Heck, YES. They’d be charged if they starved a child to death. What’s the difference?
Hmmm. Got an idea that I’m prolly gonna get my ass kicked in this argument. So be it. In my mind, obesity is just not that serious of an issue. Yeah, he’s a fat kid. So what? Why should the state be allowed to say how much the child is allowed to weigh, and take the child from its parent if the child goes over the limit? If we do that, what’s next? We gonna remove all children from parents that smoke? How about those that vote Republican?
Agreed. Lots of fruits taste just as good, or better than, desserts and sweet snacks. I once bought a box of blueberries on my way to my cousin’s house because I knew her kids didn’t have much of anything healthy to choose from in their pantry. They ate every one of those berries, as if they were a novelty–which they probably were! This mother is lazy. She obviously didn’t try very hard when her son was younger; she took the easy way out, and now he’ll pay for it with health problems.
Well, force feeding (or withholding food from) a child is a different issue. What would you charge her with? Criminal stupidity? I just don’t see how it could be enforced or where you draw the line. How do you determine the difference between a fat kid and a criminally negligent parent? It’s all too fuzzy.
I think it’s a big deal; I just don’t see how they could enforce (or even legislate it). My idea of fat is waaaaaaay lower than most people’s idea of fat. How much of this is preference? That’s where the problem lies.
Why should it be allowed to say how much a parent is allowed to beat a child, and take the child from its parent if they go over the limit? Why should it be allowed to say how much food a parent must give a child and take the child from its parent if they’re under the limit? Same reason: it’s a health problem. Obesity is a serious health problem.
Parents who let small children smoke, sure. As for voting Republican, I’m going to be all for that once it is shown that voting Republican is a serious health problem. I’m not holding my breath.
It’s my layman’s understanding that there exists a physiological condition where the part of the brain that normally tells you when you’re hungry and when you’re full can malfunction, so that it never gets switched to the “you’ve had enough” position; your brain always sends the “you’re hungry; eat something” signal. It sounds quite possible that the boy in question has such a condition. In which case the boys parents aren’t entirely to blame (except maybe in a genetic sense) for his morbid obesity. But they should still be held responsible for seeing that he gets the proper treatment, as with any other physical or mental illness.
Er, you realize that the kid lives in the United KINGDOM, where healthcare is socialized? Have you read any studies on the numerous health problems people develop, if they were overweight (Much less obese!) as children? It’s staggering the amount of money that goes to pay for problems that could have been avoided if the parents had done their duty and given their children a nominally healthy diet to eat. (What they do once t hey grow up is their own affair but give them the chance to develop and continue to practice good eating habits.)
More even than that, he’s going to have issues all his life with it.
Having had a very fat cousin, I’ll tell you at 8 it gets harder and harder to make them eat right. This cousin is the most harmless in the world and when he was a child he would just stare at you pathetically with huge eyes, never asking for any food, but just looking so sad. You have to be cruel to be kind. It’s very difficult.
Best to start good habits early, but there are other alternatives. You can give him a LOT to eat - quantity-wise - but healthy food. The mom says he won’t eat veggies, but as others have said, it’s a crock. If she puts nothing but veggies - salad with ham or bacon or chicken springs to mind - in front of him, eventually he will eat some part of it.
If this is the case, and the boy is found to have this condition, it changes things a little. Then if the parents continue to feed him, they are negligent and may be found so in court if I understand correctly. People with this disease can eat themselves to death, and food must be kept under lock and key. I certainly hope in a way, that the boy does not have the condition, because it sounds to me like a living hell. Somehow though, given the mother’s words about him “not eating/liking fruits and vegetables” I don’t think this is the case at all. I think more it’s a case of her not sticking to her guns and serving more healthful means than junkfood, for whatever reasons. Probably a little that she doesn’t much like the healthier foods herself, and probably that she doesn’t want to deal with the struggle of “That’s what there is to eat, eat it or not, but there will be no junkfood instead.”
OK, let me try another approach. Maybe the difference is immediate and certain versus potential and speculative. If you beat a child more than the law allows, you are intentionally harming the child. If you starve a child, you are intentionally harming the child–we all know a human must eat to survive. The harm is immediate, and certain.
On the other hand, if you allow a child to weigh more than the chart allows, the child might one day have health problems partially caused by obesity. We don’t know for sure when, or even if, that will happen. We think it prolly will, but that’s just a guess.
