Has anyone read this article? Obese 3rd grader removed from home (BMI, excess)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no "potential" harm causing CPS to take this particular child away from his particular family. There is -current actual- harm - which is, sleep apnea, one of the scarier symptoms of obesity. Sleep apnea means a person STOPS BREATHING when they're sleeping. This child can die, because he is overfed. The parents allowed him to overeat, their doctor AND a team of specialists in childhood obesity have ALREADY told them what they need to do, but the mother says it's "hard" and uses that as an excuse to not do it.
The mother has ALREADY shown that she doesn't take her child's obesity -and current life-threatening illness- seriously. If your child is left in the care of people who refuse to take CARE of your child properly - then you find someone else to do the caring on your behalf. If you can't find someone else to do it, then quit your job, find a cardboard box, and you and the kid move in so that YOU can take care of your child properly if that's what it takes. The mother has *not* done everything she possibly can to promote her child's health.
In the situation of this family, the child was taken away temporarily because the family has already shown after a year of trying, that they are incapable of taking care of the child. It is a drastic measure for a drastic situation. Hopefully the family will finally recognize that they have to do something different, and the child will be returned.
There is no "potential" harm causing CPS to take this particular child away from his particular family. There is -current actual- harm - which is, sleep apnea, one of the scarier symptoms of obesity. Sleep apnea means a person STOPS BREATHING when they're sleeping. This child can die, because he is overfed. The parents allowed him to overeat, their doctor AND a team of specialists in childhood obesity have ALREADY told them what they need to do, but the mother says it's "hard" and uses that as an excuse to not do it.
The mother has ALREADY shown that she doesn't take her child's obesity -and current life-threatening illness- seriously. If your child is left in the care of people who refuse to take CARE of your child properly - then you find someone else to do the caring on your behalf. If you can't find someone else to do it, then quit your job, find a cardboard box, and you and the kid move in so that YOU can take care of your child properly if that's what it takes. The mother has *not* done everything she possibly can to promote her child's health.
In the situation of this family, the child was taken away temporarily because the family has already shown after a year of trying, that they are incapable of taking care of the child. It is a drastic measure for a drastic situation. Hopefully the family will finally recognize that they have to do something different, and the child will be returned.
Sleep apnea is rarely, RARELY fatal and even that depends upon which type of apnea it is and what causes it. It is not commonly considered to be immediately life-threatening.
Yes, there are physiological effects from it, but that can be said about thousands of things which affect us. Are you willing for the state to remove a child for ANY possible adverse health reasons?
You're missing the whole point of my question. It's not about this particular case so much as it's about where this impetus to remove children ends. It's a philosophical discussion we, as a people, need to have before taking children from their parents for a perceived future risk becomes the norm.
Sadly, that's a discussion nobody seems to want to have. Remember two things:
1. The greatest threat to our liberties is the tyranny of good intentions.
2. The only thing we have to do to lose our liberty is to do nothing.
There seems to be an awful lot of people here who buy into the idea that it takes a village to raise a child, whether they know it or not. Few seem to question the government's right to even be involved in this issue.
It's as if y'all have accepted the basic concept that government knows better than parents and is in a position to tell parents how their kids should be raised. In MHO, that's a dangerous mindset because it opens the door for the government to step right into your living room so long as it claim the "best interests" of the child as an excuse.
Let's not forget that this case is different from a case involving actual, physical abuse or malnutrition. Those things are an IMMINENT danger to the child, whereas being overweight is POTENTIALLY detrimental to him.
Do you really want to hand the government the right to take over raising YOUR children for some perceived POTENTIAL harm something might cause?
Potential harm?!?!? And if the kid ends up in the ER due to a heart attack do you want to be the case worker responsible for not doing anything about the situation? This has crossed the gap from potential harm to REAL harm already. And the casual, this is not a serious problem, mindset is what drives this epidemic. And healthy, normal weight people are getting fed up with paying higher health care costs because of this!
Government stepping in and over-stepping their boundaries? If people would just learn personal responsibility most of this would not be necessary. The parents have not shown personal responsibility here and their child is suffering because of it. And it is doubly bad because the parents would not implement neccesary changes.
