Previous Next

Finding Home

Currently Being Moderated
263

By now you’ve probably heard the story of an Ohio mother whose 8-year-old son was taken away from her because of the boy’s weight.scale1.jpg

 

The Cleveland Heights youth tips the scales in excess of 200 pounds. Doctors recommend that a child of that age and height should weigh somewhere between 55 and 60 pounds.

 

To be fair, I’m not aware of all the facts of the case. I did read that state workers had been monitoring the child’s situation for over a year. During that time they reportedly worked unsuccessfully with the family in an attempt to help the child lose weight. A judge in juvenile court ultimately ordered the boy out of the home and into foster care.

 

At the very least, knowing what I do know, I have to admit to feeling queasy about the judge’s decision.

 

How about you?

 

After all, where is the line? At what point is it appropriate for the government to be the arbiter of what’s an acceptable weight for a son or daughter?

 

Is it ever appropriate for a child to be removed from a home because of their weight?

 

Officials claim this was a preventative measure. Although obesity can lead to serious medical conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, the child is not currently suffering from anything other than sleep apnea, according to reports.

 

And now, the temporary loss of his biological mother.USConstitution.jpg

 

If government representatives can remove an overweight child from a home is there anything stopping them from doing the same thing for children whose parents smoke or engage in other physically unhealthy behavior?

 

To be sure, my wife, Jean, and I believe strongly in maintaining a healthy home environment and making sure that our boys eat a healthy diet.

 

But is this taking things too far? Did the state overstep their authority?

 

Let me take this another logical step. If the government is able to determine what is physically acceptable on a subjective matter do they also have the authority to determine what is morally and spiritually acceptable as well? Could this threaten our religious liberties if taken to the extreme?

 

I’m eager to hear from you on this one. Please check in and let me know what you think.

 

 

ALSO THIS WEEK:  Monday: Tim Tebow is Today's Seabiscuit  Tuesday: Parents Deserve Blame for Flash Mob Teens  Thursday: Shocking Slide  Friday: What Andy Rooney Thought Every Child Needed

 

 

Follow me on Twitter @Dalyfocus

Follow me on Facebook

Keep up with Focus on the Family on Facebook

19,812 Views Twitter Facebook


Comments (263)
Add a comment Leave a comment on this blog post.
Nov 30, 2011 4:19 PM Guest Matt W  says:

This is a tough one. On one hand, it would appear the parent is guilty of neglect. On the other hand, the state appears guilty of over-reaching. I would agree with you, Mr. Daly. Logically, the state could be allowed to determine that bringing a child to a pro-life rally is brainwashing. Of course, having them watch Chris Matthews isn't?
Nov 30, 2011 4:21 PM Guest Misty  says:

Ironically, most eating disorders are psychologically oriented. There is no mention of the father. Has it ever occurred to people that the child is depressed and eating out of a sadness surrounding a broken home.

 

Obesity is rarely about the food. It's about everything but the food. But I bet social services spend most of their time talking diet when they should have been talking love and family.

Nov 30, 2011 4:23 PM Guest Bob  says:
yes the state overstepped. they almost always do. worry about the wrong things and don't worry about the main things.
Nov 30, 2011 5:01 PM Guest Tammy  says:

Unless there were other contributing factors that we are unaware of in this case which would truly constitute child abuse, there is no way that a court should have the authority to remove this child from the home. His emotional well-being is just as important and depriving a child of a parent will do far more damage than a bad diet, especially if he is not currently in harm's way.  I completely concur that this could open the door for the courts to exercise authority over other subjective issues and that is not their place...this is America. Their duty is to enforce and maintain "the law" and the last time I checked, there was no "law" against obesity.
Nov 30, 2011 5:21 PM Guest Barbara H.  says:

No!  Absolutely not - under no circumstances should the weight of a child warrant taking the child from the parents.

It is none of their business.

They cannot guarantee a better eating environment

They cannot guarantee against extreme psycological dammage from taking the child from its parent(s).

They cannot guarantee an environment that is better in any way than the one in which the child now lives.

Most of the social workers who came up with this idea are probably overweight - and connot even control their own eating habits.  What makes them think they can control what the kid eats?

 

OF course parents should strive to provide healthy food choices for their child and set a good example themselves - but their failure in this area does not give the state the right to even speak up - much less take a child away.
Nov 30, 2011 5:17 PM Guest Kay J  says:
Overstepping. They clearly need help, but taking the child away isn't the solution. Foster care doesn't have people or funding to handle the children who are hungry, neglected and abused. This seems more of a situation of needing education and mentoring.
Nov 30, 2011 5:48 PM Guest Pete W.  says:
Everything I know about this story is what I just read in the above article. That being said, this is a pretty tough call. I believe it's in the best interest of the child for there to be some sort of intervention. I also believe that while nearly all parents mean well, not all parents do well. It was stated there was an unsuccessful attempt at helping the child lose weight. Were the parent(s) willing participants or resisting assistance that would benefit their child?
Nov 30, 2011 5:50 PM Guest Niki F.  says:

It's so hard to know what "working with the family for a year" really means.  It seems this "work " could be put into question as well, It's so hard to be critical of a system that wants to protect children.  A 200 pound 8 year-old certainly has issues that need addressing in his life.  Foster care may not be the solution, but I think it's a far stretch to be wary that the govt will try to take our kids from us for generalized health concerns.  This seems like a single case where the welfare of the child was the main concern, and we should be glad we live in a country where our government wants to take care of our children when we aren't do the job.
Nov 30, 2011 5:25 PM Guest H  says in response to Bob:
At first glance of this story, yes, I though they had overstepped.  However - 200 lbs is absolutely ridiculous and I believe that someone needs to have this child's best interest in mind - it is gross negligence on the parents' part...
Nov 30, 2011 5:29 PM Guest Wayne  says:
The short answer to Jim's last question is "yes".  It absolutely could threaten our religious liberties.  Particularly as a Dad of a home-schooling family, it's not hard for me to imagine this as a big step that might one day lead to removal of my children.  This is a regretable circumstance, and it's easy to feel sorry for the child, but at it's core it was the wrong decision.
Nov 30, 2011 5:29 PM Guest Stefanie  says:
I think the state overstepped on this one.  I am afraid that the choice of parents are being over run.  I do agree that an 8 year old who weighs that much is wrong, but he is only going to suffer more now since eating gets him taken away from home.  What is he going to do now, lose weight and become too skinny since eating leads to being taken away from all you know?
Nov 30, 2011 5:30 PM Guest Susan  says:
They worked unsuccesfully with the family for a year to help the boy lose weight.  I don't know the whole story but in what way were they unsuccessful?  Working with the family or was it that the boy didn't lose any weight or both?  There could be a medical reason for the boy not losing weight.  My daughter at age 13 started gaining weight and kept gaining.  She still ate the same foods, that hadn't changed.  The doctor diagnosed her with cystic overys.  That was the cause of her weight gain.
Nov 30, 2011 5:55 PM Guest Bernie  says:

I do not know all the details in this case, but the overweight child should never be taken from his mother.  Overeating is a psychological problem and possibly a depression.  Now there has been added, so much more that this child may never recover psychologically.  the loss of a mother at a young age is devistating.

Also, where will this authority end?  it scares me to think that a judge can take a (non abused) child from his mother...for any reason he see fit?
Nov 30, 2011 5:40 PM Guest Loretta  says:
I disagree with the earlier comments. If the child is grossly overweight and the state has been working with the family for a year, and the family has not, as I presume, been making the recommended changes, I beleive the state has an imperative to put the child in a safer environment.  Most often when a child is removed from a home through state action, a reunification plan is put in place, providing a means for the family to be back together under healthier conditions.  This is an extreme case and can't be generalized to give the State power to remove a child who is not dangerously overweight or for the other potential reasons listed.  This child is in danger.  Sleep apnea, in a child 8 years old, is no trivial matter.
Nov 30, 2011 5:42 PM Guest Joan  says:
Overstepping!  I'm certain that we can go to the judge's home and find something that needs to be removed, according to someone else's standards.  Worry about the UN trying to step in to Parental Rights.  Or maybe that's what this is about, getting the camel's nose under the tent!
Nov 30, 2011 5:44 PM Guest John  says:
This is a tough one as Matt said.  But here's a question:  would you have a problem with this if the child was malnourished instead?  Most of us probably wouldn't.  The key point is, we don't know all the facts.  Only after we sit in the judge's seat or saw the complete case file can we judge this as overstepping or not.  And as we all know, the media will never give us all the facts; only the ones they want us to see.  With that in mind, I'll give the judge the benefit of the doubt.  But having said that, I don't trust our Government, our Leaders, our Judges as far as I can throw them.  So when I don't know all the facts, I'll give them leeway.  But when I know more, then I'll be the first to condemn them if deserved.
Nov 30, 2011 5:44 PM Guest Lori  says:
I sometimes wish the state would take me away from their over indulgent selves...it's making me sick  ;) Perhaps they should try and follow their own advice and live within their budget, etc. before they start condemning others for their lack of self control...they really have no right to stand in judgment in this way. They're just nervous because they know they don't have enough of our money to fund the health plans they plan to force on us to cover all the health issues that accompany obesity.  It's a rock rolling back on themselves and taking everyone in it's path.
Nov 30, 2011 5:47 PM Guest Greg  says in response to Kay J:
What Tammy said--the government is WAY out of their bounds in this. This must be stopped and turned around.
Nov 30, 2011 6:13 PM Guest Brent W.  says:

An 8 year old that is in excess of 200 pounds! Come on folks. That is child abuse!  4 times the appropriate weight for that age. That isn't portly, stout, or even husky. That is morbidly obese by any clinical definition. The state was monitoring this for over a year.

These weren't jack-booted thugs coming in and taking someones baby in the middle of the night. This was a process where the potential physical danger to the youths development (apnea, diabetes, and a host of potential developmental issues) require separation. An 8 year old cannot be responsible for  themselves. The parent must be.  If the parent fails to this degree, it becomes the states job to protect the child.
Nov 30, 2011 5:55 PM Guest Aria  says:

This is definitely taking the child out from under their God-given right to raise their own children.  There is also a case in Michigan where a young child, declared cancer-free, was going to be put under several more rounds of drugs.  When the parents pushed back, the doctors pushed back more.  Eventually, the doctors decided to sue the parents.  It's the same issue with different details, but parental rights activist and lawyer Michael Farris is representing the Michigan family.  I pray that this 8-year old boy will be reunited with his family AND be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle.  God help the leaders in our country to be wise and just.
Nov 30, 2011 6:15 PM Guest William M.  says:
As a parent we are charged to "bring up the child in the way they sould go". I have a hard time accetping that letting a child weigh 3 times the usuall weight is what God would intend. Parents can make wrong decissions. "Would  you give a child a stone when he wants food". The state worked with the family for a year and they didn' get the problem under control. Do we have to wait until the child stops breathing at night with sleep apnia and gets brain damage? Do we have to wait until he has diabetes and needs daily insulin shots before acting? Glutony is a sin and the family is perpertrating a sin on this child. You don't get to 200 pounds eating an extra bag of chips a day. There is a syndrome, Prader-Willie where children over eat but there are treatments and locks have to be placed on the cabinets and fridge. Should we let this mom love the child to death. I have taken my child out of the grocery store crying because I would not let them have a candy bar. I've made my kids cry many times-they had to do home work, come in on a summers night and go to bed at 9 pm, go to school or church on a day when they had wanted to watch TV. I know I'm mean but I love my children. "Spare the rod and spoil the child". I think it is cruel to stuff a child until he weighs 200 pounds when 50 pounds is the expected.
Nov 30, 2011 5:57 PM Guest Wanda  says:
I think they overstepped their bounds, but then again most social workers do. I believe that social workers are out to get people. That is my opinion. They don't know the background. Yes, the child may be overweight, and 8 years old, but what is his height? Is he being picked on at school? Does his teachers tell him constantly that he is not worth anything? I know that teachers do this especially to boys. I know this from my own experience with my son. He had been picked on and bullied by teachers in public school so much that at one point he did not want to go to school. But we encouraged him to do better at school and show the teachers up. Also, I know that social workers are out to get kids at any cost because they tried, when my kids were young, to take them over a picture they took of our dog's food. It is wrong what social workers do and if the judge is always on the side of the social workers then they are wrong also. Yes, they are overstepping their bounds and the kid should go to see if he is allergic to something. There are people who eat things and get big due to allergies. Did they research that idea?
Nov 30, 2011 6:27 PM Guest Leah  says:

This issue is just  a prelude to the kind of anti-family practices possible in the future. Everyone in America needs to know what is going on and how the Parental Rights Amendment can help.

Nov 30, 2011 6:28 PM Guest Beverly H.  says in response to Kay J:
Although such a weight is undesirable I think this is too drastic a step but the one could well happen with children being removed with the Christian influence parents have over them in our increasing anti Christian world.
Dec 1, 2011 3:49 PM Guest Gene R  says:
Let us be real careful and reserve judgement until we have a good solid foundation of facts.  Now with that said, this case has the appearance the State and courts are overstepping their bounds.  But this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Please research the United Nations Rights of the Child treaty that the US has not ratified, (praise God).  President Clinton did sign it, but it has not been ratified by the Senate at this point in time.  There are a few prominent Sentors that are trying to push the issue though. 
Nov 30, 2011 6:03 PM Guest linda  says:
This government is getting too powerful, the Royal family in the white has overstipped their place.  We had safe guards in place to prevent what is happening but people want the government to take care of them and this is what's happened.
Nov 30, 2011 6:04 PM Guest Lee A  says:
What happens to the overweight child after his world is torn apart because of his weight?  Does he become anorexic in order to be reunited with his biological mom?  Does his mental health suffer because, according to the State, he is just too fat to deserve being with his mom?  Agreed, the child should be put on a healthy meal plan.  But, did anyone bother to see if he is suffering from medical conditions that can affect weight gain?  Did anyone have him tested for thyroid disease or diabetes?  For an otherwise healthy 8 year old kid, weight loss is fairly straightforward.  Eat good foods and increase activity.  But, the mental and social harm being done to this poor boy is going to last a lifetime.  Nothing a foster parent, social worker, or therapist can ever say to this boy will undo the damage done to him by the State declaring that he is too fat to stay with his family.  God have mercy on the child.
Nov 30, 2011 7:57 PM Guest Beverley E.  says:

It is likely to be an allergy. I was gaining weight and from teaching Home EC. I had read that weight gain is from allergies. So I went and got blood test and found I was allergic to soy, milk, eggs, sugar and sunflower nuts, and all the things they make from these products. I stopped eating them and lost 25#. I feel better than I have felt in 35 years and I am 73 years old. Let us be real help not make more problems.

Blessings

Beverley
Nov 30, 2011 6:12 PM Guest Jeanne E  says:
The state is overstepping.  Some children are overwieght not because of overating but from another type of malady.
Nov 30, 2011 6:15 PM Guest Ed H  says:
I am not sure there is enough information here.  It is tyrannical for the State to act as the primary guarantor of the health and welfare of children, but there is clearly a place for the State to act in the interest of children when parents are failing.  It is entirely believable that such impressive obesity is a sign of parental incompetence and neglect sufficient to justify removing the child.  State intervention in a family is inherently abusive, though, and the only justification is a the prevention of an even greater abuse.  If the State has sufficient cause to intervene, I think removing the child should be irrevocable.  If the parent child relationship is a sacred trust- which I believe to be true- once the parents have failed in their sacred obligations, we shouldn't be messing around with attempts to repair what is probably broken beyond hope.  The bar for intervention should be high, but once action is take we should be serious enough about the welfare of the child to ensure that he or she gets a new start.
Nov 30, 2011 8:08 PM Guest Bethimus  says:

It is not up to the government to decide if a child is a healthy weight or not.  What if the child were considered too skinny?  Would my children be taken away from me on the premise that he is malnourished simply because he is a very skinny kid?  If there were other things leading the Judge to believe the child was in danger, then I would advocate for temporary removal of the child from the situation.  If that were the case, however, the article should highlight those other reasons and not focus on the obesity issue.

 

My father was taken away from his mother at the age of 4 and placed in an orphanage.  The only reason was because his mother (who was unwed and 14 when he was born) refused to sleep with some of the more powerful men in town.  It was a temporary situation, and he went back to his mother after a short period of time.  Even though it was a short period, it still had a profound effect on him psychologically. 

 

Most likely, there were underlying issues in this situation that were not published, but to remove a child on the grounds of his weight, when the information points to an otherwise healthy environment is just wrong.

Nov 30, 2011 6:17 PM Guest Roxie O  says:

I have been working with behavioral challenged children for some time, and I live with one who has a food addiction, just today we found out she feasted at home for breakfast and then went to the cafeteria when she arrived at the school and feasted there. This went on for a month and even with the school helping with our challenging disobedient she fell through the cracks and gained two pounds before we even put two and two together. We are doing all we can with healthy eating and good choices. The child chooses too, free will, even at our greatest effort. The government is pushing too far too many times.

Nov 30, 2011 6:18 PM Guest Melissa  says:

Absolutely, the government overstepped their boundaries.  All three previous comments were so appropriate.

 

As a Registered Dietitian, weight is an indication of health problems, but not of the value of home.  Although the child and his mother were given a year to make improvements that still doesn't indicate the right of the State to usurp the mother's rights.  If a child that large didn't gain weight at the same rate (%) over the previous year, that's progress.  It is hard for anyone to change poor food habits.  We were made to depend on God to change our willing hearts.

 

Let's just play Politically Correct Police for a moment:

-Could we remove (fire them) any overweight, obese or anorexic (severe health problems that can eclipse obese ones) administrator that was involved in the case?

-Should we place his teachers from this year and last on probation, especially if they were not members of NEA?

-Should we fine the School Food Service? --or insist if the food had been organic, the child would not be obese?

-Should we put all his fellow students from last year and this year in psychological training because they did not help as a support group to secure the child's success?

-Should we fine the local community that did not live up to the standards of 'it takes a village'?

-If the father is alive, should the State allow the father to cancel any child support?

-If the child and mother attended a church, should the State place a 'redistribute the wealth' fine on them as well?

-If the child and mother are of another religion or atheist, should the community church pay for counseling for the child?

-Should those against Obamacare be required to personally pay for the lifetime healthcare of the child?

-Should the child have a one-way ticket to one of the many starving nations around the world?

-Revoke the license of the dietitian if one tried unsuccessfully to help the child...or at least the one who would dare criticize the State.

-Allow a lawyer to persuade the child to sue his mother, under the International Rights of the Child; double settlement if the mother was a Christian.

 

It gets ridiculous when the State tries to play God while 'straining at gnats and swallowing camels'.    There may be other facts that have not been made known in this news story but it appears the State is trying to destroy the home of the child, not help the one stable element in his life.  The size of the State is morbidly obese; by comparison, the child is skinny.