It’s possible, sure. And if she had been offering him fruit and veg and he was still this weight as a result, I’d say, “damn, that sucks, but you’re doing everything you can.” The fact that he has lost over 20 pounds in three months with diet and exercise (Which is exactly the rate at which it’s healthy to get it off, folks - 2 or so pounds a week! Give the kid some props, would ya?) tells me that it’s not entirely a brain chemsitry problem, but a food choice problem. And an 8 year old doesn’t do his own grocery shopping, so the food choices available to him are his mother’s responsibility.
I wouldn’t take the kid away - but the whole point of the OP is that they didn’t, remember? They’re offering counseling and nutritional information and the HELP that the mother needs to fix her mistake. They’re not snatching her boy away or charging her with anything criminal. Her only “crime” is ignorance, and she’s fighting it now. Good for her. He’s losing weight. Good for him. The state didn’t take the kid out of a home that obviously loves him and is willing to do what’s needed to make him healthier. Good for them. Honestly, I think this is a case where everybody wins.
Do I wish she’d read our “picky eater” threads and straighted his ass out when it was a tiny ass? Yep. But who among us hasn’t messed up our kid in some way before waking up to reality?
I agree with this. I don’t think there’s anything you can do until you’ve proven that the child’s health is actually HARMED (not possibly or probably harmed). I think an increase in BP, joint wear, and whatever measurable indicators they can find would make it perfectly valid for them to remove THIS KID from his mom’s custody, or at least force her into some parenting classes or force additional testing. That’s not to say every fat kid would have the same situation. They would have to review each case on its own.
Not quite. There is a difference between a little heavier than their peers, and weighing as much as an adult male at eight years old! That is morbidly obese, as in it can lead to death. That is an immediate problem, and it is very probably a future health problem too.
No, it’s not just a guess. There is a very strong and well documented link between obesity and health problems. Someone who weighs as much as this kid at his age is guaranteed to develop health problems, not to mention that he already has.
When I was ten, the “fat kid” was 135 pounds. At the age of 8, the kid must have a BMI in the low 50s. That’s not “too fat.” That’s a freakin’ veal calf.
In the article I read, it said that the parents had refused to see a nutritionist about their son, pleading that he would just eat what he wanted anyway. The threat of losing their son is what changed the mom’s mind. It may be that it was a bluff.
Okay, let’s put this into perspective. At 8 years old, he had weighed 218 lbs. (this is before the post-Christmas weight loss). The article didn’t say how tall he was, but I’m guessing that an eight year old boy is, at tallest, around 5 ft. I’m 24 years old, weigh less than him, and am at least 9 inches taller than him. According to this site, the average boy is 128 under ideal conditions. (That’s about 51 inches, or 4’3".) That’s quite a bit shorter, and if he were at his “ideal weight range” of 18-42kg (39.6-92.4lbs), there wouldn’t be any concern. However, even at 200 lbs., this kid is more than twice as heavy as he should be. Because of him being able to lose weight normally with a change in diet and exercise, we can’t automatically assume that it’s a hormonal issue, but a feeding and activity issue. I’d say that, even with my issues of always being higher than the height/weight charts and being visibly chubby, I was never anywhere remotely close to being 1.5 times the top range weight for my height. I cannot even fathom as to how one becomes more than twice the expected body mass for their height.
How is this not a form of abuse/neglect?
Not all cases of abuse and neglect get a kid yanked from the home. In reality, a minority of abuse and neglect cases do, if the abuse or neglect can be stopped with home visits, counseling and education.
He shouldn’t be taken out of his home because his family is willing and able to provide all the services he needs in their own home. They’re following the diet, he’s losing weight at the rate he should. Why are we still talking about this?
“The system” isn’t there to punish parents who have made foolish choices. It’s there to get kids the help they need in the least restrictive environment. So far, that’s right in his own kitchen with his own parents. Should they continue to monitor him and ensure his mother complies with his diet? Sure. But you don’t take a kid out of his home if his home can be fixed. You just don’t, even with physical or sexual abuse - if the abuser leaves the home, the kid can stay. In this case, the “abuser” is getting help herself and it’s going to be very obvious if she “abuses” him with junk food again.
You can say a similar thing about cigarette use - but if Mom wasn’t taking steps to stop an eight year old from smoking, she’d be negligent. Or providing cigarettes.
Here is the thing - you can JUST buy healthy food and leave the pre-processed stuff on the shelf. If kiddo doesn’t eat and starts to starve, see how long it goes on for. The kid isn’t in any danger of starving overnight - as long as he is hydrated, he’ll last a good long time - and probably be eager for an apple before a few days are out.