My Cousin had the same problem. Thier Daughter was over 200 pounds in grade school and they took her away from them...(See, this isnt the 'first case', only the first case to be reported to the News, and this happened back in the 90s).
They took her, put her in foster care, and tried to teach her how to 'eat properly'... Well, after a year, they gave her back to the parents, (she had lost some weight), but, it wasnt long, she put it back on again!
The Parent were 'enablers', and gave her all the food she wanted to eat, and then some! So, she went back to her old weight, and gained more as the years went by.
She is still obese and has children now, so, if the pattern holds true, she will enable her kids to eat and be obeese also. Sad, but, true.
There seems to be an awful lot of people here who buy into the idea that it takes a village to raise a child, whether they know it or not. Few seem to question the government's right to even be involved in this issue.
It's as if y'all have accepted the basic concept that government knows better than parents and is in a position to tell parents how their kids should be raised. In MHO, that's a dangerous mindset because it opens the door for the government to step right into your living room so long as it claim the "best interests" of the child as an excuse.
Let's not forget that this case is different from a case involving actual, physical abuse or malnutrition. Those things are an IMMINENT danger to the child, whereas being overweight is POTENTIALLY detrimental to him.
Do you really want to hand the government the right to take over raising YOUR children for some perceived POTENTIAL harm something might cause?
This child is malnourished..
He is so overweight he cannot breathe properly. The risk of harm is not just "imminent", it has already happened.
Sleep apnea is rarely, RARELY fatal and even that depends upon which type of apnea it is and what causes it. It is not commonly considered to be immediately life-threatening.
Yes, there are physiological effects from it, but that can be said about thousands of things which affect us. Are you willing for the state to remove a child for ANY possible adverse health reasons?
You're missing the whole point of my question. It's not about this particular case so much as it's about where this impetus to remove children ends. It's a philosophical discussion we, as a people, need to have before taking children from their parents for a perceived future risk becomes the norm.
Sadly, that's a discussion nobody seems to want to have. Remember two things:
1. The greatest threat to our liberties is the tyranny of good intentions.
2. The only thing we have to do to lose our liberty is to do nothing.
It is not a philosophical issue.
It is a question of what is in the best interest of the child, and it has to be decided on a case to case basis.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this mother has demonstrated that she is not able to deal with her son's medical issue, despite considerable effort to help her. If she cannot do it, then someone else must.
Just because sleep apnea is not immediately fatal does not mean it is not causing damage. It affects how the brain functions,
" ... obstructive sleep apnea in children was first described in the 1970s. It is a common but underdiagnosed condition in children that may ultimately lead to substantial morbidity if left untreated."
"Childhood sleep apnea differs from adult obstructive sleep apnea in that adults with sleep apnea frequently present with hypersomnia, whereas children often demonstrate short attention spans, emotional lability, and behavioral problems. Obesity is a major risk factor in both adults and children."
"Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, as well as children with a history of loud habitual snoring, appear to be at risk for developing deficits of executive function. According to the model by Beebe and Gozal, sleep fragmentation, intermittent hypoxemia,(low blood oxygen levels - Suzy Q) and hypercapnia (high blood carbon dioxide levels _ Suzy Q) contribute to dysfunction in the prefrontal areas of the brain.[5] Executive functions include behavioral inhibition, regulation of affect and arousal, ability to analyze and synthesize, and memory. Executive dysfunction interferes with cognitive abilities and learning."
The sleep apnea is being treated, and this child has been doing well in school, but do you really think that an 8 year old should have to sleep in a CPAP mask because his Mom can't feed him properly? It kind of makes sleeping over at a friend's house or going camping or traveling at all kind of difficult, don't you think?
So please do not trivialize sleep apnea because it does not kill quickly.
i dont know why you & everyone else are so obessed over my living situation. it is really starting to get annoying
a lot of children are fat why dont they rip their families apart as well. the discrimination against fat people in this country is ugly.
I am by no means obsessed, but I do find a lot of inconsistencies in your posts. The reason why people would be concerned about an overweight child is because of the health repercussions that are associated with being overweight or obese. It is a parent's obligation to keep their children in good health, which includes maintaining a healthy weight. This has nothing to do with simply looking fat.
Re. smokers; the 2nd hand smoke they fill my lungs with is harmful to MY health! So banning smoking in public places is protecting MY health. Different scenario than what we have with the 200lb 8 year old!