 

Regardless, this young boy and his mama need our prayers and real help.
Nov 30, 2011 6:21 PM Guest Carrie  says:
This is child abuse, just as starving a child is child abuse. A 200+ lb 8-year-old can probably barely walk, and I've read that the child has trouble breathing, too. Intervention with the family for a year or more has not been successful. This child's life is at stake, and I believe that if the parents are unwilling to do what is needed to keep him healthy, it's our government's responsibility to step in. I don't know how the system in Ohio works, but I have worked in the foster care system in Oregon and my experience was that ongoing efforts were made to help the families overcome the circumstances that led to their child being removed, and the ultimate goal was always reuniting the family whenever possible. I hope that every effort will be made in this case to keep working with the family so the child can come home *and* be kept healthy.
Nov 30, 2011 8:50 PM Guest Kimberly M.  says:

The state takes kids away all the time because of weight.  Several years ago in Wichita, two sisters were found to be starving in a basement while other step siblings were upstairs in healthy condition.  Why is obesity any different?
Nov 30, 2011 6:26 PM Guest Tia  says:
I believe that I read (through this newsletter perhaps) that religion in a private home is already under attack im Europe, where in England (if I recalll correctly) foster parents are not allowed to teach their religious beliefs to children in their care. The state will over step at any opportunity until many people stand up and say "enough" together.
Nov 30, 2011 10:11 PM Guest Janet D.  says:

It is broader then The child's weight.  The child is morbidly obese which at any age - especially someone who is a dependent - is a significant health concern.  Since he is a minor, I believe intervention is required especially since no remedy - no progress had been a significant change over the last year, I agree w/ the judge.  This is a red flag waiving - shouting for immediate and further investigation.  Once again, for the health, safety and well being of a minor.  If the status quo would have continued, and ultimately a turn for the worse occurred, we would have an outcry from distant fame members, the local and global community as to why those social workers didn't do more.  At a minimum, understand the underlying issue.  And I believe they are on the path to doing this.
Nov 30, 2011 6:29 PM Guest Fred  says:
Jim The government has gone to far in almost every area of our life and this is just one more. Who gave the government the right to put each family in this country in dept to the tune of 133,000.00 with our national dept and what do we have to show for it! No the big G  does not have the right to take that child. The parents and school should be showing him tha right way to eat and exersize and how to eat healthy but then it is up to him to do it or not do it. What is next your son is failing math sorry we will have to take him and put him in foster care with a math tutor, when little Johnny brings it up to a C he can come home. Our Lord has given us free will and that is in every area of life.
Nov 30, 2011 6:32 PM Guest Harry N.  says:
No way !!!!! This is the way our rights as citizens and parents get twiddled away. Your article correctly states what's next children of smokers ? How about children who have long hair ? Or who aren't as well kept as they should be because of limited resources ? Will all these one day be reasons by and all consuming government to take our children away from loving homes ? The mental damage of removing a child from a loving home far out weigh the physical damage of being temporarily overweight.
Nov 30, 2011 10:14 PM Guest Gary A.  says:

Intervention of some type is needed.  However, intervention is usualy by mutual

family agreement though not necessarily immediate family.  Making it a ruling of our legal system is stepping way outside the box!  If the state really cares about people being healthy(weight wise), maybe they should put some pressure on our "media stars".  They seem to be  pushing  the idea that it is fashionable to be "pleasantly plump"!!!  When in fact many are flambointly fat.  Great examples to all of us who sit before those flat screens.
Dec 1, 2011 6:17 AM Guest Dar  says:

No, I dont think the child should be removed due to his weight.  I know we dont know the whole story. But come on the boy is 8, he is a child not an adult. We dont know if he has any medical problems as to why he has or hasnt lost any weight.  where i live i see over weight children in our schools. i pray for them.  It sadens me to see these over weight. Are the happy? they seem so. are they being bullied?  not sure..   Do their parents realize their child/ children are over weight. yes i believe so since they are the ones who buy the child/ children their clothing.  Its a major change  in ones life and IT has to be a WANT not a need. Is the parent a single parent?  Does the parent  work alot?  things we dont know about the case.  Maybe the child needs a mentor to encourage healthy eating habits.  but in the end No the child should not be removed,  I pray for the child for not being able to be with his  mom... Now he could be bullied by other foster kids that live in the home. KIDS are cruel and This will be with this child FOREVER!!!!!

How would YOU FEEL if this happened to you!!!!
Nov 30, 2011 6:35 PM Guest Levon  says:

No way should this child be taken away from his parents.

The goverment has entirely to much power now,they want to tell us what to eat,what websites we can go to etc and now taking a child away  from his parents because they do not think they are doing enough to make him lose weight is going to far.

What will they do next,take a child away for any reason they can come up with.
Dec 1, 2011 6:19 AM Guest Mary  says:

I agree with Misty. The overwieght is a symtom of hidden issues. Focusing only on food wil not bring about weight loss. The underlying issues could be addressed without removing the child from his home.

 

This is a red flag event. There are a number of issues that parents may differ with authorites about: religion, vaccinations, medications, schooling--among others. Parents should be very concerned.
Nov 30, 2011 6:37 PM Guest Rebekah  says:

It has been the experience of many that the state already has decided what is spiritually and morally acceptable.  Also religious liberties have been significantly limited in teaching children right from wrong within the divorce arena, due to the fact that it might impact the relationship between the children and parent who has absconded from previously held belief system.  The threat of removal of children from a strong Christian parent in these circumstances are very real.

Nov 30, 2011 6:40 PM Guest Melissa  says:
I don't know all the details in the case, but I do know what it is like to be the mother of an overweight son.  Before I go further I will tell you that we finally found an affordable Olymic gym and the owner is my sons trainer and he is well on his way to loosing the extra fat. My point here is that the doctors, nutritionists and sports coaches were not help and did more harm than good.  Why does the government think they know what's best for our children?  The doctors and nutritionist could not help my son, so what makes them think they can.  Perhaps their recommended changes did not work!! Hello! Sure the child needs help, but taking him away from his mother. . . I guess I would need to know more.  It's just that people do not understand that eating too much is not always the reason behind excessive weight gain.  I guess we should all pray that God's hand be in this. . .
Nov 30, 2011 6:48 PM Guest Janice  says:

I do not believe the state should have removed the child from the home. Often people must try different methods to lose weight before they find what is most effective. Exercise is very important, too. Perhaps the mother did not have the resources to enroll her child in weight loss programs and athletic programs that would have been most beneficial. Should she lose her child just because she is poor and can not pay for all the helpful benefits? And some children are non-compliant even if they are given the opportunity to do something beneficial. It is hard to guess all the factors in this situation. But without more reason than I have heard thus far, I say the state needs to be supportive of the mother and child by keeping them together and providing resources and help that has not been tried before.
Nov 30, 2011 7:41 PM Guest Renee  says:
Obesity is largely a genetic trait. This child and another child without this genetic trait could eat the same diet (good or bad) and one become obese and the other not.  So removing the child from his home may not help his weight loss.  That being said I think the government ( which should be representing the tax payer's interests) does have an interest in this. If this child does not get treatment to control his weight now, in 30 years or less he will have diabetes and heart disease and likely end up disabled and dependent on government benefits ( which are payed for by the tax payers).  I am a health care provider and know this story well. Obesity is very difficult to treat but it is impossible to treat when parents are in denial that there is even a problem and refuse to even try to make changes to benefit the child.  In some of these cases the child may be better served by a chance at a healthier environment.
Nov 30, 2011 6:50 PM Guest Keith  says:
Really, when you get right down to it, The State is another person or person's making decisions for a group of people.  I do not believe that the government should take children from parents for most reasons.  I do not believe children should be hurt or molested or the like, but where do you draw the line.  Who's opinion is correct, yours or the other person.  We must look to Jesus for our source of right and wrong.  The government only wants to get rid of that.  Government can not regulate morality. Only by surrender to God can we then live a perfect life in Him.
Nov 30, 2011 7:45 PM Guest Martha C  says:

I think it is wrong! I have a little great granddaughter who is four, DFACs

has been telling her mother that she is fat, for over a year. She weighs

43 Pounds, but she is very tall for her age. Cannot wear a size six

now because the clothes are too short and too small, They will only

let her have skim milk, on the WIC program. She is not skinny but

neither is she fat! I do not think they should take a child from its parents

for any reason, God gave them to their parents, He shopuld be the one to

decide.My oldest daughter was tall too, and her teachers gave her a hard

time most of her young years. One teacher shook her so hard, that her

head was bouncing back and forth on her shoulders, I just happened to

walk into the class when it happened. They always put her in the back

of the room, because she was tall, I didn't find out what was wrong til

she hit third grade, Her eyes were so bad she couldn't see the blackboard.

We got glasses for her and I had to take them off after she went to sleep

at night, She was considered blind as a young woman.
Nov 30, 2011 6:55 PM Guest Crystal  says:

As someone who has adopted a child out of foster care, I could see that the child may be in danger of greater eating issues and obesity by placing him in foster care.  The nature of some parts of foster care is such that the food that is often provided is donated or very cheap which often means that it is cheap in substance - starchy, simple carbohydrate food - and is often the type of food that will contribute to greater weight gain.  Most of the children I've met in foster care are worried that they won't have a place to live tomorrow because nothing in foster care is permanent.  They logically go to a thought process of "if I don't have a place to live tomorrow, will I have food?"  Which leads to eating as much as possible whenever possible.  Granted some have been food-neglected and this adds to the thought process.  But, placing a child in foster care without other signs of abuse puts the child in a place of fear and, for those who use food to comfort, is likely to add to the weight problem.

 

As someone who has been overweight/obese most of their life - I tipped the scales over 200 lbs by the time I was in 6th or 7th grade - and who has spent significant time trying to lose weight, I can also say that only when I was able to deal with things psychologically was I able to actually lose weight.  If the state is providing the counselor/therapist, as they usually do for foster care or court ordered cases, the child may not trust the therapist.  If he doesn't trust the therapist, he's not going to deal with anything psychological that may be impacting his situation... which usually means that if the problem is not physical, he's probably not going to lose weight.

 

Even if the child is only removed from the home for a short time, an added element of fear has now been introduced in his life that will haunt him for years, possibly decades to come.  If he is removed long term or permanently, this fear element increases.  If this goes to an even greater extreme and parental rights are terminated, the boy is already older than most people are willing to adopt.  My understanding is that, statistically, over 60% of the foster children who are not adopted by the age of 13 end up in the criminal justice system.  You can probably imagine the impact of this scenario on the child as well as on the taxpayer from the standpoint of welfare and criminal justice programs.

 

If, of course, there is actual documented child abuse (which I haven't seen in any of the articles I've read on this situation to date) then there would certainly be just cause to remove him from the home.  Clearly it would be a violation of the privacy rights to publish that sort of information to the general public so it is hard to definitively say whether the state took warranted action.

 

I think that Jim's extrapolation to other areas of life is completely warranted.  If this situation is not addressed, it wont be long before it is touted as "precedent" for other counties/states to be removing children because someone objected to the moral, educational, or faith-based values of their parents.
Nov 30, 2011 7:54 PM Guest THOMAS K  says:
JIM;HELLO! YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT.WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?I DIDNT EVEN THINK ON THAT.AFTER RAISING 3 CHILDREN MOSTLY BY MYSELF I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT PARENTING CAN BE ,ESP. IN OUR EVER CHANGING SECULAR SOCEITY.WE ARE SO FAR ADRIFT AS  THE LINES ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE BLURRED.I THINK THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE OR REMOVE THIS CHILD.IT SHOULD BE A MEDICAL AND PARENTAL HEALTH CHOICE FOR THE CHILD TOO SEE WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND LEAVE THE STATE OUT OF IT UNLESS THE MOTHER ASKS FOR ASSISTANCE,EVEN THEN IT SHOULD BE DONE UNDER A HEALTH ORIENTED ATOMSPHERE NOT SO MUCH FORCED CORRECTIVE BEHAVIOR STYLE.SOMETHING WHERE THE CHILD WILL WANT TOO PARTICIPATE AND NOT BE PULLED FROM MOM.
Nov 30, 2011 7:01 PM Guest Karen S.  says:
I have a 12-year-old son who has been overweight since he was 5 years old.  He is also very tall for his age -- at 12 he is 6 feet tall and now 230 pounds.  He lost 50 pounds this year because HE finally decided he was tired of being overweight.  It is very difficult to force a child to lose weight.  My son ate food I didn't know about, at school and at friends' houses, as well as at home.  Although I encouraged him to be more active and tried to come up with activities we could do together, once a child is overweight most activity is difficult.  It is discouraging to always be the slowest runner or the only kid in gym who can't do a push-up.  My son's grade-school gym teachers punished him for not keeping up instead of encouraging him to do the best he could.  As others have mentioned, overeating is rarely about the food.  There are many emotional factors involved.  Punishing a child (especially by taking away his mother) for eating or being overweight is likely to cause more issues and potentially other eating disorders.  On the other hand, a parent may have their own emotional reasons for encouraging an overweight child to eat more; taken to the extreme this is a form of abuse.  There isn't enough information to decide what's right for the specific case in question, but in general I would say the State should not interfere with parents dealing with difficult issues like obese children.  There are also thin children who are malnourished, living on a steady diet of junk food and energy drinks.  Will the State require parents to report their children's food intake on a regular basis so the State can evaluate whether it is acceptable?
Dec 1, 2011 9:24 AM Guest Tim A  says:
So, where was this child's support structure? What about extended family? Grandparents, Aunts and Uncles? What about their church family? Were any of these available/aware/involved?

 

I don't know all the details either but I will offer these observations: first, "community" has largely become a thing of the past...and, as a result, we are worse off as a nation; second, the effects of sin on the family structure (divorce, unmarried parents, etc) is going to continue to produce sad and undesirable consequences; third, while I am totally against this type of governmental intrusion, I am not surprised since this is probably the inevitable outcome to the societal path we have (in some cases) chosen and/or (in some cases) reaped as a result of our own silence/passivity. May those who take God seriously and exalt His Word and His Son (Jesus Christ) never shirk from our "salt and light" mission in this dark world, both "for the children" AND for the glory of His Name!
Nov 30, 2011 7:03 PM Guest wendy  says:

Just this evening I spoke on our countries foster care adoption issues at our church. I came home and read this and I am frusterated. We are trying to take children out of the system not find ways to put them in it.

I certainly hope there is something more substantial in their evidence then obesity. Yes I am sure that neglect could be a possiblity but was it? My husband was an  over welght child and grew out of it as well as my oldest son. Currently my younger 2 sons are heavier then they should be but I believe they will grow out of it. I realize this is not always the case but how can the state determine the difference?
Nov 30, 2011 7:07 PM Guest George  says in response to Beverly H.:
The state has already removed a child from a home because he didn't want to go to church three times a week with his parents.  The court determined the child had a rigfht to decide for himself whether he wanted to go to church or not.  I can't remember where or when the incident occured but as I recall, the child was removed from the home.
Nov 30, 2011 7:08 PM Guest Carolyn  says:
I have to agree with Misty, there is more to this than a mom failing to help her son lose weight.  I would like to know what Child Protective services tried up to this point.  He needs counsuling and a healthy relationship with a person outside his home.  This would be a good start toward a successful weight loss program.
Nov 30, 2011 7:09 PM Guest Alicia  says:
There are a number of situations where parents are not raising children to what others may interpret as healthy for them. Many parents do not have the sense, the desire, or the emotional stability themselves to raise children to be physically, mentally, or spiritually healthy. Parents who promote transgenderism in little boys or girls, parents who bring sexual partners in and out of the home, who teach children to expect "the government" to pay for their food, housing and education with no effort on their own...and yet, is the government any better than some parents? The answer is not to take children away from their parents; nevertheless, children should not be left at the mercy of parents who do not put the child's welfare above their own. Parental rights should take a back seat to parental responsibilities and if parents are ignorant of how to raise children, someone needs to step in. One would hope that Christians who saw this overweight child would not be like the priest with the beaten man in the ditch and pass him by, but would stop and intervene with this family in love before the government had to.
Nov 30, 2011 7:10 PM Guest Mary J  says:
This is a slippery slope that will not end well if not stopped.  However, what do we expect when so many American parents have already given over their children to the government schools?  The government has assumed more and more sway over the American family, taking on roles that are God-given to the parents only.  The best way to turn the tide?  Three things:  Prayer, removing children out of the government schools, and the passing of the Parental Rights Amendment.
Nov 30, 2011 7:14 PM Guest NotAPerfectPrincess  says:
It seems to me that this is a 'test case'.  If the state can decide what is appropriate in this case, then-as Mr. Daly mentions in his article- they are free to take the next intrusive step.  Smoking is a known health hazard, so that would likely be the next test case if this one is allowed to stand unchecked.  Once the state can remove overweight children from their homes or from their overweight or smoking parents, then they are empowered to decide what is and is not appropriate parenting.  In this particular case, the state can argue that parental neglect caused the child physical harm (obesity.)  It could also be argued that by taking an underage child to a pro-life rally a parent is putting that child's safety in jeopardy.  We frequently hear "there ought to be a law" or "they should do something about that."  Maybe 'they' should not always 'do something'.  Maybe we need to release this false idea of 'safety' and start erring on the side of 'freedom'. 
Nov 30, 2011 7:16 PM Guest William  says in response to John:

Amen. This is roughly the way I look at things. We cannot all know the entire story, and if we did, faced with this decision, would we find this outcome 'bad'? We should trust the leaders God has appointed over us (and the ones we were foolish enough to elect ourselves...) and trust that God's will can trump the evil in men's hearts. Perhaps knowing everything, the judge made a heartfelt and thoughtful decision.

200 pounds? At eight years old? Wow. If I had an eight year old that weighed as much as a grown man, I don't know what I'd do...
Nov 30, 2011 7:18 PM Guest Damon  says:
Sometimes there is a call for judgment.  Wise judges are required.  Having been in healthcare most of my life I believe the judge did the right thing.  I have seen patients who weigh in over 300 lbs and require the use of CPAP machines when they are sleeping.  The sleep apnea is directly related to their weight.  We would try to watch their diet because of all the other problems the weight has caused over time only to find the family sneaking in bags of McDonalds food, cupcakes, etc.  The medical problems that occur do not happen overnight.  They are gradual but certain and will affect his entire life.  Now let's consider the financial cost to the taxpayer.  Most likely this child is on Medicaid and is requiring CPAP now.  This is not cheap.  We do not know if he is taking any meds but I would be very surprised if he is not.  Now if he continues to gain weight into adulthood he will be unable to work and will qualify for SSI income.  He will receive food stamps, government housing, etc.  His mother is setting him up for failure in life.  This is truly neglect and child endangerment.  Hopefully she will learn from this experience that she will need to take responsibility for rearing her son before it is too late.
Nov 30, 2011 7:19 PM Guest Barry  says:

Jim, my first response is to say "This is an outrageous infiltration into the rights of parents to make decisions for their family!"  Then, I have to take a step back.  We have handed over to government the education of our children, care for the poor, income and medical care for the elderly, to name the most obvious.  Having given government these responsibilities, why do we object when the government makes various determinations regarding our lives and the lives of our children?  As much as we love our constitution, I must consider the warnings of one of my favorite founding fathers, Patrick Henry, who stood resolute against this constitution for the tyranny that it would bring.  We are reaping those benefits today.  The real question is if there is any hope of reversing the path down which we have walked so far.  My comfort comes in the knowlege that my real hope is in the saving work of Jesus and the sanctifying work of the Spirit.  Praise be to God!
Nov 30, 2011 8:05 PM Guest Dean  says:
There was a Dr. named Dobson who once many years ago on a radio broadcast said something like this CAN A NATION WHO HAS ABORTED MILLIONS OF BABIES (KNOWING JEHOVAH'S TEACHINGS AND LAWS) EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE NO JUDGEMENT.  OUR COUNTRY WITH THIS CRAZINESS, THAT WILL ONLY CONTINUE CAN NOT EXPECT THERE TO BE NO CONSEQUENCE TO OUR ACTIONS (GOVERMENT APPROVED AND LAWFUL ABORTION).  It will rain on the good as well as the evil.  If we want to slow this decay then we must repent as a nation as it was wrote in JONAH.
Nov 30, 2011 8:07 PM Guest Craig  says:

I agree that this is a tough situation. I think nearly everyone would also agree that there are cases in which children should be taken out of a home i.e. physical, sexual abuse. So the question is not whether there should be a line at which the community at large should intervene, the question is where is the line and what should be the intervention? I also share the sentiments of most responding to this story that when in doubt parental decisions should prevail, especially when considering that any government intervention would likely make the overall situation decidedly worse. Nevertheless, there is more to this story than this one sad case. I am a physician who deals with the effects of poor diet and sedentary habits every day. There is no doubt that our society is headed for a health care train wreck if the explosion in childhood obesity and metabolic disease is not halted and reversed. I believe that the family is the most important institution for insuring a child’s health and reversing this trend. However, it is clear that families are largely failing this important function. Even strong Christian families can be negligent in this realm. Why is this so? Do they not appreciate the dangers? Do they not have the tools? What can the Church do support families, especially single-parent and other struggling families in these efforts?  Unfortunately, when families and churches fail it entices government agencies to intervene which just leads to more family dysfunction.
Dec 1, 2011 6:37 AM Guest Janet D  says:

This reminds me of a couple examples of judicial intervention which occurred w/ Christian Scientist parents.  The parents chose not to seek out and provide professional medical care for their children.  I believe it was something as simple as an appendicitis and chicken pox in these cases that got to the ppint of near death.  Common sense tells me - for the safety and well being of the child ( a minor) care is needed or disaster will occur.
Nov 30, 2011 7:27 PM Guest Laura  says:
The state has overstepped its bounds as technically no laws were broken by the mother.  Lets get rid of all the fluff arguments, such as we don't know all the circumstances.  Every tidbit of circumstance is being "weighed & measured" and then requires judgemental calls by government authorities who have their own agenda.  If the mom is purposely endangering the child, then charges should be brought in a court of law where all the evidence is available for all to see.  I just wonder about the 8 hours a day, five days a week that the child is in school.  What responsibility is born by the school?  Perhaps the child is able to overeat when not in mom's presence.  Bottom line, we will never be privy to all the details as it is shrouded in secrecy, except of course, the child's age and weight.  Where is his height? Family history?   Predisposing health issues, i.e. thyroid problems? Now add the emotional damage of being removed from his only parent.  Where is the concern to "help the family".  Just removing the child is not going to solve underlying issues.  What happens if the state cannot get the child to lose weight? I want to know his weight every day while in state care,especially since taxes are paying for this. EXPECT PERSONAL JUDGEMENTS AND PERSONAL AGENDAS TO ABOUND AS THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECOME THE NANNIES OF THE PEOPLE IN SOCIALIZED AMERICA.  Our taxes, according to the Constitution, were never ment to be used like this.  It should be handled by family first, then extended family, church and friends. Our thinking is becoming twisted and we look more and more for wonderful solutions from the government.  Personal responsibility is just toooo hard!
Dec 1, 2011 6:29 AM Collisa110 Collisa110    says:

Why does everyone whirl around and pin the mom to the examination board in these cases? What about the dad? Dads are extremely influencial in the lives of their children - especially their sons. If he abandoned the family, it is likely related to that. Very, very difficult to help a child lose weight when eating is one of his coping mechanisms with an absent or useless dad.
Nov 30, 2011 7:28 PM Guest Bev C  says:

This is a rediculous step for the Government to take.  As a homeschooling parent, it is quite scarry the amount of strange expectations and equally strange rules that the various states come up with.  If they can remove a child for obesity, what is to stop them from forcing children to participate in public education or educational standards that would force people to teach Darwinism, Witch Craft, or whatever?

