]

This just seems like it might be a case of Prader-Willi Syndrome...8-years old and 200lbs...something is seriously wrong. Prader-Willi Syndrome | Genetic Disease Foundation

[Jennarator]

The article said the state tried to work with the parents for 20 months to help them help the kid. I read in another article (which I can't find now) that the mother had basically refused to follow the doctors suggestions and opted to do what she wanted to do, regardless of if it worked or not. Also in the same article it said that the family had been investigated for child neglect of other children....If I can find the link I will post it. It was much more eye opening.

I was sort of upset the state took the kid until I read that article, sounded like the mother had some real parenting issues and was refusing real help.

I guess I should have read the article that Pam listed. The one I read, didn't say much. Shame on me!

[Guest]

I'm thinking that if the child was interviewed and told CPS that the parents never paid attn to him, so they just gave him a food to keep him quiet and out of the way. Then I could see taking him out of the home. The child is old enough to know if his parents are concerned about his health or not. My kids know that I am concerned if they get outside enough, if they brush their teeth, if they eat enough veggies and fruit, things like that. If he really in neglected, he would know. He might not consiously aware, but you could tell.

An 8-year-old will almost always cling to his mother regardless of how he is treated. There are cases of extreme child abuse situations of teen-agers where a court allowed the teen to choose whether to stay with the mother or go with a relative and the child almost always picks the mother.

But think about that as a Democratic Republic. We are bound by laws, not by social popularity. What is the interpretation of the child abuse law that would allow you to remove an obese kid from his mother... is 200 lbs the tipping point? 199lbs is okay? 201 lbs, you're outta there? Or is it purely subjective - oh, the case worker judged it abusive... see, I don't want a government to have that much control over its citizenry.

Because, if you allow that to happen, then the next thing would be what? - a child got removed from the mother because she refused to give him anti-biotics for an ear ache?

A child got removed from the mother because she allowed him to play video games all weekend long?

A child got removed from the mother because she gave him a 12-gauge shotgun for his birthday?

[pam]

The article said the state tried to work with the parents for 20 months to help them help the kid. I read in another article (which I can't find now) that the mother had basically refused to follow the doctors suggestions and opted to do what she wanted to do, regardless of if it worked or not. Also in the same article it said that the family had been investigated for child neglect of other children....If I can find the link I will post it. It was much more eye opening.

I was sort of upset the state took the kid until I read that article, sounded like the mother had some real parenting issues and was refusing real help.

I did a google search and have read numerous articles about this but I have yet to find one that mentions anything about child neglect of other children.

[Jennarator]

An 8-year-old will almost always cling to his mother regardless of how he is treated. There are cases of extreme child abuse situations of teen-agers where a court allowed the teen to choose whether to stay with the mother or go with a relative and the child almost always picks the mother.

But think about that as a Democratic Republic. We are bound by laws, not by social popularity. What is the interpretation of the child abuse law that would allow you to remove an obese kid from his mother... is 200 lbs the tipping point? 199lbs is okay? 201 lbs, you're outta there? Or is it purely subjective - oh, the case worker judged it abusive... see, I don't want a government to have that much control over its citizenry.

Because, if you allow that to happen, then the next thing would be what? - a child got removed from the mother because she refused to give him anti-biotics for an ear ache?

A child got removed from the mother because she allowed him to play video games all weekend long?

A child got removed from the mother because she gave him a 12-gauge shotgun for his birthday?

what I mean is he might not come right out and say it, but you can tell when a child is neglected. I know my step sons are, at their mom's. Of course I can't prove it, but if anyone tok the time to look into it, they could tell.

[Guest]

what I mean is he might not come right out and say it, but you can tell when a child is neglected. I know my step sons are, at their mom's. Of course I can't prove it, but if anyone tok the time to look into it, they could tell.

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, that kind of subjective judgement is not something you can write into law. There are a lot of suffering children in the USA - you can't solve all of them by using the arm of government.

I was gonna say, this is where the church may come in... but then I'm thinking... there's a lot of messed up kids in the church too...

[Jennarator]

Oh, and I am not saying the child should have been taken. I am saying if there is some proof of neglect, then I can understand it. Even a regular nurse or personal trainer for children should have been assigned. I don't know. I just don't know enough.