On one hand, I have heard stories of child services taking kids out of homes when they shouldn't have. On the other hand, 200lb at 8 years old
IF the family was providing appropriate nutrition and supervision to this child then it IS heavy handed. IF child services did not provide information/education on how to provide proper nutrition then perhaps it is heavy handed. IF the parents supplied nothing but excuses, then the action was appropriate.
What would they have been expected to do if the kid weighed 20lb? Would the local government be meddling and heavy handed then? Or would it be a case of them stepping in to save the child's life?
BOTH are very serious situations!! But in regards to the obese kid, we hear the "Oh, they're prejudiced against fat people!" Give me a f-ing break!!
Potential harm?!?!? And if the kid ends up in the ER due to a heart attack do you want to be the case worker responsible for not doing anything about the situation? This has crossed the gap from potential harm to REAL harm already. And the casual, this is not a serious problem, mindset is what drives this epidemic. And healthy, normal weight people are getting fed up with paying higher health care costs because of this!
Government stepping in and over-stepping their boundaries? If people would just learn personal responsibility most of this would not be necessary. The parents have not shown personal responsibility here and their child is suffering because of it. And it is doubly bad because the parents would not implement neccesary changes.
Do you want to pay the healthcare costs of the kid who breaks his arm playing scratch football? Should the state take him away from his parents because they let him play it? Why not? What's the difference?
And that old saw about "saving" health care costs doesn't wash any more. That was the excuse many used for supporting rigorous anti-smoking ordinances and higher taxes. So far, more than half of smokers have quit in the past decade or so. Tell me....how much have YOUR insurance premiums gone down? How much has the cost of healthcare gone down? (Here's a tip: It's rising faster than the rate of inflation and shows no sign of slowing).
Since that many smokers have kicked the habit, couldn't you logically assume you'd be seeing more money in your pocket by now? But, you're not, so what on earth leads you to believe you'll see anything after everyone is forced to become "healthy."
Once again, the underlying impetus seems to be hubris. Others are not behaving as you do, or raising their kids as you do, and government should force them to....right?
It is a question of what is in the best interest of the child, and it has to be decided on a case to case basis.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this mother has demonstrated that she is not able to deal with her son's medical issue, despite considerable effort to help her. If she cannot do it, then someone else must.
Just because sleep apnea is not immediately fatal does not mean it is not causing damage. It affects how the brain functions,
" ... obstructive sleep apnea in children was first described in the 1970s. It is a common but underdiagnosed condition in children that may ultimately lead to substantial morbidity if left untreated."
"Childhood sleep apnea differs from adult obstructive sleep apnea in that adults with sleep apnea frequently present with hypersomnia, whereas children often demonstrate short attention spans, emotional lability, and behavioral problems. Obesity is a major risk factor in both adults and children."
"Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, as well as children with a history of loud habitual snoring, appear to be at risk for developing deficits of executive function. According to the model by Beebe and Gozal, sleep fragmentation, intermittent hypoxemia,(low blood oxygen levels - Suzy Q) and hypercapnia (high blood carbon dioxide levels _ Suzy Q) contribute to dysfunction in the prefrontal areas of the brain.[5] Executive functions include behavioral inhibition, regulation of affect and arousal, ability to analyze and synthesize, and memory. Executive dysfunction interferes with cognitive abilities and learning."
The sleep apnea is being treated, and this child has been doing well in school, but do you really think that an 8 year old should have to sleep in a CPAP mask because his Mom can't feed him properly? It kind of makes sleeping over at a friend's house or going camping or traveling at all kind of difficult, don't you think?
So please do not trivialize sleep apnea because it does not kill quickly.
I'm not trivializing sleep apnea. I'm simply pointing out that it is not immediately life threatening and asking whether or not we ought to allow government to interfere in a family for something which MIGHT have long term health consequences. Apparently, you think we should.
Question: If the parent can lose control of her child to the state for not properly protecting her from being overweight, should a parent also lose their kids because they don't properly protect them from the effects of dirty air or exhaust pollution or improperly cooked foods or too much sugar in their diets? If you think so, remember that list can get awfully long and eventually will include you and your child unless a stopping point is determined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it is really starting to get annoying