 

I have an adopted daughter that honestly does not have any idea whether she is hungry or full, food  (her bottle as an infant) was her most consistant form of comfort and love.  We have done everything imaginable to help keep her weight down, and it seems that the harder we tried, the more it became an issue.  We kept the freezer locked and even the cupboards that had breads, buns, or cake mixes in it were locked.  The refrigerator had fresh cut vegies in snack trays to try to appease her need for food, and there was always a bowl of fresh fruit on the table.  I even canned most of our fruit and vegies to try to keep the sugars down to a minimum.

 

We took her to counseling, had psychological testing done, had educational testing done, allergy testing, etc.  Nobody could find anything other than what we already knew.  Food was her comforter.

 

It sounds like a single parent situation, and maybe they are having to use a food pantry or other supplimental source for food stuffs.  If that is the case, they are maybe receiving a lot of pasta and other high starch foods that are not all that healthy but filling and edible.  The article also does not say if the child's parents are of normal weight or not.  It could be a heridity issue or puberty.
Dec 1, 2011 6:34 AM Guest Paul G  says:

This is a disastrous direction and will be one more way we are on our way to losing our freedoms.
Nov 30, 2011 7:33 PM Guest Pam  says:
The state must have other reasons for stepping in - they don't have the resources to arbitrarily pull kids out of a home without justification.  As a previous classroom teacher in inner city schools, I have seen children that are neglected due to their parents selfishness (drugs, alcohol, own wants before the needs of their children), and the state has to be pushed really far before they remove a child. There are definitely issues we are not aware of here (privacy laws) - whether there is a mental and/or biological factor involved - at this point - it hasn't been resolved, and the child's health is in serious jeopardy.  When our son started gaining weight during puberty - we increased his activity and decreased the starch on his plate.  Parents who are acting with their child's best interest at heart do whatever they can to take care of them.  Allowing your 8 year old child to be 200 isn't taking care of them - its neglect - and that is a form of child abuse.  Thankfully, our country tries to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.
Nov 30, 2011 7:33 PM Guest Beth  says:
I think the state did over step their authority. I thought we lived in a country where there is supposed to be minimal government interference with people's private lives. There is a concern for the physical health of this child, but did they take all facts into account? Some people have a genetic pre-disposition to be heavy. Some have health issues, like thyroid problems and other physical imbalances for being overweight. It can take a long time to get to the bottom of these issues. Who says he is overweight simply because his mother allows him to overeat? This should outrage parents everywhere.
Dec 1, 2011 6:40 AM Guest Scott  says:
I am glad that you said that you do not know the facts surrounding the case. I can see a situation in which a child is obese due to abuse. In this case, simply allowing an eight year old to reach 200 pounds is neglect if not abuse. To invoke the claim of an overreaching judge is a bit of a stretch. To then take it to the exteme of the government removing children because the parents have a spiritual leaning (Christianity in our case) is going about 12 steps too far. It makes me sad that the prevailing view of Christianity today is less like Jesus and more like Fox news.
Nov 30, 2011 8:10 PM Guest Ramona T  says:

For sure new barriers in family authority and structure are being broken. I have never heard of a child being monitored by the school because of his weight..but I have been away from the "school" scene for quite some time..
To me an overweight child reflects the eating culture of the family, and if anyone should start changes; it is the parents that should make changes for themselves first...But then again, that is a private matter and a matter of personal liberty.

There is too much happening all at once that is very concerning about the intrusion of government into our everyday lives and, for myself, I try to live as responsible and independent of government benificence as I can. That is one way I can help continue preserving liberty and individual freedom.
I also think as Dr. Dobson has expressed many years ago, that the best place for a child is in the home.
There are many wonderful weight loss programs and the public school is not in the weight loss business...so in the end I would say that monitoring should go on and some famous person like the one in the "Biggest Looser" should step up and have a new reality program for children, and let the schools teach children what they should be learning at the age of 8.
Nov 30, 2011 7:39 PM Guest Carol  says in response to Brent W.:

According to the Health Department, obesity is an "epidemic" today with children.  Are we going to let the government go around removing all obese children from their homes?  And what will be the weight limit?  200 lbs?  150 lbs?   For many years, my son was underweight, not because I wasn't feeding him enough.  He was just built that way, small and thin.  I suppose the government could have decided I was unfit and removed him from my home, too.  This is definitely a scary situation.  

Dec 1, 2011 6:42 AM Guest Nissa  says in response to Pete W.:

While I appreciate your view on the matter, something struck me in your post. You stated that you "[...] believe that, while nearly all parents mean well, not all parents do well."

 

My question to you would then be, who is the judge? I am a Christian, but do not beleive that others who are not are bad parents. Others might disagree. I buy my children to many material things, one (myself included, I'm working on it) may think that this is not teaching my children responsible stewardship.

 

My point is that I do not think it is a tough call. Allowing your child to make poor food choices and not exercise, or making the choice for him/her, is not right. I do not agree with it. that being said though, I do not feel that it is a matter where the child should be removed from the home. Eventually that child will become and adult, and at that point he or she can choose how they will eat.

 

I do think that allowing your child to become severly overweight is setting them up for problems in the most important years of their lives, but so are many things we all do to, for, and around our own children. Where is the line?

 

If what you say about parents not doing right has any affect on whether they are entitled to their children or not, why doesn't the goverment get a head start and pick who is fit to parent versus who is not, and take neccessary steps to prevent them from concieving. They do not do it because they have NO RIGHT too. It is scary, the way our world is heading...
Nov 30, 2011 7:41 PM Guest Catherine S  says:
I have to disagree with Jim and the majority of opinions here.  I speak as a pediatrician, this is a form of child abuse. We are not simply talking about an overweight child here.  This child is four times what an average child should weigh!  These children can hardly walk because they are so large.  The reason this child has sleep apnea is because the excess weight on the chest makes it difficult for the child to breathe.  Imagine going to sleep with a 40 pound bag of sand on your chest. Sleep apnea is a serious problem and causes excessive strain on the heart and in some cases can lead to death.  This is not to mention all the other problems this degree of obesity brings on, such as diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver, etc. No one likes to take a child away from a parent but there are times when it truly is in the child's best interest to have them removed. It's a rare case when a chid is removed because of being overweight.  In cases such as these when the outside intervention is not successful, that I believe the judge does have the right to decide on what is best for the child. 
Nov 30, 2011 7:42 PM Guest Jennifer  says in response to Brent W.:
It certainly sound morbidly obese at first glace, but then again, I have a 7 yr old daughter who is almost 100 lbs.  She is also taller and significantly stronger than her 9 yr old brother.  She eats the same healthy foods as my 2yr old, 5 yr old, and 9 yr old - all of whom are normal or even slightly under-weight.  She is physically active.  Her father and I are both within the normal weight range, although my husband's build is quite muscular  My point is, there may well be underlying hormonal and/or genetic issues that we are not aware of.
Nov 30, 2011 7:43 PM Guest mokyfellow  says:

Before I could make a comment pro or con, I would have to know much more.  (1) I would have to know the true relationship of this boy to his mother and if there is a known Dad, what is his relationship with this child.  (2)  I would have to know what measures were taken during the past one-year period.  (3) Much more important is that I would need to know a lot about the Foster Home where this child is being placed.  With the above knowledge, then I could make a comment which would mean something.  Without this knowledge, I believe nobody should be commenting about this problem.
Nov 30, 2011 7:46 PM Guest Sandi  says in response to Beverly H.:
In the state where I live there is a critical shortage of foster homes.  And to top that off, several children have died while in foster care due to physical abuse.  Obviously, the foster care system is not able to do the job it was meant to do.  So, do we now start placing obese children into the system causing additional strain on an already over-burdened system?  Do we really think this is the solution?
Dec 1, 2011 6:45 AM Guest Don O  says:

No.  This is just another way for government to get control of our lives.  Instead parents

should be encouraged more to control the health of their children  and government

should provide the means to help
Nov 30, 2011 7:51 PM Guest Debra  says:

Hopefully well-intentioned, but I have serious reservations about the decision.  Very hard to justify separating the child from a parent solely based on weight. Will  foster care result in more benefit than harm?  How is the judge confident that the weight will change?  Clearly more issues underlyie the obesity.  Not enough facts, but it's hard for me to imagine an alternative more sensitive to the child's needs was not available.  And I am troubled by the implications for applying this authority to increasingly subjective situations.  We should all pray for this child.
Nov 30, 2011 7:52 PM Guest Patti  says:
No doubt in my mind that this is more than wrong it is a start down that slippery slope.  We can see how the government is getting more and more into  our lives.  If those social workers and lawmakers would try to look "out of the box" and come up with some creative ideas they could help this family while he stays at home. Mandatory  Home Health care could make home visits weekly and check the menu plans and amount of junk food in the house, discuss that and assist in planning the menu. Rewards for losing weight may help.  Careful oversight on a weekly basis along with an agreement with his parents.  Like others have said psychological  issues do have a lot to do with weight gain.  Get that help along with the weight management. My daughter was also 8 years old when she began gaining weight after a divorice and lack of attention from her father.  She did not get up to that extreme weight but suffered poor self esteam.  This child needs help, but it does not need to be taken away from his parent(s) and add to his anxiety.  Another  idea would be to add physical exercise to the regeime.  Enter him in a physical training or get him a trainer to work with him. Some of these ideas may be covered by private insurance, local or state assistance.  Maybe this would qualify him for some insurance through disabled children.  This is certainly a disability. If none of those would help ask for outside help, family, friends or raise money for these necessary aids. Pray that God would bless this child with a caring solution to this problem
Dec 1, 2011 6:55 AM Guest Jim K  says:
This is clearly an instance of the nanny state mentality progressing toward its logical objectives.  That is an environment wherein all and everyone are subject to the state.  Ultimately the progress will leave no real sense of autonomy of the individual men - all will be regulated to the good of collective man.  If we ever end up there, then the instrument of the collective - the State, will retain all authority - even over children.  I believe we have a biblical mandate for personal and familial responsibility.  Accordingly, we must comprehensively resist the progress of statism.  Even if that means some irresponsible families have unhealthy lifestyles and heaven forbid a if Bureaucrat goes unfulfilled and un-justified.
Nov 30, 2011 7:57 PM Guest glukeq  says:

For us Christians, there should be no question as to where our loyalty lies - The Church and Family. The State has no legitimate right to assert itself in these areas. God's institution of government may have a role to play in the punishment of those who violate the God-given natural law, but to extend that arm of force into any area which the State deems 'appropriate under their 'law'' is not only dangerous, but immoral and bordering on idolatrous of the State's decrees.

We must be willing to declare acts of our government immoral and illigitimate if in fact they are. Show me a perfect parent, and then I will grant them alone the right to cast the first stone. Otherwise, we may as well round up every child in the world and just bring beds into the public schools in order to create the perfect utopia.

Our world is not perfect, we are not perfect. Christ is the bright hope for this life and the real utopia in Heaven. As he changes hearts, our culture matures in the fruits of the Spirit. Without that, there is no hope for any of the social planning our society tries to implement.
Dec 1, 2011 6:57 AM Guest Jan S  says:
Taking a child out of a home whould be the last resort. Could not medical professionals be called in and asked to render an opinion? Is the child's problem harmonal, physical, phychological, or is it due to parental mismanagement? The answer to this question is paramount.  If the problem is due to the parents are at fault, mayb4e they need some cooking, calorie, carbohidrate counting classes. IF the problem is due to something the parents are, or are not, doing, is the only way any outside action should be taken. The word "judge" isn't spelled GOD. I wish they would learn that!
Nov 30, 2011 8:05 PM Guest Rhea  says:

It would be impossible to take a position concerning this case. We don't have the facts. There might be a valid medical reason for removing the child. We just don't know.

But in defense of CPS, how many of you leave your comfortable lives to pick up a child that the police just found in a house that's also a meth lab? Does CPS make mistakes? Absolutely, but they also save many kids from abusive and dangerous situations.

I have seen both sides of this argument and neither side is pretty. No, I don't work for CPS. I'm a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA). CASA is a volunteer organization that fights for the rights of the child. We make sure that the child/children have a safe, loving and permanent home. Sometimes that's back with the parents and sometimes it's not. When CPS gets it wrong we fight to make it right.

By the way, I work with many Christians in both CASA and at CPS who value the family, but we value the safety of a child first and foremost.
Nov 30, 2011 8:05 PM RosaRadrazz RosaRadrazz    says:
I have always struggled with my weight.  Several other family members have, too.  I believe sometimes, perhaps for medical reasons, it is very difficult to control one's own weight, much less that of another person be it husband, wife, son, daughter or someone else dear to you.  I am horrified that a child would be removed from his or her home because he or she is overweight.  Thank God no one removed my brother or me when we were young! Secondly, perhaps the family is eating a lot of carbs because money is tight.  Have you noticed the cost of fresh fruit and meat lately?  And thirdly, unless things have changed a lot from back when I attended public school the usual lunchroom fare  consisted of a lot of carbs and cookies and not the best diet for a child.   The child will be eating that no matter where he or she lives.
Nov 30, 2011 8:08 PM Guest Dawn  says:
I am all for the government staying out of families, I homeschool with a religious exemption for that reason.  I know social services oversteps its bounds and that foster care can be as bad as the situation from which the child was taken.  So, do we leave all children with their parents even when endangered to guarantee parents' rights, or do we remove some children to protect them?  Then, which children do we remove, and for what?  This child was not only slightly overweight, he was morbidly obese.  If he had been emaciated, would we be having this debate?  What about the chemicals in our food or a medical condition, noone has mentioned that these might be possibilities.
Nov 30, 2011 8:09 PM Guest Lindsay  says:

As a parent that has an overweight child, I find this absolutely disconcerting.  My son is 4 and weighs almost 70 pounds.  He eats an excellent diet and gets plenty of activity and outdoor play...it appears that's this is just how he is built.  I can only do so much as his parent...but this story...

 

Who gets to decide where to draw the line?

 

What is stopping the government from taking my little boy?  Certainly our situation isn't as extreme, but even so, why was the line drawn at a 200-pound 8-year old and not a 70-pound 4-year old?  My son is bright, healthy, active, a wonderful little boy...there isn't a better place for him than in our home.  However, I have no guarantee that the government would see it the same way...especially since we are already one of those crazy non-vaccinating, homeschooling families.  I know I'm not to worry, but stories like this put me on edge.  (Coincidentely, I was the same as my son until I hit puberty and slimmed way down.)
Dec 1, 2011 6:47 AM Guest Julie M.  says:
This is another example of the attack on parental rights.  One family had their son removed from the home because he complained to a school counselor that he didn't like going to church three times a week.  The judge told the parents that if they wanted their son back, they could not make him go to church more than once a week.  We need a parental rights amendment!
Dec 1, 2011 7:08 AM Guest Lisa F  says:

The states decide our schools are going to teach our children, starting in kindergarten, it's okay to be homosexuals and whatever else they want to teach them, and parents are expected to go along with it or they'll be labeled bigots.  The government allows and funds the annihaliation of millions of unborn babies and our teenage daughters can be counseled by strangers to have an abortion, and be given an abortion, without the parent having a right to know. The schools can give your child a vaccination for HPV, and the parent has no say. Now they're taking an overweight kid away from his family because he's overweight. How much more are we going to tolerate?

Nov 30, 2011 8:21 PM Guest Patricia  says:
As a nutritional consultant, I see things from a different perspective.   Statistics and studies have shown that a 10 year old child fed the wrong diet can already have heart disease comparable to that of a 50 year-old.  This child is only 8 years old!   There are serious health concerns besides weight:  diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, self-esteem issues, cancer risk, and a shorter life span.  Some key points were made in the article, the parents were offered help but the child didn't loose weight.  It appears the parents did not seek medical counseling, either.   A child does not get obese from eating healthy food.   Food can be as deadly as arsenic; in which case no one would argue someone should get involved.  When parents let their child become dangereously obese, and they cannot see that danger,  then yes, there needs to be intervention.  Foster care is temporary.   The parents will need nutritional counseling and an understanding that food can kill their child!   It is sad when a child is taken from the family, but I believe in this situation, it was prudent.
Dec 1, 2011 7:12 AM Guest Gary  says in response to Karen S.:

The action by Ohio officials is clearly wrong. This is a subjective standard that can be abused to no end.

People get fat because of eating carbohydrates - see the highly readable and well researched book Why We Get Fat by researcher Gary Taubes. The interesting thing is that the federal government has been pushing our diets more and more toward eating carbs and away from eating fat and protein.  Guess what, eating fat does not make you fat, eating carbs does. Is it any wonder that obesity and diabetes are at nearly epedemic levels in America?

