Here’s a six year old at that weight. The video I had earlier was of an 8 year old.
Oakminster, can you give a definition for ‘neglect’ from a sane person?
When it’s 400 lbs, is it neglect yet?
CPS seems to be hit and miss. I’ve seen some WTF?! the kid is fine! cases and I’ve seen WTF! the kid is snorting crack and he’s 12! cases.
People in this thread trust the government to know when the right balance is being struck when bombing civilian centers to rut out enemies of the country but not what foods can be offered as the default option in school cafeterias. So out of whack I swear.
I’m not going to bother with a formal definition, but I will say there needs to be some legitimate risk of imminent harm. That element appears to be wholly lacking here, and is why I’m objecting so strongly.
Why are you linking to a video of a 6-year-old kid when the kid in question is 8?
Its not imminent harm, it’s ongoing harm. If the mother were slowly poisoning the child with arsenic you would take the child away. Just because there is no intent to harm doesn’t mean you can allow the poisoning to continue. If the mother were supplying the child with drugs and alcohol you would take the child away. If the parent were mutilating the child by pulling out their hair and scarring the face you would take the child away.
The woman has been given opportunity to reform her behavior. Over a year she has failed to do so. If she makes any effort at all I am sure she will get another chance to try again. If enough people demand the child be given back they might just do that right away and in 10 years time when the child has advanced cardiovascular disease and diabetes and too much skin ever to look normal without major surgery even with weight loss they’ll ask: “What were all these people thinking asking to have me given back to my mother?”
I can see both sides to this.
Supposing instead of eating it was drinking or smoking? Suppose the parents let the kid smoke 5 packs a day? Or suppose they let him drink and he was an 8 year old alcoholic.
Neither poses an immediate risk to the child, really but it clearly couldn’t go on.
So I can see both sides to this
Who the fuck has any right to say what this child should weigh other than the child and its parents? This is obviously not a malnutrition issue, or a failure to thrive situation. Weight is not even in the same zip code as drugs, alcohol, poison, or any of the other poor analogies being made. This child is not being abused or neglected. The state has no business imposing weight restrictions on any damn body. What’s next? They gonna lock me up because I just had a milkshake?
I donno, Oakminster, how much do you weigh?
Failure to see ‘letting a kid reach 200+ lbs by 8’ as neglect is worrisome.
Doctors, that’s who. Medical experts have said, this is not healthy for this child. Parents who knowingly keep a child in an unhealthy situation are neglecting that child’s needs. You say it’s not in the same ballpark as alcohol, could you explain why not? What would be considered neglect to you? If only the parent is entitled to have an opinion on what a child’s weight should be, how underweight would a child have to be before you think it’s neglect?
No it is neglect. Think about it for second, and just concentrate on the definition of neglect:
Now consider for moment simple weight calculations. At 5,7’ and 165 lbs, the BMI places me on the cusp of being overweight for my height. Granted, there are problems with those numbers but even you must admit that if I weighed 320 lbs, only double my weight, I’d be seriously obese. Now think for a moment if I weighed in at 660 lbs, the same proportional weight of this boy. He isn’t a little chunky, or even just fat. His weight is beyond the unhealthy registers into the extremely dangerous zone. Any reasonable person would have to agree to that.
Now go back to the definition I posted above, (I’m not sure what constitutes a legal definition in his state, so I’m speaking generally here.) You don’t think that ignoring interventions from CPS, doctor’s warnings, etc does not constitute a failure to provide
? Honestly?
If you want to make the argument that CPS has more important things to be doing, I’d be right there with you, but to deny that this child’s weight is serious medical condition at this point is rather disingenuous.
It is illegal to provide alcohol/drugs/tobacco to a minor. And as stated above, there is no element of imminent risk here. Maybe this child will have health issues years from now. Maybe not. CPS should not intervene unless it appears likely that the child will suffer serious harm in the short term.
Just a point of reference, HERE is a picture of Emanuel Yarbrough, a sumo wrestler who weighed in right around 600 lbs at the time of this photo. He is 6, 8’ and still weighs 60 lbs less than the proportional weight calculation I posted above. Now imagine THAT on a man 5,7’. That is the level of obesity we are discussing. This isn’t about Fat nazis chasing every chubby kid, this is simple medical science.
It’s overreaching by the state unless there is imminent danger, which does not exist here.
I guess it depends how you define imminent or short term. Is the kid already pre-diabetic maybe? He could go full-on insulin dependent diabetic at any time? If mom can’t control what she and I guess the other kids in the house are feeding this kid, than what hope is there the family is going to keep this kid on his insulin regime?
Please define imminent danger.
Danger that the child will suffer serious harm in the near future…say within 30 days.
Allright. Then by your definition, it is perfectly fine for me to dangle my child upside down off the roof to help him get over his fear of heights so long as he is safely secured on an approved rope system? He isn’t in any danger, either immediate or in the next month.
If no, then why not?
This is false, with respect to alcohol and tobacco. It’s generally legal to give your kid alcohol as long as it’s confined to the home and you are supervising. Tobacco is a little patchier but some states allow it with the same provisions. Ohio is one of these states.
You act like a) your the only person who’s had personal experience with horrible abuse and b) you have to have that experience to make a reasoned judgement about this case. That stance annoys the shit out of me. I’ve seen plenty of terrible abuse and I’m all for calling this neglect, but I’m not going to discount other people’s opinions because they haven’t been exposed to the horror shows I’ve seen. Just because there are terrible cases out there doesn’t mean we should ignore the milder ones.
And this is a milder case. Just because the kid is supermorbidly obese and has a (shortened) lifetime of medical, social, and financial handicaps to deal with… Actually not sure where I’m going with that.
Makes me wonder what Oakminster’s BMI is…
Ooooooh. I think I see where your logic is erring. You actually think it’s possible that the kid won’t have health issues. Hell, you actually think he doesn’t have them now. That’s laughable.
I, too, wonder what your BMI is. I’m wondering if you’re in denial of the adverse effects of obesity.
No, but the fact that other kids have it worse and are not removed from their homes means that CPS is wasting their time dealing with crap that is far less important. By wasting time dealing with this kid, they are letting other children who are actually in eminent danger die.
Anyways, it’s not a matter of how bad the health problems are. It’s a matter of how much power we want to allow the state to take away from the parents. Oakminster has very clearly defined that line at “Is the child in eminent danger?”
And, Acid Lamp, I had teachers do crap like that to me. They would dunk me under water while full well knowing I had a fear of water. I didn’t see anyone accusing my teachers of abuse, even if I did have to avoid them completely any time I was in a pool. I’m stuck with that phobia to this day.
And I still would rather them go after the people who were actually beating the kids. Solve that before freaking out about some child’s weight.
Oh, and if you continue to ad hominem him, it becomes clear that he is right.