I do know that if it came to outside help being needed, that money for it, should be paid by the parent. Smal amout each month being taken out for a children's personal trainer or something. If she can't or won't get the kids off his duff to play.

[Vort]

I agree with anatess. It's very, very scary when there is no bright-line decision on when to take a child away from his parents. What about those homeschooling weirdos? The Germans already take the children away from such child abusers and throw the parents in jail. What about the cultists who teach their kids all those strange religious things, like praying to some sky god or weird sex perversions like chastity? Should we take the kids away from them?

On the other hand...a 200-pound eight-year-old is utterly appalling. Please don't tell me about glandular conditions or other such nonsense. A morbidly obese eight-year-old is prima facie evidence of neglectful, or at least abysmally ignorant, parenting.

So I really don't know the right thing here. I cannot celebrate taking a child from his parents because they feed him too much, but on the other hand, I can't work up a lot of outrage toward the CPS case worker who made the difficult call.

[Guest gopecon]

Anatess, slow down for a minute here. You are right that government gets its powers from the governed, but that doesn't mean that if I can't personally do something, neither can the government. If a child is being medically neglected and doctors and others have been working with an uncooperative mother to address the medical problems of her child, then that child's rights are being violated and the state has every right to step in. Drawing the lines is the challenge - realistically you can't have one line for too fat, quite fat enough to remove. Neglect is a well established cause for removal, as it should be in a civilized society.

[annewandering]

I know a family that recently had a 17 year old daughter removed from the home for neglect. The girl was dehydrated and had bed sores and sores on her fingers that were gangrenous. Horrible right?

Well the parents home school their kids and are very very particular about an organic diet to the point of fanaticism, in my opinion. They had moved from here a few years ago so I dont know the particulars but if its the girl I am thinkng about she has severe rheumatoid arthritis. Her mom was trying to treat her as best she could, and she did a LOT of research on it, with herbs and diet.

Now were the parents neglecting her? They have had run ins with the government before over their organic lifestyle. The daughter told reporters that her parents were not trying to harm her.

[Guest]

Anatess, slow down for a minute here. You are right that government gets its powers from the governed, but that doesn't mean that if I can't personally do something, neither can the government. If a child is being medically neglected and doctors and others have been working with an uncooperative mother to address the medical problems of her child, then that child's rights are being violated and the state has every right to step in. Drawing the lines is the challenge - realistically you can't have one line for too fat, quite fat enough to remove. Neglect is a well established cause for removal, as it should be in a civilized society.

You misunderstood my statement. I said "can't morally do something" which is different from personally do something... I did say morally right? Hmm... I'm pretty sure I did... too lazy to look back...

I understand uncooperative mother addressing the medical problems of a child... yes, the draw the line is the problem.

Because - my sister, who is a nurse, constantly accuse me of child abuse because I don't give my kids Advil/Tylenol/flu shots/anti-biotics/etc. I go to a holistic pediatrician (which she considers a kook) who manage my kids' health through natural/alternative medicine. So that, when my kids get flu-like symptoms, they don't take medication. Not a drop. We do organic and natural dietary and herbal supplements instead. So yeah, I can see how a case worker would take my child away from me because a "regular" pediatrician wants me to give my child the State's version of proper medication.

This is more in stark display when 2 weeks ago my son contracted pneumonia and I tried to go the holistic route. My son's temperature shot up to 105 degrees and I finally gave in and sent him to the hospital. I can easily see how if I didn't go to the hospital and persisted with holistic medicine that the state would have judged me with child neglect. My holistic pediatrician, of course, remains ambivalent between holistic and traditional methods because - like all American doctors - she has a malpractice liability to protect.

Am I a bad mother for my choices? See, I don't want the state to judge that.

Same as if my child has ADHD and I decide to go through natural means of control instead of drugs...

Same as if I refuse certain vaccinations for my child as I deem contracting the disease as a lesser risk than contracting the myriads of side effects....

Pretty soon, it will be illegal to not give your teen-age daughter birth control pills...

And the list goes on...

Edited November 29, 2011 by anatess

[annewandering]

You misunderstood my statement. I said "can't morally do something" which is different from personally do something... I did say morally right? Hmm... I'm pretty sure I did... too lazy to look back...

I understand uncooperative mother addressing the medical problems of a child... yes, the draw the line is the problem.