 

The Ohio boy's family needs mentoring, preferably in the loving context of healthy church. Taking the child away is a punitive measure that is almost certain to harm everyone involved. Well, that is how I see it.
Nov 30, 2011 8:23 PM Guest Trap/LA  says:
state definitely overstepping!
Nov 30, 2011 8:29 PM Guest Schuman5  says:

The government has completely overstepped their bounds in this case. Our government does not do enough to enforce strict regulations on the preservatives and artificial enhancements that contribute to obesity. It seems that the family unit (whatever it happens to be for this child) was targeted by the government.
Dec 1, 2011 6:28 AM Guest LM D  says in response to Niki F.:
Niki F, I disagree that it's a "far stretch to be wary the gov't will try to take our kids from us for generalized health concerns."  Just remember, "Inch by inch, it's a cinch....mile by mile, it takes a while."  There are only 63,360 inches in a mile and while that still may take a while, it is just one of many ways for someone who wants to indirectly subvert our rights to reach their goal.  Yes, overstepping small boundaries now can push the boundaries just a little further so that next time the more difficult boundary will be even easier to cross.  I agree with you Mr. Daly, thanks for the thoughtful article!
Nov 30, 2011 8:32 PM Guest Darin  says:

It is very difficult to get all the facts of this case.  How many steps had the mother was taken to help the child lose weight?  How hard had the state worked in conjunction with the mother to help him lose weight?  How many tests were done to figure out if this is a medical issue which isn't going to be changed by mere diet?

The term "morbidly obese" is used for a reason.....it leads to an early death.

If parents/guardians are doing things which lead a child down the road to an obvious early death, shouldn't somebody be allowed to step in on behalf of the child?

This is a long, long way from the government stepping in because of a difference of political or religious beliefs.

Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who would give his life to keep the government from taking away my children because of religious or political views.  But I haven't put my children at risk of an early grave, either.

I know that it is a slippery slope, and I don't trust the government to raise children, but I can't blatantly say they were wrong in this case without knowing way more of the details.

I have a feeling that something could have been worked out with the child staying with his mother, but maybe that option had been exhausted.

Let us all pray for Godly wisdom to break through in the future for this young man!
Dec 1, 2011 6:33 AM Guest Lynda D.  says:
Children are born into families.  Families are where children learn their best lessons and can feel at ease and secure.  NO government agency can substitute for the wholeness and wellness that a child feels when he/she is with their own family.  As parents we have not only been given the right to raise our children in love and with patience, but it is our duty to care for them as only parents can.  Parents are not the problem, they are the solution.  We need to listen to our children and protect them.  More and more government encroaches upon our rights and duties.  Looking at the unease we are facing due to over spending of our tax dollars by government I would think they have no grounds to take a child from his/her parent due to being over weight.  Government needs to tighten up their own over weight spending before being critical of a parent with an over weight child.
Nov 30, 2011 8:38 PM Guest Colleen  says:
I am generally in favor of as little government intervention as possible.  However, this case does appear to be obesity in the extreme.  Sleep apnea can be very serious if left untreated.  And it seems pretty clear that his obesity caused this medical condition.  I don't think it would be reasonable to remove most overweight children from the home.  But this case repeated attempts to work with parents failed, and the child developed medical complications due to obesity.  I think it is reasonable for this to be considered neglect.
Nov 30, 2011 8:41 PM Guest Jill  says:
I'd agree with what Misty said and then I'd like to add that this is opening up a big can of worms.  Where is the line?  And does this mean that the government is going to start monitoring children who are underweight and take them away from their families?  I think the battle is on now more than ever for our children and families.  We must do more in speaking truth in love, pray more, and ask God for the wisdom we so desperately need as families and as a nation. IICh. 7:14 Praying...
Nov 30, 2011 8:41 PM Guest Mike  says:
I'm not a social worker but I seem to recall reading that State was only supposed to be able to intervene if the child was deemed to be in immediate danger and the parent(s) have proven unable to mitigate the danger.  While I know that morbid obesity leads to a whole host of problems, they are all EVENTUAL problems [which can be avoided by adopting a healthy lifestyle with a balanced diet and exercise -- and medication in the event of a thyroid disorder].  By stepping in before these dangers manifest, the State is setting a precedent for breaking up families for eventual problems -- that may never manifest (which is downright scary IMO).

I do have to add though that the likelihood of experiencing medical problems due to obesity is infinitely more likely than experiencing medical/psychological problems due to attending a pro-life rally [so jumping to the extreme here is probably comparing apples and oranges -- they're fruit but not the same.]  Still, it's quite a slippery slope and an expansion of government authority/power which I tend to be very apprehensive about -- the State should not have done this unless it was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the mother was unable to help her son to drop the pounds.  I'm also curious about the psychological side of the issue (usually we eat for a reason).
Nov 30, 2011 8:45 PM Guest marjorie  says:
the state is out of bounds. how much more emotional damage will this boy incur because he is being removed from his mother? the root isn't the food. just like the stupid left thought busing would improve the test scores of the poor they think giving money to strangers to raise this boy will help. The root of every sin is the sins of the father. this boy has some deep emotional unmet need. Fatherlessness is the root not food.
Nov 30, 2011 8:47 PM Guest Barbara  says in response to Misty:

I agree with Misty that eating disorders are psychologically oriented.  And weight problems could be genetic, as well. Will they take remove children from the home because they are too short or too tall or have blond hair or what is next???

I think this could have been handled differently.  This is getting too out of control.

Dec 1, 2011 3:56 PM Guest Yarn Lady  says:

Hopefully, we will become better informed to be able to make informed choices for our family without government intervention. Get involved.
Dec 1, 2011 7:22 AM Guest Robert  says:
How can we make an informed opinion when we do not have all of the details of the situation. This just opens up a whole lot of room for what ifs!
Nov 30, 2011 9:23 PM Guest Andy K  says:
We have all seen children existing under deplorable conditions with parents who seemingly could care less.  I have witnessed the suffering of several children from a member of my family, whose effects continue to this day.  It is the duty of other family members first to intervene, as ours did, but that parent refused to change. Children services, etc & the laws they are supposed to uphold were used as a last resort.  Barring a medical reason, there is only one way that child could weigh 200 lbs-the parents let them eat too much & move too little.  Child abuse occurs in more ways than obvious physical harm.  Gross neglect is child abuse.  The child needed removed temporarily.  Long term, if the parent doesnt change & another family member cant raise the child, then the state is a poor second choice many children have to endure until adulthood.    
Dec 1, 2011 7:12 AM Guest Diane S.  says:
This absolutely concerns me. The government is overstepping. And they think that foster care will be better?!? I think it would be very upsetting for the boy to be separated by his mother and "cared" for by strangers who are not committed to love and care for him for life. It is also setting a dangerous precedent.
Dec 1, 2011 7:15 AM Guest Dennis  says:
'Nobody should comment'...  HA!!  This is a clear case of government overstepping their bounds by a mile!  The courts and doctors who are not doing anything to help the child lose weight other than put him on a diet are not looking into the real issue.  A 3rd grader who weighs that much likely has health issues contributing to the weight problem.  The child's weight is not normal, or even within reasonable limits, but to make the jump that mom is unfit as a result is ludicrous at best, criminally actionable against the government at worst.  I hope the mom has contacted a good lawyer.  No parent should have to be looking over their shoulders or consulting a manual to see if they're in compliance with how the governement states they should raise a child.  But that's where we're headed if this ruling stands.  IT DOES NOT TAKE A VILLAGE!!  It takes loving, caring parents, and in this case, mom was seeking medical help for her son, whom she loves, but some nosy social worker looking to score points decided to intervene!  PROVE ME WRONG!
Dec 1, 2011 7:15 AM Guest john  says in response to Barbara H.:
you are absolutly correct Barbara!
Nov 30, 2011 9:40 PM Guest Debbie  says:
This is a definite violation of freedoms.  Also, there could be an underlying medical problem to his obesity.  I knew a child that had a condition where she never felt full.  Her mother went so far as to put locks on the cabinet doors since she couldn't affford any medical help.  The child in question was very overweight, by the way, since fattening, unhealthy foods are far cheaper than healthy ones.
Dec 1, 2011 7:14 AM Guest Rebeca  says:
Does this mean we get to remove the amount of overweight employees from the goverment as well? I think all the people proposing such rule should be 110lb before they can talk about the 40 child.  I believe a better way to approach this is to require the family attendance at a class that can help them make better nutrision choices for that child (and the rest of the family).
Nov 30, 2011 9:54 PM Guest george washington  says:

How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is  not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a  fearful master.
Dec 1, 2011 6:40 AM Guest Carolyn  says:
I do not believe the state should have removed this child from his home.  I have a few questions.  They say they had monitored the home for some time.  So, did they check what he was eating at school?  Or at his friends' houses, or at Cub Scouts or any other place he might go?  I'm sure he didn't spend all his time at home under his Mother's watchful eye.  Were there other children in the home?  I had four normal weight children and one who was chunky (at 28 he weighs over 400 pounds) and I did keep treats under lock and key, but was I supposed to deprive the others because one did not fit the norm?  Are there other adults in  the home who might 'feel sorry' for the youngster?  Yes, these are only speculations, but if the state thought there were other abuse issues the child would have been taken immediately.
Dec 1, 2011 10:11 AM Guest Dody V  says:
I really can speak to this problem.  First, the article I read about this  case included a statement from a woman who went thru the same thing a few years  back.  Her child was returned after 3 or 4 months, with no improvement!  The  child had a genetic problem.  Well, duh!  Doc's say a tiny percentage of weight  issues are cause by thyroid issues, but I am here to tell you ALL weight issues  involve thyroid issues.  If a woman has a slow thyroid, not treated, her baby  will be born with hyperthyroidism.  That is what happened with me.  Within just  a few weeks my mother was frantic, telling the docs that she fed me and fed me,  and it all rushed right through me.  I was losing weight.  It was 1940.  The  doc's said the only thing they could do was "an experimental" thing!  Mom &  Dad agreed, and it appeared I was "cured".  However, I spent the next 21 years  of my life refusing to go outside and play, wanting to just read books!  I was  an obedient and quiet kid, but I was constipated for the first 21 years!  Then a  doc noticed a lump in my throat.  They hit my thyroid with radiation and then  removed part of it, to see if there was any cancer.  There was not.  For 10  years they gave me a natural hormone, the cheapest and most  effective drug for thyroid problems!  I did very well.  But then, around 1971,  they switched me to a "new and improved" synthetic drug.  I nearly died  the first month!  They gave me a 2nd drug so I could tolerate this new and  improved drug!  I spent the next 28 years begging to be put back on the natural hormone that had worked so well!  Every doc said it was not  stable!  They sounded like they were all playing the same part in a stupid  play!  The script was identical!  Meanwhile I was gaining weight every day for  the full 28 years and slowing down in all ways!  In the end, I was in so much  pain, head to toe, that I was afraid I would end up on Permanent and Total  Disability because I would not even be able to dress myself!  I told my doc that  I would never take the synthetic drug again.  I said prescribe the natural  stuff that worked so well for ten years, because it is the only thing I will  take!  She said she didnt think they even made it anymore!  I said I had been  talking to Pharmacists and they did make it, and did dispense it, but the law  forbid the Pharmacist from telling me which doctors were prescribing it!  What  kind of law is that?  Well, the doc relented and over the next 7 years, with no  dieting and no exercise, I did lose a little more than 100 pounds.  Then they  changed the med I was using, and then changed it again and again, and it simply  would not work anymore!  Again, they claim it is not stable.  I say, if the pork  chops are fine, and the ham is fine and the pork roast is fine, etc., then  surely the thyroid is fine for making my meds!  Big Pharma is trying to remove  this natural animal thyroid med from the entire world!  I believe it is  impossible to get it in England!  (Lots of info on web site called STOP THE  THYROID MADNESS.)  Why are the docs so reluctant to help?  Well, once out of Med  School, the only training they get is from Big Pharma.  They are brainwashed!   And bottom line, no one makes any real money from putting us on the natural med  which is simply a by product of pork production and even today, costs me only $6  a month.  That is NOT a co pay!  That is me fully paying for the med!  By not  giving this needed hormone to the patients, lots more happens!  The heart gets  bad!  The kidneys get bad!  The liver may get bad.  In the end, every organ is  destroyed!  You may still be alive but you can barely move and you are likely  taking a long list of meds and having countless tests!  I pray about this every  night.  Take babies away from their Mommy?  Useless.  Wrong.  Criminal.  God  gave us pigs for a reason!  My father was born with one heart valve too small!   No one knew until he was 67 years old!  He had his valve removed and a pig valve  inserted!  No drugs were needed.  No "rejection" of any kind happens!  God made  the pigs for us to use!  He does not want us cutting other humans up for spare  parts!  My father lived another 16 years and he believed that if they had given  him another new pig valve he could have gone on for another long time!  We are  not getting the truth!
Nov 30, 2011 10:02 PM Guest cwicks  says:
This is a hard one.  As this is the first I've heard of this I don't know where I stand on this particular case.  However I do think that if a parent indulges a child to point that their life is in danger from being overweight that it is appropriate for the state to temporarily remove them from the home AFTER a predefined amount of time working with the parent to solve the problem has proved unsuccesful.  The problem here is that most parents who allow their child to get so obese that their life is actually in jeopardy are loving, caring parents but do not know how to set appropriate limits for their children. I hate to see a child taken from a loving home and put into the system, but sometimes parents need a wake up call that their job involves more than just giving a child everything he wants.  I have told my children since they were young that my job as a parent is to do what's best for them even when it is not what they want and the example I gave them (for a 2 year old to understand) was that sometimes they want cookies for breakfast and while that is what would make them happy it's not what's best for them.  Sadly I see too many parents that think their only job is to make their child happy and forget that what makes them happy isn't what is always best for them.
Nov 30, 2011 10:08 PM Guest Boll M  says:
If the government has the right to take children from their home because of being overweight, what's next, taking the mentally retarded away from their families like they did in Nazi Germany?
Nov 30, 2011 10:11 PM Guest jj  says:
Whatever happened to fat being a sign of prosperity. Doesn't it mean they are well fed? Isn't that better than starving them?
Dec 1, 2011 6:38 AM Guest Beth  says:
I do think that removing the child was overstepping.  I think that this family needs to be in family counseling.  As an ER nurse, I have noticed that obsesity runs in families.  Food is often used as a substitute-  "Eat a hot dog" instead of giving a hug.   That child may not have health problems now, but he will certainly have them.  Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc.  To overcome the difficulties of food addiction, a counselor is an excellent option, especially a Christian counselor.  Food addictions can also swing the other way with food being withheld to achieve a certain body image.  Both sides are wrong.
Nov 30, 2011 10:50 PM Guest wendy k.  says:
This is very similar to a recent case in New Jersey where children were taken away from their parents because of what their parents named them.  I am personally appalled by the names, but if the state can dictate what we name our children how far away are we from losing all of our freedoms and that includes our right to raise our children in our Faith!  It took nearly 2 years for this family to have their children returned to them!  Maybe what the family of the obese child needs is assistance from a dietician an M.D or a physical fitness trainer.
Nov 30, 2011 10:58 PM Guest Ken  says:
Each case needs consideration on its own merit, as the issues physically, psychologically and spiritually, are many and varied. Removal of a child from the home is the last resort, and only then if it can be proven that the foster arrangement can be a significantly better environment. If the parent(s) can clearly demonstrate measures to address the obesity, even if they are not achieving results, I feel that the govenment has no right to intervene. In my family's case, we resorted to extreme measures to combat our child's obesity, from locking up food, to treatment under one of the foremost pediatric obesity doctors, to hospitalization for a week at the age of 15, to scare tactics delivered by qualified professionals, all to no avail. As a former foster parent and the parent of an obese child who is now an obese adult, I believe that the devastating upset of the removal of a child from his/her home can scar that child for life. 
Dec 1, 2011 6:28 AM Guest Annette  says:
I think the government is much more involved in our daily lives than they need to be.  I believe as Christians we need to be more aware of those who are hurting around us and be willing to help in any way we can.  Hopefully we can do this keeping families intact.  I am aware of some situations where a foster or adoptive family can provide a better environment than the biological family however.  May we allow the Lord to guide us all in this crazy world.
Nov 30, 2011 11:03 PM Guest Debi  says:
I'm just going to try to answer your questions.  At what point is it appropriate for the gov. to decide an acceptable weight?  The gov. is not deciding on an "acceptable" weight.  As I see it, the gov. decided that a child was not allowed to live in an atmosphere that has become dangerous.  Whoever is providing his food for him is not providing for his optimum health.  The child weighs amost 4 times his optimum weight.  If he weighed the opposit, 1/4 of his optimum weight would there be any doubt that he was not being taken care of properly?  You question the motive that the removal was sighted as a preventative measusre stating that his "only" problem is sleep apnea.  First, please reveiw the definition of "preventative".  Part of the meaning of the word is to PREVENT problems.  Waiting until the problems have already appeared is waiting too long.  Would you wait until you hit the car in front of you before you replace your wornout brakes?  Obesity carries with it a whole list of physical and emotional problesms, too many to list here, if not at this moment, then later.   Second, sleep apnea is a serious problem.  Please look up the conquences of sleep apnea.  It can lead to death.  Besides that, sleep apnea causes one to be tired all day.  Tired all day means he can't reach his highest potential in his school work.  And, sleep depreviation is a serious malady of our society.  Check it out; there are too many repercussions for me to list here.  You asked is there anything from stopping the gov. from removing children from parents who smoke or engage in other physically harmful acts.  Quiet an extrapolation.  Smoking kills.  Even second hand smoke kills.  My answer to that is yes, remove them.  Besides teaching the children to smoke (slow suicide), these children often find themselves with lung cancer later on in life, I'm told.  Other physically harmful acts?  Like... doing drugs, being drunk most of the time, playing russian roulette, snake handling, taking poison?  Yes, remove the kids.  You won't like this, but some people should not be responsible for the lives of others, especially the defenseless and helpless, like children.  As for the comments that suggest there might be an underlying emotional reason for (their conclusion) the child overeating, it must be a long time emotional issue and isn't that even more reason to get the child to a different, hopefully, better place to live?  He needs help no matter what the reason for his weight.  A nation's greatness can be accurately determined by how well it takes care of it's vulnerable citizens.  If you're worried about the gov. infringing on your right to teach your children your morals and your spiritual beliefs, I think you're paranoid or just trying to pick an argument or both.
Dec 1, 2011 6:26 AM Guest Carol  says:

It is arrogant of the social workers to think they understand why the boy is overweight.  Often the experts are wrong.  Their approach to weight loss may be totally incorrect and therefore unsuccessful.  Did they put the boy on a low carbohydrate, high

protein diet?  Did they tell the mother to avoid everything containing high fructose corn syrup?  Was he observed for symptoms of low thyroid (which may not show up in a lab test)?  And on and on.  I believe there should be due process, with a lawyer for the parents, in any case of removing a child from his home.  And the issue should be immediately life-threatening, not an issue like this.  Our government has taken too much power over our daily lives and must be reined in.  Otherwise, children could be removed from parents for anything the social workers disagree with.  And did anyone ask the boy what he wanted?
Nov 30, 2011 11:23 PM Guest Fred  says in response to mokyfellow:
I think if I were to read a book about this boy or see a movie, not about his weight problems, per se, but about him.  About his hopes and dreams, who he was hoping to be in life, along with the challenges he faced in his life;  and then if it ended abruptly because he died from some complication related to his weight, I'd be fighting mad that nothing was done for him.  It would be one of those things that would get me worked up and angry again and again every time I thought about it.. probably for weeks or months.  I'd be mad at the mom, mad at the social worker, mad at the judge.  I'd wonder how they could've all sat back and done nothing.
    We live in a world where human beings are commercialized in a prison system that profits from modern-day human slavery.  Child-support nonpayment is a grounds to lose one's freedom like the debtors' prisons which are outlawed here.  The justice system, medical system, and every other system is out to squeeze whoever they can, for whatever they can.  We live in a world that'll lock us up for reasonable corporeal punishment of our own kids, and then lock them up for years on end when they do what they were bound to do without the benefit of our disciple. We are right to be weary.  If we started pulling off the skins, I think we just might see more wolves than sheep. They'd be happy to prey on our kids if a buck were in it for them.
    What do I mean by all of this?  The judge knew he was acting unpopularly, but felt he had something worth fighting for.  I do too; no telling how this could play out, but I hope God is able to use this benevolent action to affect postive change for that boy, where as the mother's (or parents') inaction was _obviously_ detrimental.  If the boy was 12 it would have made a world of difference, but if she's not able to have this influence on a 7 year old (the age when the problem was identified), this needs to shock her into getting her mommy card in order, even if it's not revoked.
    I'll lock arms with you in the street if this becomes "policy" based on some BMI (body mass index), or some other metric.  But when an 8 year old boy's body wakes him to keep him breathing at night, his well meaning mother (parents?)  need outisde assistance.
Nov 30, 2011 11:57 PM Guest Shelly  says in response to Melissa:
I agree with Melissa--the state has clearly overstepped its authority. While Melissa was -I assume-- being sarcastic in her list of "solutions", the scary thing is that there are radical liberals who really DO think the government knows more than parents do, and that its reach should know no bounds...People have replaced "God" with Big Brother in this country, which is fine if the government agrees & sanctions your beliefs, but if it doesn't, then kiss your religious and intellectual freedoms goodbye.
Dec 1, 2011 12:07 AM Guest Misha  says:

I actually found the information in this Time article to be quite enlightening:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/28/an-obese-boy-is-placed-in-foster-care-can-it-help/

I've done a search on this story, and nothing seems to suggest that the boy had any problems more serious than sleep apnea.  To me, that is no more life-threatening than a child with moderate-severe asthma, history of hospitalizations and ICU stays, who lives in a smoker's home (or is allergic to dust mites living in a dusty home with the heater blowing full force in the winter).  I think to even consider his morbid obesity at a life-threatening level, one would need a medical history documenting the beginnings of pulmonary hypertension, or worsening apneic/ hypoxemic episodes requiring ICU care.  (The other "life-threatening" conditions are more chronic...is his liver actually failing from fatty infiltration?  Does he have such bad coronary heart disease as to be on the brink of a heart attack?  Prob not at 8, maybe by 18 or 28.  Type 2 diabetes is usually a chronic process that eventually leads to end-organ failure over many years.  "Life-threatening" should also not be thrown about so cavalierly...does it mean certain death in the next hour, imminent death in the next week, likely death in the next year, or good possibility of shortened lifespan by 30 years?)  Pulm hypertension is a known complication of chronic obstructive apnea.  Once it develops, after a certain point, it continues to worsen, is extremely difficult to treat, leading to death. 

While the most obese patients do face life-threatening risks, working WITH the parents and giving them all the support needed ought to take priority.  If a biological parent who would do anything for their child is having trouble, how is it that a foster parent (who prob already has other foster children to care for) will do any better?  Even Dr. Ludwig, who first wrote about this controversy, said that in-home supports should first be exhausted before considering removal.  Given the HUGELY NEGATIVE LIFETIME repercussions of "ripping" a child away from parents--"IRREPARABLE DAMAGE"--as pointed out by Professor Sankaran, the only legitimate reason for doing so would be imminent life-threatening danger for the boy.  Were his doctors so concerned for his health that they warned of imminent death with the next hospitalization?

Dangerous territory indeed.
Dec 1, 2011 12:38 AM Guest Misha  says:

Follow-up from my last comment--I am a pediatrician too!  I'm not taking this disease lightly--I've personally seen 2 morbidly obese children die from irreversible pulmonary hypertension as a result of chronic sleep apnea.  But removing those kids from their parents probably would not have done much good--kids eat even more when depressed.  At least they felt the stability and unconditional love of their parents to the very end.  What we know of this Cleveland case really does leave one feeling so uneasy about the decision.

I do want to recognize that even in more straightforward cases of neglect/abuse/parental drug use, it can be difficult for judges and social workers to make the correct decision.  I've seen comatose brain-dead babies arrive at the hospital (after being shaken) because they were left in their homes despite physcian concern and clearly documented suspicious bruises at doctors office visits.  These decisions require DISCERNMENT, which is difficult. 

But I think that in those cases of clear neglect/abuse, the parental relationship has already been broken.  In a sense, they've already been "ripped" from their parents, so the balance of pros and cons (of removing a child from the home) is tipped differently on the scale.  Those situations are quite different from this Cleveland obesity case as we know it, where the parent-child relationship/ trust is still intact. 

Unless other details surface, I'm uncomfortable with the judge's decision, believing it sets a dangerous precedent and can open all sorts of floodgates.

Dec 1, 2011 12:56 AM Guest Betsy  says in response to Susan:
I have read many of these comments and tend to agree with yours.  There are many reasons people become obese and it isn't always about the amount of food a person eats.  It could be thyroid/hormone problems, food allergies, psychological problems such as depression, it could be from emotional issues, learned behavior, self esteem and feelings of worthlessness and so forth.  However, having a sister who works for child protective services, I know the qualifications and education these people are required to have.  Not saying they can't be over zealous or make bad judgments, but I do know what all my sister has to go through to prove to a judge that a child must be taken from their family for their own safety.  It is not an easy task.  In many cases, I think children are left in unhealthy unprotected environments way too long not to mention that the courts order children to visit abusive parents unsupervised against the protective parent's wishes.  More than likely, all the efforts they put into the year prior included checking for health and allergy problems, psychological problems, case studies of the family and their history and such.  We don't know the entire story here but I would bet there was more than puting a kid on a diet that went into this effort.  There had to be a pretty strong case to take this child away from his parents if it took a year to make it happen.  It could be necessary to put locks on cabinets and re-educate the parents, but one thing is for sure, there will continue to be efforts made to reunite this family if the parents cooperate and depending on what comes out while the child is in foster care.  It is extremely possible there has been sexual, mental or physcial abuse that is driving this child to eat to cope or it could simply be a disorder that is nobody's fault.  Obviously a strong intervention was needed to help save this boy's life, a last resort one might say.  And hopefully they will see if it was over indulgence and neglect or abuse vs psychological, physical or emotional .  
Dec 1, 2011 1:07 AM Guest Misha  says in response to Damon:
This is a very interesting argument from a tax perspective.  Certainly, a morbidly obese person who develops all of the possible complications--sleep apnea/ pulm hypertension, fatty liver/ failure/ transplant, coronary artery disease/heart attacks/heart surg, diabetes/renal failure/retinitis/peripheral artery disease/foot amputation etc... would certainly cost a lot of medical dollars!!  But then one can use the same argument for so many other different situations--what about the uninvolved parents buried in their careers that realize only too late their teen has developed a drug problem and promiscuous habits, floats in and out of rehab for the next 2 decades (and cannot land), contracts HIV, is noncompliant with those expensive meds so develops AIDS with all of its complications resulting in months of hospitalizations and every organ system failing...also very expensive.  The more we pay in taxes to support people, the more we expect the government to step in and punish people if they are not running their lives responsibly?
Dec 1, 2011 1:16 AM Guest Misha  says in response to Craig:

Some brilliant questions posed here!  I especially like your last point.  Where we falter to carry out our duties as the family of Christ, a void occurs--only to be filled voraciously by the State.  Perhaps it's time we really took care of our church families, "the saints" and their needs, the widows and orphans, our hurting neighbors...and had enough courage and love for our obese brothers and sisters to gently "rebuke" them about their poor stewardship of their bodies (the temple of God). 

Would you go so far as to say that run-of-the-mill obesity (not the genetic syndromes or hormonal probs) is a spiritual problem, since lifestyle habits and self-control are big components? 

Dec 1, 2011 6:16 AM Guest Carol  says:
Why don't the judges work together with Social Services, as they are supposed to, to find these children some help as in the form of diet counseling for the child(ren) and parent. Get them into some sort of program. Many are not taught proper nutrition. Some can't afford to eat fresh vegetables and stock up on high carbohydrate meals like pasta, bread, and potatoes. Don't just take the kids away, but help the family, work with them.
Dec 1, 2011 3:03 AM Guest John  says:
I have mixed feelings about this case.  I certainly agree that every possible effort should be made to keep children with their biological parents, and I would fight tirelessly against the government's ability to be able to remove children from a home that taught Biblical morality or home schooled.  However, I'm not sure the correlation is quite that direct.  While some people might debate what constitutes the best moral system or the best environment to educate children, I don't believe anybody is debating the fact that it is severely and dangerouslyunhealthy for an 8 year old to weigh over 200 pounds.  So, in my estimation, this is clearly a case of neglect.  That being said, I think the real question becomes how extreme the neglect has to be in the case of childhood obesity cases to warrant removal from the home, and what intervention measures (and over what period of time) must be first attempted before such a removal.  The government certainly shouldn't have the ability to arbitrarily remove "fat kids" from their homes, but perhaps the option of removal might be legitimate in extreme cases that have been documented over a prolonged period of time, where numerous intervention methods have failed.
Dec 1, 2011 3:55 AM Guest Debbie  says:

Overstepping their boundaries....like big brother..

I agree with the your statement: Let me take this another  logical step. If the government is able to determine what is physically  acceptable on a subjective matter do they also have the authority to  determine what is morally and spiritually acceptable as well? Could this  threaten our religious liberties if taken to the extreme?


Yes I do believe it is setting us up for morally and spirituallly acceptable....like the old saying give them an inch and they'll take a mile...
Dec 1, 2011 6:15 AM Guest Larry  says:
Our constitution guarantees us freedom OF religeon not freedom FROM religeon. The state has no right to do this, but they should offer counseling or at the very least suggest a christian counselor that is trained in eating disorders
Dec 1, 2011 6:15 AM Guest Jim  says:
The state decides right or wrong for your family? Maybe the China syndrome, have more than 2 kids the rest must die.
Dec 1, 2011 5:44 AM Guest NF  says:
I am a child welfare in the state of Ohio.  I am a Christian and a conservative.  I think you make a great point about the state overstepping it's boundaries...as they often do.  I cannot speak for the county in question, because I work in a different part of the state, but I do know that we work very hard not to remove children.  It is always a last resort, and due to immediate safety concerns.  I don't know the facts of this case, but I can guarantee you that the media does not have all the facts either.  Aside from the boy's weight, there are likely several other factors that went into the decision to remove the child.  This is the reason that several parties involved (social workers, judges, GAL's) have input into these decisions.  In my county we don't just remove children because we disagree with the parenting.  It is due to an immediate threat to the safety of the child.
Dec 1, 2011 5:53 AM Guest Linda  says:

I am pulled both ways on the removing the child issue.   A 200 # 8 year old sounds like ABUSE, not in the normal sense of the word, but abusive in harming the child for life.  Who determines what is healthy?  I don't know but I DO know THAT is not healthy.  There are so many children who are physically abused and nothing is done about it.  I just don't know the answer.

 

Not knowing the circumstances, I don't know Why the child is so overweight, but if the parent is a good, loving parent, I would hope there would be more help to get the child back to better health, rather than removing from the home.  However, if the parent just doesn't care about the child, maybe he's better off being removed.  Then again, there are so many abusive foster situations.  I ask God to protect the children.  I don't know what else to do...

 

I do NOT want the government interfering in personal lives; I fully believe the government has too much power and is too big already.  However, someone has to protect the children.
Dec 1, 2011 6:04 AM Guest Lucille  says in response to Catherine S:
I have to agree, Catherine.  I believe the judge did the right thing for the sake of the child's health.  Hopefully foster care will help him, although kids have been harmed there, too.
Dec 1, 2011 6:13 AM Guest retnurse  says:
I agree with everyone who says there is just not enough information to know whether the govt. overstepped its responsibilities.  Sometimes there are other health factors, but obesity is usually pretty simple.......too many calories "in", not enough "out".  The parents are responsible for what this child eats, and while they cannot monitor 24/7, there is definitely a heart issue here on the part of the parents and the child. Food is often used to appease, comfort and take the place of some other necessary emotional "work".   I know we hear horror stories about foster care, but if the foster home is a loving, caring one, the child may respond and become healthier.  I would hope the authorities are continuing to work with the parents so the child can return to a safe environment.  Right now, it obviously isn't a safe place, nutritionally,  for this child to live.
Dec 1, 2011 6:18 AM Guest Lilly  says:

I feel that the government is fast approaching the goal they set many years ago when they tried to tell us the 3 and4 years olds belonged in public school and that they would teach kindergarten children about sex.

 

The government is overstepping the boundries that were put in place for them when it was first started. Taking a child because of overweight is just plain wrong. There could be many reasons for this condition other than physical. Maybe he is a stress eater. I can tell you a lot about that because I have been one all my life. Is the mother financially able to buy good quality food like fruits and veggies or is she relying on rice and pasta?

 

In my opinion this is just plain WRONG.
Dec 1, 2011 4:50 PM Guest Diana  says:
Currently the states of America are abusing their authority on  every front concerning our children.  They are overruling the authority  of parents in a wide variety of areas.  If we all work together to amend  the constitution of the United States to include the right of parents  as the final authority on medical, educational, spiritual, and all other  decisions for their children, that right will remain intact despite  state or UN law.  Please take the time to make a difference  now securing freedom and liberty in parenting of our children and our  children's children.
Dec 1, 2011 6:46 AM Guest OnceOrTwice  says:
So if this child has been "in the system" so to speak, for a year and is still 3-4 times a healthy body weight, what would you people saying the state is overstepping have them do other than remove the child from his mother's "care"? I'm not surprised that many contributors here have the attitude that parents' "rights" supercede the interests of the child, as there have been many posts on other topics that defend brutal physical assaults on children with weapons as discipline. Give me a break. I suppose most of you also believe that Christian Scientists (and other cults/sects) denying their children needed medical care resulting in complications, reduced lifespan, and death are exercising their  "religious liberties"? Thankfully, we aren't living in a theocracy - yet. Be careful what you wish for.
Dec 1, 2011 6:54 AM Guest Melissa  says:
Here is what worries me...my kids fall in average zone for height and weight...but their school measures their BMI every year...I don't like this and never have since they started it.  Do they submit thoses statistics to the gov't??  I am not sure and I guess I should find out....My 6yr old brought an individual bag of doritos for snack time and it was deemed unacceptable...Excuse me, he doesn't drink pop, I limit his junkfood(he hardly ate any halloween candy), he is in sports, who is the school to tell me my kid can't bring doritos in for his snack.  Now my kid stresses when I pack his snack, whether it is healthy enough....6yr olds should not be worrying about such things.
Dec 1, 2011 6:59 AM Guest Chuck  says:

The State is way out of line here!
Dec 1, 2011 7:04 AM Guest Melissa  says:
I also wanted to add, I worry about this slippery slope, this could be a precedent setting case and we need to keep a watchful eye on it.  I looked to see if this ever happened before and found a similar case where they pulled the kid out of the home for TWO MONTHS, when the child did not improve in foster care they realized it was a genetic predisposition then gave the traumatized child back.  If this is something apparently that can be tested for....I would think and hope that these tests were done in this case before such drastic actions were taken.
Dec 1, 2011 7:00 AM Guest Stephanie  says:
Has this child ever been tested for any medical problems that would account for his overeating? My daughter has Prader-Willi Syndrome which is a genetic eating disorder and without constant monitoring could potentially eat herself to death!
Dec 1, 2011 7:15 AM Guest Kelly  says:
As a dietitian who has had some experience working wiht children at a pediatric hospital, I can tell you that these cases do not seem so gray when you are working with the family over the course of a year.  You see them over and over, yet no changes are implemented. I think most non-health care individuals read this and really don't know what a 200# 8 yr old looks like in person, struggling to breathe, joints becoming malformed under their weight, blood sugars elevated enough to tell you type 2 diabetes is just around the corner, their risk of kidney failure (and eventually dialysis) and  heart failure that will make them unable to even walk to bathroom has skyrocketed meaning they will likely die before 25.  This is not just overweight.  Many of these kids have been getting fruit punch and pop in their baby bottles and are now drinking regular pop all day.  WHen you see this in person, you know they are in danger and something drastic has to be done to save their life, yet the mother had a year to show some improvement and the health care team a year to determine it wasn't a metabolic disorder.  I truly believe that most reasonable people, who were not biased due to their discomfort with their own weight issues, would walk in an exam room, see this child and realize something had to be done.
Dec 1, 2011 7:26 AM Guest Sherri W.  says:
Yes, the government is definitely overstepping its bounds.  How long and far can this type of intrusion on the family go on?  It is happening all around us if we look carefully and most of us just sit back and let it happen!
Dec 1, 2011 7:29 AM Guest S.W  says in response to Kelly:
Yes, something needs to be done, but it is not the government's job to do it.  Our government is getting too much into people's lives.
Dec 1, 2011 7:34 AM Guest Michelle  says:
The state has gone too far.  The loss of a mother is too great a loss.  It seems to me this would have more far reaching negitive implications than being grossly overweight.  I agree with another comment below.  I wonder what the definition of  "work" is when talking about working with the family.
Dec 1, 2011 7:45 AM Guest Indy  says:

What I have observed is that Truth is rare when it comes to health and nutrition.  Until we agree that these homes needs to be completely cleared of refined carbs and processed foods, the problem will persist. Among other things, this "food" is addictive.  As I listen,  the advisors are themselves usually in denial.

Simple, whole foods only and our bodies find their way back to what it was created to be.
Dec 1, 2011 7:47 AM Guest Noli K.  says:
It just seems that there must be more to this story . . . neglect, danger, child abuse, something.  If not, the state definitely went way outside the box on this one!  It saddens my heart whenever I see a child in distress, being overweight or under weight, etc., but I do not understand taking a child from their parents without abuse being present.  Lord, help us preserve the family!  Thank you Focus for all that you do!
Dec 1, 2011 7:55 AM Guest Morag P.  says:

Mr. Daly,

 

I work as a paralegal and volunteer as a guardian ad litem, which program advocates for abused and neglected children.  I have not read the details of the case in Ohio (and probably should), however, assuming that the child's weight is not due to an underlying neglected medical condition such as hypothyroidism, the next reasonable assumption is that caloric intake exceeds caloric output and the burden for that rests on the parent.  I do feel that the court overstepped its bounds in removing the child from the home, assuming that there were no other factors in the removal.  Unfortunately, eating healthy can be expensive while processed junk food is cheap and often on sale.  Fast food dollar menus don't help at all either.  The parents of this child have made some poor choices and unfortunately, they are paying for that by having their child taken away.  The child may not be aware of the nutritional value of food and is certainly the victim in this as well.
Dec 1, 2011 7:55 AM Guest Sarah  says:

We remove children all the time for lack of appropriate care of the children by the parents.  Usually, these children are removed due to the neglect of parents to feed and care for them properly.  We seem not to have a problem removing a child from a parent who does not feed their child enough.

However, a parent who feeds a child to the point of morbid obesity is sentencing that child to a lifetime of serious health issues such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, joint disintegration to name just a few.  Rarely do children who begin life this way go on to live a long and healthy life.  Is that OK?  Just because those symptoms may not become apparent until the child's late teens, is it OK to set the child up for a lifetime of disease?

If social workers spent over a year educating the parents on how to properly feed this child (and themselves) and there was non-compliance, the child must be removed for the sake of his/her life.