Because - my sister, who is a nurse, constantly accuse me of child abuse because I don't give my kids Advil/Tylenol/flu shots/anti-biotics/etc. I go to a holistic pediatrician (which she considers a kook) who manage my kids' health through natural/alternative medicine. So that, when my kids get flu-like symptoms, they don't take medication. Not a drop. We do organic and natural dietary and herbal supplements instead. So yeah, I can see how a case worker would take my child away from me because a "regular" pediatrician wants me to give my child the State's version of proper medication.

This is more in stark display when 2 weeks ago my son contracted pneumonia and I tried to go the holistic route. My son's temperature shot up to 105 degrees and I finally gave in and sent him to the hospital. I can easily see how if I didn't go to the hospital and persisted with holistic medicine that the state would have judged me with child neglect. My holistic pediatrician, of course, remains ambivalent between holistic and traditional methods because - like all American doctors - she has a malpractice liability to protect.

Am I a bad mother for my choices? See, I don't want the state to judge that.

Same as if my child has ADHD and I decide to go through natural means of control instead of drugs...

Same as if I refuse certain vaccinations for my child as I deem contracting the disease as a lesser risk than contracting the myriads of side effects....

Pretty soon, it will be illegal to not give your teen-age daughter birth control pills...

And the list goes on...

This is what I was trying to say with the 17 year old being taken away from her family as I posted above. The mom sounds a lot like you, Anatess. She does the same things, sees a holistic doctor etc. She is a very concerned mom but in her case it just went wrong and she took the daughter to the hospital where they took her way from her family. Was she neglectful or even stupid? I dont think so even though I do not agree with her ideas completely.

When the state said the mom, in the case of the 8 year old, was being uncooperative, does that mean she had other ideas on how to solve the problem that were not in agreement with the social worker or was she being truly neglectful?

Obviously the state thought she was being neglectful but does the state have that right in cases of disagreement?

[applepansy]

I read the following article this morning and almost posted it. I think it emphasizes what anatess is saying.

As parents we really need to wake up. We are losing our parental rights.

Does your child belong to state?

It wasn't all that many years ago that a Utah family was in court because they refused chemotherapy for their teenage son. The mom and son finally ran away and hid. The son was refusing treatment, not just his parents. It later turned out that the son didn't have cancer at all. The parents were right, but the doctors in their zeal decided they knew better than the parents. It was a very sad case and nearly broke up a family just because a group of doctors got a god-complex.

[annewandering]

Its amazing how often people just get full of themselves and instead of taking care of their own lives decide to live everyone elses for them. Better of course.

[Soulsearcher]

I read the following article this morning and almost posted it. I think it emphasizes what anatess is saying.

As parents we really need to wake up. We are losing our parental rights.

Does your child belong to state?

It wasn't all that many years ago that a Utah family was in court because they refused chemotherapy for their teenage son. The mom and son finally ran away and hid. The son was refusing treatment, not just his parents. It later turned out that the son didn't have cancer at all. The parents were right, but the doctors in their zeal decided they knew better than the parents. It was a very sad case and nearly broke up a family just because a group of doctors got a god-complex.

And we go back to where to draw the line. For the case you list there is another case of parents killing their kids by thinking they know better. At what point do we trust others who might know more than some parents. I don't like seeing kids taken away from good loving homes over disputes over how to handle certain issues, but in reality i like it a whole lot better than seeing a grave marker. Fear of government is great until a kid is dead and people start asking "well why wasn't anything done to stop this?" How many times have we seen outrage at a local CPS because they missed taking action? We only want their help when a kid is killed by physical abuse instead of a happy meal? Where do we want to say "no we don't want your help" and accept the consequences that might come with it?

[MarginOfError]

Just to clarify a few things*

1) My understanding was that before CPS took the child, they got clearance from a judge. I'd like to think that convincing the judge was a little more work than just waking up one day and saying, "that's enough, we're taking that kid."

2) Prader-Willi syndrome is generally associated with cognitive development disorders, which I'm not sure is present in this case. But that wouldn't rule out some sort of glandular issue.

3) Ohio is indeed messed up

3a) the man that released his animals had a history of depression, psychiatric problems, and was not a particularly good care taker of the animals. When he opened up the doors, he let out over fifty animals, including several [hungry] Bengal tigers. It's those kinds of pets the law is targeting. If the corn snake is a casualty of the law, I don't know that many people here will care (I also don't know that many law enforcement agencies would enforce a ban on corn snakes, but you won't be seeing a pet tiger around here anytime soon).