Dec 1, 2011 7:58 AM Guest Michele G.  says in response to Misty:
Missy I agree with you.  I was a Foster Parent for many years and was very upset with social services because most of the parents that were drug and alcohol users didn't do them because of enjoyment.  They had mental health issues and I felt if they dealt with the mental Health issue instead of the addiction it would have been more productive.  If you don't know what the proplem is how can you fix it.
Dec 1, 2011 8:00 AM Guest Michelle  says:
I just have a couple questions....What will happen if the child gains more weight in foster care?  Will the state be held responsible?
Dec 1, 2011 8:18 AM Guest carmen  says:

Sleep apnea is a serious condition.  It can put stress on the heart, deprive the brain and other organs of oxygen and cause lack of deep sleep which can lead to learning and behavior issues, as well as other health problems.  I can't imagine having those problems at only 8 yrs old.  If the parents can prove that the child has some sort of health issue, such as a metabolism or hormone imbalance and therefore the obesity is not their fault, then they should keep the child. However if that is not the case, then I feel the state did the right thing by removing him from the home. We are not talking about a case of being overweight, we are talking about severe obesity. Clearly, they either let him eat anything he wants, or make him eat food he doesn't want, or he has a health problem.

In my opinion we should be much more concerned about gov actions to control what every person eats. For instance at my daughters school, no one is allowed to bring soda with their packed lunch. It is none of the gov/schools business if I allow my child to drink soda. Now, if I allowed my child to drink soda until he weighed 200 lbs and started having serious health problems, that would be different.  I don't think every overweight child is in danger of being removed from home.  But I think this child needed to be; based on the idea that his obesity can be controlled/prevented and his parents are not doing that.
Dec 1, 2011 8:20 AM Guest James  says:
A moral issue vs State Power.  Morals are privy to an individule.  State power affect all regardless of individual morals.  Can the government not do anything about a persons right to get fat or allow a child to become obeast, then impose on anothers right in forcing them to accept anothers ovesity?  One right should stop where anothers begin.  Ones morels is not anothers morels.  Therefore the state SHOULD enact laws for the general welfare of the public.  The problem with America and the states is we are no longer a Nation with Christian morals.  Thus EVERYBODY HAVE a RIGHT is based on no morals causing varied opinions and chaos.
Dec 1, 2011 8:17 AM Guest Carlos  says:

I don’t think that government should intervene with the family in these situations, I agree with Mr. Daly, where do we draw the line? This is opening a pandora box and who’s to know what the government will be overreaching next. I agree the child has a weight problem but now he’s got two problems or do they think the child is going to do better on foster care? I even see a law suit against the state if something else happens to that boy.

Dec 1, 2011 8:21 AM Guest M  says:
The government should not be allow to take away a child for being overweight.  They should be working with the family to help with healthy eating habits.  Unfortunately foods that are less expensive in the stores are junk foods.  I have heard so many people say it is hard to eat healthy and so expensive.  We all make choices and in order to teach our children we some times have to sacrifice and buy the things that we know are better for our family.  Even more than just eating habits, children need exercise.  Kids use to run and play all the time.  Now they are home with tv or video games.  Parents now have to try to be more creative to get their kids moving alot more often.   Creativity will play a big role if the parents are concerned about the safety of their children due to the neighborhood.
Dec 1, 2011 8:23 AM Guest Susan  says:

Being overweight as a child is not grounds to remove a child from a home.  I vehemently disagree with the state taking a child from a family based on that criteria alone.

Dec 1, 2011 8:30 AM Guest Michelle M.  says:
What if the child gains more weight in foster care?  Will the state be held responsible?
Dec 1, 2011 8:31 AM Guest carmen  says in response to Melissa:

Too many things are assumed. It is assumed that his mother was doing her best. It is assumed that the father is not helping.  It is assumed that the family is christian. It is assumed that the home is the one stable element in his life. It is assumed that he may not have gained weight in the past year. It is assumed that his mother has allowed all neccesary testing to confirm health problems as a cause of his obesity.

Weight may be an indication of health problems.  It may also be indication of emotional problems.  For all we know the boy loathes his mother.  We should not assume that he likes her.  There are tons of kids out there that can't stand their parents, and with good reason. Spoiling a child and allowing them to eat anything they want is not a loving parent that is raising their child right. That would be  just like saying you love your daughter so you would let her date anyone she wanted. Well, that wouldn't be good for her and would be irresponsible for a parent to do. So a severely obese child is a definite indicator that the value of the home could be bad. He could be overeating as a way to deal with stress/pressure or depression or loss or a feeling of worthlessness.  Being underweight and malnurished is also an indicator that the value of the home is bad. Would a loving parent starve their child?  Anorexia is not a matter of food, it is a matter of a bad home environment, emotional problems of some kind or something similar. Now, I realize that some children are undernurished because the family is poor, and that is a whole different matter of course.
Dec 1, 2011 8:42 AM Guest Jill S  says:

If they can remove a child/parent for NOT feeding an child, where do we draw the line?  I think it would be commendable for the "government" (school/youth services) to take the child for a medical exam (no expense to the family) to determine whether the obesity is do to systemic issues or parental "neglect" in this situation.  Then, if the doc prescribes a diet/exercise plan and the family knowingly fails to adhere to what is best in the child's welfare, that is neglect.

 

Forget that families have certain rights to parent as they see fit. If you are intentionally refusing to do what is best for the child -- and likely there have been many opportunities over the last year to ask for guidance -- you may well be incapable of understanding what is best for the CHILD.  Walking around at 200# for those of us for whom that is way over what would be best for us is difficult.  Please don't sentence that child to a lifetime of taunting -- perhaps even being overlooked for jobs and social opportunities -- out of convenience to a family.

 

PLEASE bear in mind that not all parents and guardians are truly capable of doing what is best for the children in the family arrangement without help.  If they refuse the help and fail to do what is in the child's best interests, someone has to step in.

 

If the child was allergic to peanuts, which can require extreme diligence on the parents' part, if the child wasn't protected from inadvertent exposure to peanuts (anaphylactic shock and possibly death?) because the effort to attend to the child was too much work, what would you all recommend?
Dec 1, 2011 8:40 AM Guest Lois  says:
Absolutely not should the state remove the boy from his home. This is a medical condition, not an illegal action. Parents and doctors are the guides here, not the impersonal government. It is an act of terror to remove a child from his home and family when there is no fact of abuse or neglect. Socialists want their ideal of perfection impossed on everyone else, regardless of U.S.Constitution's protection of liberty and freedom. Families are the foundation of our society. Mess with them, and one disturbes the very base of our nation.
Dec 1, 2011 8:44 AM Guest Audrey Aune  says:
The nanny state is encroaching!  It is very sad and unfortunate that this child is so overweight, but the state has no business removing the child from the home!   Instead, require the parents and child to participate in remedial health education and counselling and followup with weigh-ins over a long period of time.  Of course, here we are incurring additonal health care costs, possibly to the state...BUT...social services should not be empowered to make these decisions.  AJ
Dec 1, 2011 8:49 AM Guest carmen  says:

I see alot of comments here about how taking him from the home won't help him. He could gain more weight.  He might be stressed by being removed.  He might be emotionally damaged. ect.

Yes those are all possibilities. But that does not mean the state should not try to help him.  We realize that treating a child with cancer, may not cure him, but we do it anyway.  We realize that children can suffer emotionally from lots of things, but we take those risks sometimes. Clearly if he is not getting better where he is at, what is the harm in removing him?  He may get worse? well, so what, he already is so bad that his life will never be normal.  Take a risk and try to help him.  If he goes to the state and gains weight or gets worse, return him to his family. But at least someone can say they tried, right?

 

There is also a general consenus here that raising a child is a God given 'right'.  But I don't know of anywhere in the Bible that it says that.  God told Adam and Eve to have children. But I am pretty sure that God intended for them to also raise them and take care of them, even though it only specifically says to have them.  I don't see anywhere in the Bible that God says it is ok for a parent to parent their child any way they want even if it is ruining them.  When a child is starved, beaten, sold for sex, ignored to raise themselves, unbathed and unkept, or so fat they can hardly move and their heart is fixin' to give out, their parents 'right's are over.  In my opinion it is a shame that the gov doesn't step in more often.  Just how many kids have been starved, denied health care ect, while people have made report after report and Family Serives does NOTHING to help the child.  I had a family on my street that fostered a boy last summer who they said was hotlined 52 times before services finally removed him. 52 times?!  When are we going to wake up and demand children to be taken care of? It's kind of sick for people to constantly turn their heads and say 'none of my business'.  If YOU were that chlid, would you want to be treated like that? Some day this boy may THANK his social worker for helping him, did anyone think of that? There are lots of crooked social workers out there.  Just like there are crooked cops, bad teachers and doctors that will rip you off. But there are many that are very sincere good people just trying to do their jobs, and trying to actually help others.  As christians we should not be so quick to judge the situation in a way that assumes the social worker, the doctor, the mother, or anyone is a bad person and is power hungry or out to ruin the kid....
Dec 1, 2011 8:49 AM Guest cherrie  says:

i beleve that this should be between the parents and doctors. jumping to talking about it just gets everyone to speckulate which does not help anyone. but prayer does. as for the government taking away our rights, focusing on a rally of Christians to prayer is better. i find that nothing compares to prayer. i would encourage everyone to pray for this family and everyone invold and leave the rest up to the LORD.
Dec 1, 2011 8:49 AM Guest Carol  says:
This makes me feel very uncomfortable.  That the "State" would determine to remove a child from his home due to issues of weight is one step closer to Big Brother taking over in A er arena's of our lives.  monetary fine might have been a better step, to induce the parents to be more health minded.  Even that may be a step too far.  In a world where the FDA allows so much junk food on the shelf, to serve the lobbying interests of the manufacturers of the junk..now that they have us addicted and we are experiencing the results they want to remove children for their own safety???  just seems wrong!
Dec 1, 2011 9:01 AM Guest Jeff  says:
No way should the state have anything to do with it.  It's that simple.
Dec 1, 2011 12:19 PM Guest Jean H.  says in response to Renee:

I work in the health care field. I also am an advocate of "natural" products, and therefore believe that ALL persons should be "taking their health into their own hands"~~meaning that we cannot rely on the healthcare industry for the answers for obesity (or other health issues). I have an obese sister who became obese in college. I saw it happen before my very eyes within 2 years. She remains even more obese now. It is because of the foods she learned and chose to consume while rooming with college roommates. She has developed high blood pressure, congestive heart failure and diabetes because of her obesity.
As far as this child being taken out of his home by social services, I believe it is wrong.  The mom could have prevented it by changing her family's eating habits (we are not told if SHE is obese also, but chances are that she is). It sounds as though SS had been working with her (for a year), and she apparently did nothing to change things.  I am NOT a believer in social services being involved in any family's life. They have become an organization which thinks that they KNOW MORE than others (which is dangerous).
We ALL need to educate ourselves on our health and what it takes to get healthy and keep oursleves healthy. Our doctors CANNOT do this for us. May God Bless us as we stand up for what is moral and healthy for society.
Dec 1, 2011 10:49 AM Guest carmen  says in response to Misha:

Sleep apnea is serious, it can cause death, and most people have to sleep with a montior, mask or an oxygen tank. That is pretty serious for an 8 yr old to have all because he is over weight and can be prevented.

 

If a child is diagnosed with severe asthma and ciggarettes aggravate that, and his mommy cannot lay down her ciggarettes, then she loves her ciggarettes more than her child, and her 'right' to parent him is over.

 

I had a neighbor girl come over to play once with her head dowsed in kerosene.  Stunk to the moon.  I can't imagine how ebarassed she was (emotional abuse?), not to mention she had chemical burn down the back of her neck.  Last I knew that stuff is highly flamable (physical endangerment?)  Went next door to talk to her mom.  She did it to kill lice.  The mom was too lazy to even rinse it out. Then while smoking a ciggarette she said they used the kerosene because they couldn't afford lice shampoo.  Really!? But you afforded your smokes, huh?
Dec 1, 2011 9:11 AM Guest Maggie D  says in response to Barbara H.:
I agree with Barbara, they complain about what we feed them, they complain about what we don't feed them, we can not always control our children but we do do the best we can.  Some children would starve before they ate things like "peas", or just spit them out.  There are other issues that should be worried about like drugs and alcohol  in the homes, drop outs and teen sex and suicide.  Having enough to eat is the least of our problems. I think some social workers just had toooooo much time on their hands and targeted a person to set a new agenda.
Dec 1, 2011 9:19 AM Guest carmen  says in response to Martha C:

Anyone who believes a child should not be taken from their home for any reason clearly has not seen the kinds of abuse parents put on thier kids.

Terrible things happen to childen, too gruesome and cruel to put in print on this forum.

 

I suggest a book titled,

A Child Called 'It'

 

by Dave Pelzer

Can buy it on Amazon for under $10.
Dec 1, 2011 9:38 AM Guest RubyG  says in response to Tammy:
I completely agree with the fact that this child will now be subject to serious emotional trauma. Looks like the courts have set him on a destructive course for this new chapter of his life. Shame on them!
Dec 1, 2011 9:39 AM Guest Bill  says:
This decision sets a troublesome precedent.  While the parents in this case are clearly negligent, it is not the role of the government to deal with it, and by allowing them to deal with it we open the door for them to take the next step.  The next decision may deal with parents who smoke, the next with parents who keep guns in the house and so on and so on.  Then one day we will wake up and realize that we have forfeited all of our rights to raise our children according to our own values and covictions.  Americans have to STOP looking to the government for answers in cases like this and take it upon themselves to deal with the societal challenges in their communities.  How is it that no one has come alongside this family out of a sense of compassion and helped them understand that they are setting their child up for a very difficult life - all becasue they don't want to tell their son "NO".  We need to stop telling ourselves that the business of people in our neighborhoods is none of our business and start taking courage and offering unsolicited advice to our neighbors in a spirit of gentleness and love.  Societal issues like this one can either continue to become the responsibility of the government (certain loss of freedom), or the Christian community can put on thier big boy pants, step out of their church buildings, and start getting their hands dirty in the lives of the people around them.  If we don't, the day will come when a judge decides that the Biblical education you are giving your child is going to handicap him or her in this secular society we have allowed to rise up out of the ashes of our constitution. 
Dec 2, 2011 12:42 PM Guest Kell B.  says:

NO ONE ANYWHERE EVER has proven that fatness is related to overeating, or that fat people eat more or differently than thinner people. NO ONE. ANYWHERE.

 

NO ONE ANYWHERE has EVER come up with any scheme, including drugging or gastro-intestinal mutilation (aka. weight "loss" surgery), that results in safe or permanent weight "loss.' ALL WEIGHT "LOSS" IS REVERSED IN 100% of PEOPLE AFTER FOUR YEARS.

 

NO child removed from a loving home by a government has EVER had any major change in their weight. NONE.

 

And, HOW DARE ANYONE presume to accuse fat people of "neglect" SOLELY BECAUSE OF GENES?

 

"OBESITY" is no more a "problem" than being "over tall." (And, by the way, "over tall" people die a lot faster than "overweight" people do. ALL FAT PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE "SUPER OBESE" HAVE HEALTH PROFILES AND DEATH RATES EQUAL TO PEOPLE CURRENTLY CALLED "NORMAL" AND THE LOWEST DEATH AND ILLNESS RATES ARE IN PEOPLE CURRENTLY CALLED "OVERWEIGHT."
Dec 1, 2011 11:25 AM Guest Tom G  says:
Government at any level should not intervene for this reason -- obesity.  Physical abuse is another matter and should be dealt with as a crime, which is against a law.  Being obese is not YET a crime.  This is another example of government control over lives.
Dec 1, 2011 11:28 AM Guest John E  says:
Everything depends on the facts of the case.  If this is a physiologically "normal" kid whose mom is feeding him cake and candy instead of real meals, then, yes, he's probably a victim of neglect, if not abuse, and needed to be removed.  Especially if the state had been monitoring the family situation for the year previous to removal and the family was uncooperative.  On the other hand, if he's got a physical/biological problem that produced his obesity and the state just thinks they can "do better than the family," then they overreached.  Having been a legal counsel to a social services agency many years ago, I can tell you that terrible things are done to kids by some seriously depraved parents/caretakers.  With that agency, in the few instances where individual social workers attempted to interfere beyond their legal mandate, we reigned them in.  Most social workers are not interfering busybodies, bent on subjecting everyone's family life to government surveillance.  Nevertheless, the bottom line for Christians is that the state has the capability of doing anything its agents think they can get by with, up to and including harassment based on political and religious ideologies and "political correctness."  Ideologically-driven and biased social workers and managers do crop up.  Unless we remain vigilant to protect our liberties and hold rogue government workers to account when they step out of line, what is rogue today will become normal tomorrow.
Dec 1, 2011 9:58 AM Guest Bryan  says:
This is not the Governments job. They are not the nanny for all and have no right to take the child from his parents. Taking this child from his parents will do more long term harm than than doing nothing. They have violated the Constitution and the rights of the parent and child. This is not the Government's job to pick and choose situations where they intervene for someone's protection. They have violated the law by what they have done to this family. And if "We The People" allow this to happen with no outcry, then who's next. This is serious and a violation of our rights. Those involved in this child being taken from his parents should be held criminally liable and fired.
Dec 1, 2011 10:20 AM Guest Marsha McComb  says:
I agree with Misty.  Overeating to this extreme is almost ALWAYS for psychological reasons.  People overeat for comfort or (as in my daughters' cases) in hopes of becoming "unattractive" to someone who was preying on them sexually.  Instead of taking the child away from home-which could cause more stress and cause MORE overeating, try to get the child to a decent counselor.  No one ever delves deeply enough to find out the reasons for abnormal behavior.  They put a band-aid on a cancerous lesion and proclaim it "all better".  Just remove the child from the home and everything will be solved!!!!  (Now, if therapy shows that something horrible is happening in the home, of course the child has to be removed.)   You HAVE to get to the root of the problem and there are, unfortunately, too many horrible therapists/counselors out there who don't know what they're doing.  We have to pray for more God led counselors!
Dec 1, 2011 10:24 AM Guest concerned citizen  says:
The State has clearly overstepped their boundaries.  Work with the mom financially, medically and nutritionally to change the diet of the child.She said that she tried to cooperate with them. I believe her. What was their previous intervention like?? Does the State know if he has a physiological problem that causes obesity?  Either way, the State is out of line as is its custom!  How many children have died in this country due to obesity? How many have died in foster care? How many have been permanently scared(molested/physically abused etc.) due to the States foster care system??? How many are in the streets homeless and jail due to being in the system and then being discarded after a certain age? We see how the State can help families. The money spent to have him in foster care and all that is involved with that,  will cost more than helping her financially, nutritionally and medically to find help for him.  What will this kind of buddinsky lead to next?  The State wants total control. They really have not solved many problems for families but has made them worse very often. What Gall!
Dec 1, 2011 10:26 AM Guest concerned citizen  says in response to Barbara H.:
I AGREE FULLY WITH THIS POST!
Dec 1, 2011 10:44 AM Guest Julie  says:
While I do believe that allowing your child to be morbidly obese (unless there is a medical reason) is a form of abuse.  Please be aware that sleep apnea can be fatal, not to mention all the other ailments that come with being that over weight.   But I have to say it FRIGHTENS me!!!  If they can remove a child for this, I feel like we are in for much worse.
Dec 1, 2011 11:50 AM Guest Jana F  says:
150 pounds overweight is alot. I have known mothers who took their own emotional illness and just destroyed their children with it. I think the state should be allowed to take the child out of the home for reasons of neglect but only after a medical assessment, to be sure there is no medical reason for the weight issue. Also I think the state should work very hard to get that boy back home and the parents into Christian counseling. I doubt secular counseling will help. But that's another email. I'm sure the hope is that the state actually removing the boy will help the parents wake up and address their own issues. It's tough, not knowing the details but we all know that sometimes what appears to be a horrible occurence turns out to be the best thing that ever happened. The kid needed help and he got some from people who happen to work for the government. He may be going through relief being away from his parents emotional projection onto him. Or he may be going through pain being seperated from his parent but either way he is able to independantly address the weight problem and that can change the outcome of his entire life.
Dec 1, 2011 10:54 AM Guest Kim P  says:

In the infamous words of Bill Cosby, who was quoting his father, "I brought you into this world; I can take you out!"

When the State can "bring a child into this world"... then they may have a case I'd support.

 

As for now, they don't.
Dec 1, 2011 10:59 AM Guest Angie  says in response to Misty:
Misty, I think you have it exactly correct!
Dec 1, 2011 10:59 AM Guest Christina  says:
8 years old and 200 lbs.  We are not talking about a few pounds here!  I have two boys and this is very disturbing to me. What about the health of this child?  If the social workers had been monitoring for over a year and with little help from the parent then this looks just like neglect.  Just as bad as physical abuse and in these cases we are happy when the state stpes in.  There certainly could be other emotional problems going on here but it could also be neglect in the form of lack of discipline from the mother to teach her child self control and obedience.  This is s sad story.
Dec 1, 2011 12:03 PM Guest Maureen S.  says:
You are going down the slippery slope way before you need to. I was a social worker in Child Protective Services for 32 years. The State is not deciding anything. A physician has already determined that the child is being medically neglected. A judge agreed. I am sure that the child is having regular contact with his biological parent, which is standard procedure unless there is serious physical danger. The fact that the state worked with this family for over a year indicates that there was a clear effort to assist the parent. Every case is different. However, sleep apnea is also serious, so to say that all the child exhibits in the way of side effects is sleep apnea is disingenuous.
Dec 1, 2011 12:05 PM Guest Suez  says:
I think the Governement is too controling... let's talk about Germany and WWII, how about China and a '1' child policy.   Is it the Governments right to step all over our personal rights?  How about when the officials step out on their marriage commitment, does anyone remove them from office?  It just goes on and on and on...
Dec 1, 2011 4:47 PM karen1 karen1    says:
This is a tough issue. As a Certified Health Coach, I'm now spending my time working on helping America get healthy and deal with our obesity problem, I'm quite concerned about this. Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese  The boy, at his weight, is considered at risk for developing 1) Hypertension - Research reveals that hypertension is more frequent, nearly nine times more, in obese 2) Type 2 Diabetes - Obese children, especially those with a family history of type 2 diabetes, run a significantly greater risk of developing the disease. 3) Orthopedic complications - The cartilage in lower limbs and joints in children is at a developmental stage. Obesity can damage the cartilage since it is unable to bear more than average weight. 10 extra pounds adds 30-50 pounds of extra force to joints. Since his weight should be 60 pounds, that means he's putting an extra 4200 - 8000 of force on his poor little joints! 4) Sleep apnea - This is difficulty breathing and the absence of respiration during sleep. He has this condition, and its a serious one. 5) Depression - The psychological and social stigma that is associated with obesity can be more traumatic during childhood and adolescence. This can lead to mental disorders like depression. 6) Asthma – Many obese children are at risk of developing asthma due to a lack of pulmonary exercise, as well as a prolonged exposure to dust mites and other household allergens from leading a sedentary lifestyle. 7) Liver and gall bladder problems  8) High Blood Pressure 9) High cholesterol 10) endometrial (cancer of the lining of the uterus), colon, gall bladder, prostate, kidney, and postmenopausal breast cancer. With these well documented health concerns, I don't consider this a subjective problem, but a well documented medical problem. One that is rampant in our society.

Unfortunately, its an even larger problem in the church! Purdue University Professor Ken Ferraro conducted a study in 2006 and found that church goers as a group are more overweight than the general population.

I concur with the concerns of removing a child from their home. How devastating for all, and what are the long term ramifications for the family, the child and our society if that is allowed? Again, this is a very tough issue.

Karen M.
Dec 1, 2011 12:13 PM Guest Bill C.  says:
Not being aware of all of the facts, my initial reaction if negative toward the government.  However, as a retired teacher/counselor with over 40 years of working with students and parents I was constantly amazed at how well "parents obey their children".  Overall I do not think that this government interference is good, but I have seen and intervened, as a counselor, in some situations where the only salvation for the child was an agency intervention.  It was always, for me, a last possible effort to do what was best for that child.  Not all people who become child producers deserve the title of  Parent!!!!!
Dec 1, 2011 12:17 PM Guest Tracey  says in response to Barbara H.:

I agree with Jim that I think this could lead to the state getting into all kinds of "right and wrong choices" made.  One point that you need to remember.  The state can take a child who is grossly underweight, due to neglect. So it is true that the state can take a child because of their weight. In that case, it is the business of the state, if a child is so neglected that they are starving.
Dec 1, 2011 12:20 PM Guest Sarah  says:

As many have already said, this is a tough one. I personally believe that overfeeding your children to the point of obesity is a form of child abuse. I mean...a 200lb 8 year old!!! REALLY?!?!?!? I would be interested to learn what steps the social worker had been taking over the course of a year. If this mother was given the necessary education and tools to help her  child lose weight/eat healthy and she chose to neglect the issue,  then obviously her child is incurring a type of child abuse. This mother was given a year to help her child, and she chose not to.

 

That being said, I don't think that it is the government's responsibility aka the TAXPAYER'S responsibility to pay for this child to be taken out of his/her home and placed into foster care. Whenever the government is given access into our homes and private lives, there is no telling what boundaries they will cross.

 

These are the moments when I ask, "WHERE IS THE CHURCH?" We have to start reaching outside of our four walls if we want to be the hands and feet of Jesus. There is obviously something going on in this home. How many of her neighbors pass by her house on the way to church every Sunday?

 

We are living in scary times in America.

 

PS -
Dec 1, 2011 12:30 PM Guest susan .  says:
Although there are many aspects to be considered here, I believe taking the child from his mother without significant awareness of physical and emotional abuse is the wrong thing to do.  WE are going to pay for a foster family to care for this child.  Why not have the state pay for a live-in nutritionist and weekly therapy to rule out obesity from poor nutrition and psychological trauma before removing him from his home?
Dec 1, 2011 12:25 PM Guest Misha  says in response to carmen:

Not sure that people here are saying that raising a child is a God-given right.  I think that most people are referring to parental "rights" as having the freedom to fulfill parental responsibility--which IS a God-given task--to the best of our ability according to our deepest held beliefs.  Of course it is perfectly reasonable to remove that right if one utterly fails to fulfill the responsibility.  Most of us would agree that the right is removed in cases of willful starvation, neglect, physical and sexual abuse.  I think what people are unsure of is whether this case, esp since some crucial details are unknown, counts as physical abuse or neglect, or run-of-the-mill parental incompetence. 

I totally agree with you that many kids who ought to be removed are not removed early enough...and sometimes we end up with dead kids because the appropriate steps were not taken.  Judges and social workers have a very tough job of figuring out the "truth" amidst confusing facts and the fact that the very nature of our sinful world blinds us from the truth.  It is a tough task to DISCERN rightly.  We can only pray that God will give them wisdom to make the right decisions.

Our social services system is overburdened--they have to sort through alot of crying wolf (all of those divorce custody issues, for example, where parents are maligning each other to settle their own scores but the kid is actually ok) and be able to figure out when the truly bad situations are.  Mistakes are made on both sides. 

Not sure that the answer is more involvement, but perhaps BETTER and MORE CORRECT involvement. 

And why do we always have to wait for the govt to step in?  As Christians, we ought to be out there, lending a hand to our overburdened and hurting neighbors and supporting people to get into rehab, volunteering to cook healthy meals for the overwhelmed family, volunteering to take the obese child out to the park more often, etc. 

 
Dec 1, 2011 12:32 PM Guest kevin j.  says:

This one is easy.

As much as my heart goes out to the boy, the government has no right to take him away from his mother and family--period!

Certainly, obesity is evidence of an incompetent parent. But 50% of parents have below average parenting skills. And only 10% would recevie the grade A, and 3% A+.

Though all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, not everyone has the same gifts. Clearly, this mom is lacking many gifts. But the government has no, I repeat NO parenting skills. The government is not our parent, and the sooner we stop thinking of it as one, the sooner our nation can get back on its feet.
Dec 1, 2011 12:29 PM Guest Nina  says in response to Barbara H.:
I do agree with you I would also like to point out that it says, the state has been working with the family for the past year and it doesn't mention any improvements. There is a lot of lacking information in this case, but I do know kids that have eating disorders due to lose in the family, mental issues and genetic disorders (can not digest protein in meats and food allergies).  When someone justs meets these kids it is always a fight, even with other parents that don't think till after they have opened their mouth.
Dec 1, 2011 12:39 PM Guest Shell  says in response to Brent W.:
I completely agree! Well said! Thank you for your post!
Dec 1, 2011 1:04 PM Guest Misha  says in response to carmen:

Thanks for your thoughts!  I can sense your personal experience and frustration with bad parents and children that have suffered much harm.  I'm glad you have a heart to love and defend the helpless! 

I'm certain I mentioned I'm a pediatrician and have seen 2 deaths resulting from irreversible pulmonary hypertension, which was a direct complication of sleep apnea from morbid obesity?  (despite a short practice span of less than 1 decade)  So I'm def not minimizing the seriousness of the situation.  I think what people are trying to figure out is weighing the potential harms of keeping the child at home (and seeing his illness progress) vs. taking him away (well-documented lifetime emotional and psychological issues in the psych-socio literature).  As many people have pointed out in their comments, it's difficult to say without more info (like medical records and social work intervention details).  I think most people are just guessing based on what's come out in the news--namely, that more could have been done to help the mom and the boy has only sleep apnea (no documented pulm hypertension or right heart failure, just potential to develop them).  We can't really make a fair opinion unless the court documents are made public. 

I'm glad your thoughts are staying consistent!  If it were the case that every child with bad asthma were to be removed from their smoking homes, goodness, that would be alot of work to pile upon an already stressed-out and over-burdened social services system! 

I'm sorry to hear about your neighbor.  Legally, since she does have the chemical burn down the back of her neck, it is reportable to your local child abuse hotline, at least in the state where I live.  Any suspicion is good enough for a report.  Once you report it, the ball rolls into the court of social services, who will determine the merits of the (they have access to any past reports) and decide whether or not to investigate.  So in our state, if you called the hotline about this girl and the suspicious burn, social services would decide whether or not to investigate this as accidental or non-accidental trauma (abuse) or if there are other concerns imminently endangering the child in the home.  If you really feel strongly about the girl's safety, I'd call the hotline!  You just might save her from getting burned to death or permanently disfigured from a mini blast (lighting a cig and kerosene?)!

It is so sad how people can be so addicted to nicotine.  (Maybe it should be outlawed like other drugs, but that is another discussion altogether.)  We should do all we can to help our neighbors quit. 

 
Dec 1, 2011 1:04 PM Guest Peter  says:
It is the nature of beaurocracy to, once established, ensure its continued existance at any cost.  Giving themselves the authority to dictate children's weight upon threat of removal is tyranical, and simply the latest attempt at self-preservation.
Dec 1, 2011 1:25 PM Guest Laura O.  says:
I do agree that the government should be left out of child-rearing decisions, but if you look closely, this situation,it is anything but normal.  If a 200 lb 8 year old were at my child's school I can just hear the comments: "Isn't anything being done for this child?" or "Why doesn't anyone help this child?" When the family has failed to help this mother (we assume) and the church has failed ( we assume) and the medical community has failed (we assume), what is left?  We must remember that the morbidly obese do not live long lives.  In my medical field, if I see a 400 pound patient, they are usually on a ventilator.  This child is 1/2 way to that 400 lbs mark.  I just pray that this was a last ditch effort, after all other avenues had failed, to save this child's life.
Dec 1, 2011 1:29 PM Guest Misha  says in response to Brent W.:
I think what a lot of us just want to know is whether or not the state could have done more to help the child lose weight while IN his own home.  Were all options truly exhausted?  Why not try to achieve the happiest ending--weight loss with his own parents in his own home? I guess we just don't know what happened.  
Dec 1, 2011 2:21 PM Guest David  says:
We are stuck with government whether it does a good job or not and, all in all, better off putting up with the bad for the sake of the good. I am glad that I live in the modern Western democracy of the USA.  But as Winston Churchill pointed out, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."  Until the Lord returns to reign on earth we will have to content ourselves to live with government that is flawed and populated with sinners in need of God’s grace (since that’s all we have to work with.)  We have seen abusive authoritarian governments rise in Western nations, even with strong Judeo-Christian histories (i.e., Germany, Russia, Eastern Europe) as recently as within the last 100 years.  While I would contend no government exists outside of God’s purview, we would be hard pressed to find many in recorded history that honored and sought to truly serve Him, and we were usually suspicious of those that tried to justify themselves by claiming that they did. While I do not advocated that Christians who find themselves living under government’s we would generally define as “democratic” should throw in the towel and cynically abandon an active roll in any representative form of government, modern western Christian’s put more hope in this relatively novel expression of rule found in human history than it is probably realistic to count on (or that either human history or the Bible would realistically lead us to expect we could count on.)   The advantage of democracy, as practiced in the US, is the acknowledgement that government is in fact fallible and needs checks and balances to minimize it’s inevitable abuses and shortcomings.  The popular notion that any potential interference with our personal lives, even when intended to protect the weak or helpless among us, is certainly an unwelcome danger raising the illusive specter of potential abuse is a naïve understanding of the government’s authority sanctioned by scripture.  Even on the secular side, our “liberty” in terms of government is clearly circumscribed by such primary goals as “a more perfect union”, “common defense”, and our “general welfare.” We are not guaranteed individual happiness, only a reasonable chance to pursue it within the protective context of the common good. Government by definition addresses a corporate, not an individual, dimension of life. It governs, not aids and abets. The advantage of democracy isn’t it’s ability to guarantee we will always get it right by virtue of our noble ideals of freedom for individuals, but the built in flexibility to compensate and possibly correct ourselves when we inevitably get it wrong on the corporate dimension of governing ourselves with God’s grace.  It we read that this young man was found dead we would all lament, "Why didn't somebody notice his obvious problem and do something?"  But when after a whole year of noticing somebody finally tries to help, why are we so quick to cry "foul" almost as loudly. I'm not sure we can have it both ways.  That's why democracy gives us a chance to adjust, and not just worry and complain, if we or the government call it wrong.
Dec 2, 2011 12:39 PM Guest Brent W  says in response to Carol:

Please re-read my comment. We are talking about a 200 lb 8 year old. 4X the proper weight for his age. And it said that they monitored the situation for at least 1 year.

 

You're counter argument of being underweight is fallacious reasoning. Had you son been grossly malnourished and social services had been working with you for a year, then there would be a corollary.
Dec 1, 2011 2:44 PM Guest Colleen  says:

"If the government is able to determine what is physically acceptable on a subjective matter do they also have the authority to determine what is morally and spiritually acceptable as well? Could this threaten our religious liberties if taken to the extreme?"

 

This is truely one of my concerns!  I think it is a valid concern based on the decisions that have been made by our government in recent years.  What we don't need is more govenment control in our personal lives.  I have an 8 year old grandson and I can tell you that he is very attached to his mother and if he was taken away from family and friends, he would be traumatized forever!  I don't believe they are helping that child by doing what they are doing.  I believe that should be a last resort, not a first one.
Dec 1, 2011 2:54 PM Guest Erica  says in response to John:
I agree with John, if the boy weighed 25 lbs at age 8 I don't think people would be questioning if the state overstepped. Just as you can cause your children an early death by not feeding them, you can by allowing them to be obese. As was mentioned earlier, this is most likely a psychological issue. At least in foster care he will be required to do counciling.
Dec 1, 2011 3:26 PM Guest Fred  says in response to Misha:
Misha, thank you for that incredibly insightful post.  It sounds like you have given this a lot of sincere thought and speak from a place of experience.  Thanks for bringing your professional knowledge to the discussion.
Dec 1, 2011 3:36 PM Guest Stacy  says:

The state has overstepped.  I was an overweight child in a house full of average weight people.  I CANNOT imagine the terror I would have gone through if I was removed from my family.  My mother fed us healthful foods, I ran and played with my siblings, we rarely watched television, and I was still overweight.  I was not neglected. I was not abused. I was loved and cared for, but I was still overweight. I was overweight through no fault of my parents.  Children should ONLY be removed IF and only IF they are being abused.  Being overweight ONLY does not count as valid reason for the state to step in.  If there are other reasons, such as sexual abuse, true physical abuse, (not spanking), and violence then the state should be allowed to protect the child.
Dec 1, 2011 3:55 PM Guest Erika  says:

I, too, was disturbed when I heard about this case. I think removing a child from the home for the reasons stated in this case is dangerous and absurd. Dangerous because the child has more than a weight issue now. The emotional upheveal this is causing him is far more harmful than his weight issue at this point. The courts should have more respect for the institution of family, rather than find minute reasons to destroy families. There are many factors that can contribute to obesity, such as, a lack of access to fresh, healthy, affordable produce; lack of child-friendly safe spaces for physical activity; emotional tie to food; cultural eating habits; and, more. Is the new home for the child determined by what they will feed the child, and how often they will "make" him exercise? Will the boy be removed if the foster parents fail to ensure that he loses weight?  If so, will those foster parents be deemed unfit and taken off the list of acceptable parents? It is absurd to take the child away from the mother because it will not solve the problem for the child, only create more. Finally, I have to assume that this mother has a lower-income. If that is the case, it is frightening to know that the government and courts are so vigiliant against those whom they can more easily bully. I don't think human services would even think about removing an obese child from a suburban upper-middle class home. There is much to be disheartenend about in this case.
Dec 1, 2011 3:58 PM Guest Erika  says:

This case is disheartening.
Dec 1, 2011 4:27 PM Guest Jim  says:

When I was in junior high school in the early 1960's, there were a pair of brothers who were morbidly obese and whose parents purchased motorized scooters for them to ride to school to avoid having to walk.Even as little kids we could easily see that babying these two was not helping them; in fact enabling them to be so obese.

I also had a best friend whose father would pound him, with his fists, and send him to school with black eyes as punishment for real or perceived misbehavior.

I was raised in clouds of choking cigarette smoke and did not realize you could smell flowers, trees in bloom, or bakery odors from the street until I was drafted into the Army and sent afar for military training.  Somehow I had not picked up the smoking habit and my sense of smell blossomed away from home and I was amazed.  My folks had other flaws, as did all our parents, and ourselves when we became parents.  Was my upbringing perfect or totally healthy?  Hardly.  But the older I get the more I thank God for my flawed parents and wish I could do half as good a job raising my own family as they did theirs.  I shudder at the thought of the state, or any other organization other than the blood or adopted family, having the power to make such decisions.  This is not new..... overzealous bureaucrats have divided families and taken children to orphanages etc. without parental consent ever since the first bureaucrats were employed, often making life even worse for the "rescued" children.
Dec 1, 2011 5:40 PM Guest maria  says:
What's next? what next  control will the government impose on us. Governmnent is overstepping its boundaries and acting like GOD.  US government is turning into communism. people need to wake up.
Dec 1, 2011 5:12 PM Guest Tina  says:

First of all, I would like to say none of us know all the facts at all - only a basic shell of information.  Over 15-years-ago (short story) I had my younger sister (with Downs Syndrome) removed from my mother by social services.  My sister is a nutritionist and has been on major tv, I have a degree in medical lab work.  Our father was dead.  My mom who was also very educated was *blind* to what she was doing to our sister.  In the name of "love" she was letting her eat anything and everything and actively giving her the unhealthy stuff because "it is her only enjoyment."  My sister is just under 5' and weighed 246 lbs.  She had to walk with 2 canes and it was barely shuffling.  She was actually asking for a wheelchair and my mom was going along with it!  The social worker contacted me (cause I live in state) and was amazingly gentle and careful with how we had to confront my mom and what needed to be done.  My sister had "bright pink cheeks" because she was overheating inside - that was from the Dr.  She had sleep apnea.  To my mother's dying day 3-years-later, she could not see what was wrong with my sister being that fat.  It was abuse.  Well-intentioned loving but abuse.  My mother had extreme depression.  I couldn't make her seek help, but I could do something about my sister spending her life suffering.  She is now a healthy 125 lbs and is active, works and enjoys her life.