[Guest gopecon]

You misunderstood my statement. I said "can't morally do something" which is different from personally do something... I did say morally right? Hmm... I'm pretty sure I did... too lazy to look back...

I understand uncooperative mother addressing the medical problems of a child... yes, the draw the line is the problem.

Because - my sister, who is a nurse, constantly accuse me of child abuse because I don't give my kids Advil/Tylenol/flu shots/anti-biotics/etc. I go to a holistic pediatrician (which she considers a kook) who manage my kids' health through natural/alternative medicine. So that, when my kids get flu-like symptoms, they don't take medication. Not a drop. We do organic and natural dietary and herbal supplements instead. So yeah, I can see how a case worker would take my child away from me because a "regular" pediatrician wants me to give my child the State's version of proper medication.

This is more in stark display when 2 weeks ago my son contracted pneumonia and I tried to go the holistic route. My son's temperature shot up to 105 degrees and I finally gave in and sent him to the hospital. I can easily see how if I didn't go to the hospital and persisted with holistic medicine that the state would have judged me with child neglect. My holistic pediatrician, of course, remains ambivalent between holistic and traditional methods because - like all American doctors - she has a malpractice liability to protect.

Am I a bad mother for my choices? See, I don't want the state to judge that.

Same as if my child has ADHD and I decide to go through natural means of control instead of drugs...

Same as if I refuse certain vaccinations for my child as I deem contracting the disease as a lesser risk than contracting the myriads of side effects....

Pretty soon, it will be illegal to not give your teen-age daughter birth control pills...

And the list goes on...

No, I understood that you meant morally. I was also talking about what government can morally or rightly do (maybe I wasn't clear). Government CAN do almost anything to people, as we saw multiple times in the last century with horrifying results. As to your choices making you a bad mother, not as long as you realize that there are times (the pneumonia incident) when proven methods need to be used. I'd say that withholding proven treatments against a potentially deadly disease should have legal consequences if a child were to die. ADHD meds and vaccinations are likely not life threatening issues and should not result in state action (although if too many people start boycotting vaccinations the widespread return of some of these diseases might make change that - a lot of the things we vaccinate against were widespread killers a couple generations ago).

I hope that I am not misunderstood here. It is already hard to find good homes for children in foster care, we don't need to start an aggressive campaign to take fat kids away from their parents. In extreme cases where neglect is evident (i.e. professionals have attempted to work with the parents who refuse to cooperate, there is not an underlying medical issue causing the weight gain, or their is other evidence of neglect), then action may need to be taken to protect the interests of the child.

[Guest]

3a) the man that released his animals had a history of depression, psychiatric problems, and was not a particularly good care taker of the animals. When he opened up the doors, he let out over fifty animals, including several [hungry] Bengal tigers. It's those kinds of pets the law is targeting. If the corn snake is a casualty of the law, I don't know that many people here will care (I also don't know that many law enforcement agencies would enforce a ban on corn snakes, but you won't be seeing a pet tiger around here anytime soon).

There's a lot more to that story than you are mentioning here. But, this is not the thread to discuss it. I would just like to mention that there is a movement that are actively closing down zoos. They're starting with the small collections in the hopes of getting the big collections swept up in the frenzy. Any private zoo - and there's a movie coming out about it - is nothing more than a collection of exotic pets.

But, what makes me crazy about most people - and MOE, generally a really great guy, is proving me right here - is that people only care about what THEY want. If the unintended casualty of the law was little fru-fru-cute-little-furball-labrodoodle the entire state of Ohio will be up in arms over it. But, meh, it's just a stupid cornsnake that I would take a spade to if I see it in my garage... yeah, pass that law, the sooner the better - and this from supposed "animal lovers". AND YES - the Executive Order in Ohio that is on the table lists ALL CONSTRICTORS in the order. Your corn snakes and ball pythons are in that group.

Hey, if we're going to go ban happy and take away my corn snake I want your dog out of your house too.

And while we're at it - my uncle died from getting hit by a motorcycle. I want your motorcycle banned too. As soon as possible.

Edited November 30, 2011 by anatess