 

I wouldn't even begin to jump all over "the state" on this one.  None of us know the facts involved, but I daresay that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.  A lot of the comments here seem to posit the idea that the "government" (are we talking local, state, national, Federal?) are just waiting to jump and grab.  Sure they are abuses in any agency INCLUDING THE CHURCH.  But please don't turn this into the "government over stepped their bounds."  In this case, there is something much deeper going on here and we don't know all the facts.

 

I see fat kids everyday in the school setting and believe me, no one is coming in and trying to snatch them.  This particular child is morbidly and grossly obese without anything getting better and there simply has to be other issues going on here.
Dec 1, 2011 5:22 PM Guest EJ  says:
There are things many people outside of the situation don't realize.  I have worked in social services for 16 years.  You'd be amazed at how resistant and oppositional some of these parents are.  They will purposefully sabotage progress, tell their kids they don't have to do what the worker says, ignore mandates, be somewhere else during a scheduled visit, not take them to their doctor appointment, "forget" to refill their presciption, show up 30-60 min late for court if at all, argue with the workers and the judge, and on and on and on.  They are given warning after warning and then when the judge has finally had enough, they play victim.  Some of these parents are incredibly manipulative.  180 days is ample time to get your act together.  She was given resources and support.  She had been warned that this could happen.  But she ignored it because she thinks she lives in a world of endless chances.  I have seen this scenario so many times.  Overfeeding to the point of morbid obesity is almost as neglectful as underfeeding to the point of malnourishment.  They both cause emotional and behavioral problems, chronic illness, and, in the worst cases, possibly death.  Don't assume that foster homes are all bad because of what you see on the news.  All of the kids I have worked with were either in a very temporary foster situation until a relative could take them in or were placed in a caring and safe foster home.  In the course of my career only a handful of parents tried their best to get their kids back.  The parents who did get their kids back did so within a year, after they got themselves clean, attended counseling (individual and family), and completed a parenting course.  During that time they had regular supervised visits that gradually increased to unsupervised overnight stays with their child in their home.  Every one of those kids who were reunited with their parents were in better shape than they had been when they were first removed.  My point is, you can never really know the specifics if you have not personally seen how these things happen.      
Dec 1, 2011 5:46 PM Guest Deneen  says:

I am disheartened that the judicial system felt it necessary to intervene by taking the child from his home. While specifics regarding this issue have not been reported (such as: did the child have a thyroid or other medical condition? was the child guilty of sneaking food behind the parent's back; etc.) surely there has to be another method of intervention that does not require moving the child into the home of strangers! Why not move the child into another family member's home? I am a single mother to two children whom I homeschool; my son is 16 and very slender and my daughter, who's 14, is more curvaceous. She does not like organized sports but because I do not want her to have any health issues, I try to ensure that she is active in some way, even if she walks in the neighborhood for 30 minutes to an hour. As I considered the actions of officials in the article regarding this family, I tried to put myself into the shoes of the parents; I would be outraged if some government official determined that my children were better off in a foster home than they were with me. As readers of the news article, we know nothing about this family. We do not know if the parents were negligent, we do not know what strategies were employed by the child's pediatrician to assist the parents in maintaining a healthy weight, or if there was a pediatrician for that matter; there are many variables that are unknown.

 

If the government can arbitrarily interfere in an issue of such a personal nature, I am concerned that there are other personal, subjective issues upon which they can decide to interfere. Where is the line drawn in these issues?
Dec 1, 2011 5:44 PM Guest Nancy  says:
They'd really be in trouble if they came to HI.  I think that HI has one of the highest numbers of obese children in the US.  I was obese when I was young and can't imagine being taken away from my family. The government has no right to take a child away from it's parent just because of weight.  Maybe the mother doesn't receive enough money to buy the best foods for the child.  I realize that you said the mother was getting help, but maybe it wasn't the kind of help she needed.  I've been through the system with my child and the help they give is not always what you need to hear.  They tend to put you down instead of trying to build you up. If they think that putting the child in a foster home is going to help, then they really don't know what they're doing.  Some foster home parents are there for themselves and the money, not the children.  The government does not have the right to do this.  I would tell this mother to fight for her child, and hopefully, there are people out there to help her do this.  What about parents who are alcoholics and drug addicts, and yes, even smokers?  A lot of children are raised in these types of home with no intervention whatsoever.  Why should they take a child away simply because he's overweight.  Yes, it's a health issue, but there are worse things to think about.  They want to take God out of everything these days.  Will that be the next thing - taking a child away because the parents are teaching them about God?  Please, Jesus, I sure hope not.
Dec 1, 2011 5:38 PM Guest Karl  says:
The government overstepped their boundaries, no questions asked. I know people who had terrible life experiences BECAUSE of being in social services, and now they want to remove a child because of the way the parents choose to raise him? When will they remove the child because of the parents' worldviews(or "intolerance", as they say in Newspeak)?
Dec 1, 2011 5:49 PM Guest Sherman  says in response to Melissa:
Great comment. You are so right in your statement about man being made to depend on God. God wants to work through His people and save and heal people and circumstances in such cases as this and many others. The church in this nation needs revival. The harvest is ready but the laborers are few.
Dec 1, 2011 6:09 PM Guest Danny  says:
One piece of information that I haven't heard in any of the stories is whether the family is receiving food stamps. I do believe the govt. oversteps it's bounds but if the family is living on welfare then the action is a little more acceptable. Some what similar to the law we passed here in Fla. about drug tests for welfare recepients. Also the point made by someone else about a broken family is very valid.
Dec 1, 2011 6:04 PM Guest Robin  says:
This is a very tragic situation on all fronts. I feel that the child is in imminent danger. He is morbidly obese. Sleep apnea, itself, can be deadly. It's a shame that this situation has even come to pass, but I think the state did the right thing. As far as the government interferring in family business because of morals or belief systems, if they put a child's life in danger, the child should be removed, period.
Dec 1, 2011 8:37 PM Guest Megan  says:

As a foster parent in Ohio, I have to wonder what else were the factors in this situation.  I have personally seen some children returned to circumstances that appalled me and have seen other situations where kids should have been removed that were not.  It generally takes a lot for the state to be able to remove a child and I just wonder what else was going on here.
Dec 1, 2011 8:43 PM Guest Larry  says in response to Robin:
While this is a tragic situation it does not warrant simple removal of a child to foster care.  There are other solution, though possibly more costly, that can be considered.  The weight is not the underlying problem but only the surface problem.  Instead of simply removing the child from his home, a solution might have been to assign personal counselors with similar values as the family's, to mentor and monitor them on a daily basis.  This could even be a live-in situation for a short time, assuming the mom is as willing as she says she is to seek and follow a solution.  The point is, there are alternatives short of removing the child, and some innovative thought needs to be exercised by authorities in these cases.
Dec 1, 2011 10:27 PM Guest Betsy  says in response to EJ:

EJ, I can't thank you enough for your input here.  We certainly do not know exactly what happened with the parents but you spoke from years of experience.  I wrote earlier my insight on all this.  My sister works for Child Protective Services and I have 17 years myself in working with people with addictions and mental illness-the adult side of things.  This is an ugly thing you expose but is unfortunately so true and so sad.  Nobody likes to be told they aren't parenting their kids right even if they don't parent their kids at all.   The Christian side of this should understand that we are inherintly evil, wrought by sin, living in a fallen world, living in darkness and prefering it that way.  Even Christians (whom I work with more now) prefer to keep their head stuck in the sand rather than admit they aren't God and don't know everything when it comes to parenting.  It sounds oh so negative but it isn't maintaining a lie that sets people free, it is knowing and discovering the truth (of God) that sets people free.  And unfortunatly, people/parents have to hit rock bottom and lose their kids before they'll wake up and be willing to do something different like facing the truth and doing something about it.  And like you said, some parents are so wrapped up in their own issues that they aren't even able to try to get their kids back.  So in the meantime, foster homes-thank the Lord for them- can and do on most occassions give loving homes to kids while their parents continue to live destructive lives until they become willing and work hard to change.  I can only imagine what happened during that year of working with the parents but somewhere somehow, a person would think that if the parents were even trying to help their child, they would at least have had documentation from a physician or psychiatrist to back up their defense that it wasn't somehow their fault.  CPS isn't perfect by a long shot but thank God we have something in place with the authority to step in and advocate for the children in extreme cases like this.  And by the way, I am adopted myself and bonded very well with my foster mother until my adoptive parents came along.

Dec 1, 2011 10:48 PM Guest Jonathan  says:

I agree this is tough. I think the state has a right, maybe even a responsibility? to intervene when a child's health is at risk. I'm a Christian and a strong conservative (meaning I generally distrust government intervention in much of anything), but I think I'd support government intervention if the situation were dire or extreme. For example, sometimes you'll hear about parents who forgo medical treatment for a terminally ill child when it's likely the medical treatment could fix the problem, opting instead for prayer or religious methods. In this instance, does the government have the right to override the parents' will, imposing medical treatment even when it's not wanted, if the child's life is on the line? In general, I'd probably have to say yes.

 

I think this the principle in this case is similar, even if the degree of urgency isn't, because we're still talking about the boundaries of state intervention. Two hundred pounds seems pretty bad, and I see how it could border on neglect and maybe warrant government intervention. But it's troubling, too, because you're right in that I don't know where it stops -- or how we legally differentiate action in one instance from action in another. What's the alternative though? Not having any restrictions? What if the child was 300 pounds, or 400? Would that make a difference, and how would you differentiate among these legally? I don't have these answers, but I agree this alarms me a bit. I just don't know whether the state not doing anything would alarm me more.
Dec 2, 2011 5:28 AM Guest student  says:
I agree to the thoughts that something else (like a broken family) could be involved in this case. We don't have all of the facts. But, my one issue with most of the comments is: would you be complaining about a child being removed from their home because they DO NOT have enough to eat? Would the situation be different if the parents are providing a proper diet, the child was exercising and still overweight? Yes. But, this child being removed from his home is the same situation of a child being removed who is not being fed enough, even though the parents are doing their best to provide a healthy environment. The fact that the report says that preventative measures were tried, that the situation has been being monitored for over a year means that some teacher noticed something and cared enough to notice and report that something seemed wrong. Why don't we congratulate the person who saw flags that made them question and who cared enough to try and prevent further problems. And, no I do not think it is completely right to have removed a child based on being overweight, but somebody is trying to prevent him from having future problems. Maybe this kid is gonna be the person that cures cancer, or will have the chance to if he can make it to college.
Dec 2, 2011 5:56 AM Guest Ann  says:
I will just respond with another question....Should anyone at adult age be removed from their position (business) for being overweight? If you sometimes cannot do it yourself can you imagine a parent trying to help a child on such a difficult matter...
Dec 2, 2011 1:07 PM Guest tina  says:

One other thing I meant to mention in my previous comment, is that morbidly obese children (or adults) have other *major* health issues besides the direct weight and sleep apnea issue.  In my own experience with my younger sister, when she was morbidly obese and my mother was "in charge" of it before I had social services remove her, AND in my experience in the hospital setting, there are true hygiene issues going on.

 

Most morbidly obese children or adults CANNOT toilet themselves.  They are usually dependent on another person to wipe them.  And because of this one particular issue, and in my sister's case, she stunk terribly.  It isn't right but kids make fun of other kids who smell.

 

The other big issue which I've also seen and experienced in the hospital setting is, morbidly obese kids or adults often have yeast infections in the folds of their skin, because the skin simply can't unfold enough for air to get to it.  The smell of that alone is horrendous.  And I'm not talking about the most extreme cases.  Toileting and skin issues are the two major "outwardly" signs that the general public experiences.

 

Imagine what life must have been like for this child in any public or school setting with these issues alone.

 

I'm dismayed when I see comments about it being a thyroid issue.  My sister had a thyroid issue at the time and it was being treated appropriately.  However, all the thyroid management in the world isn't to work if there is a food issue of one sort or another going on.  Let's not make the extreme weird exception the rule to work by here.

 

At the very least, someone's view of their world in this family is seriously disjointed.  We aren't talking "chubby child" here, we are talking about a grave and serious medical and mental health family issue here.

 

And I won't accept the blame, implied by a number of noters, that we Christians didn't "come alongside the family to help out."  As a noter who is a social worker noted, unless you have actually been thrust into one of these situations and worked with some of these families that have come apart, you simply don't understand the level of opposition and manipulativeness that goes on - whether to ignorance, drug abuse, mental health issues.  At a lot of levels it is all intertwined.

 

And a historical note - it was Christians in the late 1800s that wanted a law that allowed children to be taken from abuse situations.  Up until that time, there were more laws on the books about cruelty to animals (though there was plenty of that too), and NO laws on how to protect children.  Outraged WOMEN asked a man who wrote the first law for cruelty to animals in New York, to write a law so abused children could have some level of protection.  Up to that time the states took the view that "parental privileges" topped anything the state did.  And finally, the extreme amount of "parental privileges" sickened the world and brought the first of basic laws protecting children.
Dec 2, 2011 6:41 AM Guest Laurie  says:
Without knowing all the circumstances involved, it is difficult to say.  It seems from other cases, with different issues, that it is usually best for a child to stay with the biological parents unless they are being harmed.  Is this child being harmed by being excessively overweight?  Possibly.  But is there a medical reason this child weighs so much?  Something out of his control.  I'm guessing there isn't, but then I have to ask, don't they think taking this child away from his mother is going to cause him to gain even more weight?  The child will probably be depressed, eat more, or just the emotional trauma will cause countless health problems.  Jim, you made a good point about where does it end?  Will our children one day be taken from us because we're teaching them the Gospel and the state doesn't think that's a viable thing to teach?  This boy needs a lot of prayer and some Christian influence in his life.
Dec 2, 2011 8:01 AM Guest Sarah  says:
There was a story recently about a young girl, approx 14 yrs old who died of malnourishment. When I read stories like that, I lean toward being ok with DSS taking this child from his home. Had someone stepped in earlier with this young girl, would she still be alive? I don't agree with DSS just up and removing a child for no good reason. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions in this particular case. I would like to see the Dr reports and their pov on his situation and how much it was involved in thier decision to remove him from the home. You say "other than sleep apnea", if the mother wasn't doing what she was suppose to, what Dr suggested to her, to help with his weigh, how can we be sure she was caring for his sleep apnea properly? Sleep apnea can be dangerous if not cared for properly, just like his weight. I am torn on how I feel about it without having more information, just simply not willing to condemn or support what they have done yet until more information comes out.
Dec 2, 2011 8:14 AM Guest Sarah  says in response to Barbara H.:

No!  Absolutely not - under no circumstances should the weight of a child warrant taking the child from the parents.

It is none of their business.


Never? What about in this case http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437721,00.html or http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/mother-nurses-charged-in-teens-death - in both cases the parents allowed their child to go unnourished to the point of being severly underweight, and in one case it lead to her death. Who's business should it be in cases like these?
Dec 2, 2011 8:21 AM Guest WetBlanket  says:

Just for some clarification, I plugged 4'8" (what I found as an 'average' height for an 8 year old boy) into a calculator that factored in age, height, and activity level (for which I chose "light activity since I assume this boy walks around the school and participates in phys ed and recess as much as he's able) and it said he'd need to eat around 2200 calories a day to keep from losing weight. That's a lot of food.

 

I look at this situation this way: For a year, since CPS has been involved, there's certainly been some sort of attempt at education of both mother and child in healthier eating, portion control, and exercise. There's obviously non-compliance on one or both of their parts. While there's possibly not an immediate danger, as if the boy was living with crack smokers, snake handlers, or medical treatment deniers, he's being set up for a short lifetime of poor health and misery. I'm glad someone stepped in before things got even worse.Jackbooted thugs didn't kick this child's door down in the night and take him away. I'm quite certain there is a year's worth of documentation on file of home visits, medical evaluations, possibly psych evals, action plans, on file. The mother chose not to act in her son's best interest and as upsetting as it might be for the boy, this situation is a direct result of the mother's actions and/or inaction.

 

As for people worrying that this is going to cause an erosion of religious liberty, I think that's quite a stretch. I don't think the idea of religious freedom automatically gives license for people to raise their children as they see fit without any sort of structure or accountability. As we saw in the comments on the article about the judge assaulting his handicapped daughter with a belt, there are a lot of people ready to justify abuse and neglect in the name of "parental rights" and "religious liberty". I do not have a problem with government agencies stepping in to protect children from parents who are not living up to their responsibilites. The ability to procreate is separate from the ability to parent. Some people obviously do not have this ability and have no interest in making the effort to develop it. .
Dec 2, 2011 8:45 AM Guest Susie  says:

How dare they! It is very unfortunet for the boy but if they were monortoring - how far were they willing to help the mother achieve success? How is his emotional well being now after taken away from his MOTHER. I agree Jim, if we allow this how much further will they go.

Dec 2, 2011 9:29 AM Guest Lila  says:
I'm seeing several replies here that point to factors other than diet/ exercise that contribute to the problem and that an overweight child isn't necessarily being abused.  Knowing this kiddo, I couldn't agree more. There's a very overweight 10 year old who comes to a Wednesday night function my husband and I help with every week.  He's very loved at home, and he knows it.  He told us that his mom said he's the best thing that ever happened to her.  He doesn't talk about his dad.  I don't think stealing him from his mom, who loves him completely, would do him any good at all.  Only harm.  Could they use some serious support from their church and family?  Definitely.  If the church would step in and get their hands dirtier with the problems of society, we'd put the "big brother" aspect of the government out of business.  We should be Jesus' hands and feet in a much more tangible way than we currently are.  I believe we're leaving secular society in the lurch.  They're creating these programs and laws to pick up the pieces WE leave behind because of our own apathy.
Dec 2, 2011 12:05 PM Guest Bill H.  says in response to Niki F.:

We had an incident a few years ago here in Arkansas where a man paddled his 7 yr old for sniffing gasoline and he wound up in prison.

Who's to say the won't start arresting parents whose children are overweight or wearing inappropriate clothing?????
Dec 2, 2011 11:53 AM Guest Gwen  says:

   I have a serious problem with parents and their children who are obvoiusly obese. However, there are thousands of children out there that are obese. Yes, this is a serious problem. However, it is not the place of the state to interfere in the lives of these families.

   This is just the first step toward Christians losing their children because the state deams the Christian religion to be harmful to the self esteme and/or mental and physical health of a child.

   I have already seen state government interference in the parental rights to home school our children. What's next?  Give them an inch and they will take a mile. City and state goverments are now dictating what we can and cannot eat. This incident is very scary.
Dec 2, 2011 1:56 PM Guest Tim  says:

When I saw this in the news, my first reaction wasn't "wow, can you believe what the Ohio state workers did?".  No - it was "wow, a 200 lb. 8 year old!  That is unbelievable."  While I don't condone the overstepping by the state authorities, I'm shocked at the state of this child.  I have a 7 year old that is a 'desirable' weight for her age.

 

I recommend that we try to understand all the facts rather than a knee-jerk reaction to a headline.
Dec 2, 2011 8:00 PM Guest anne h.  says:

I see this as NOT a tough call at all.

The fundamental error of those who are confused about this, is confusion regarding the concept that the state should be looking in on peoples private lives! Once you decide what you believe about that, you can give a reasonable answer without getting all caught up in the emotion of a particular case.

In my opinion, if you think it is the job of the state to correct all wrongs, then unbridled government power will never stop growing a sit keeps making decisions for everyone "for their own good".
Dec 2, 2011 8:01 PM Guest anne h.  says in response to Niki F.:
But...where is the guarantee or even the track record of "government knows best"?
Dec 2, 2011 8:23 PM Guest anne h.  says in response to Mary J:
That's it! We have "given over our children to the government schools"!!!
Dec 2, 2011 8:12 PM Guest anne  says in response to S.W:

Pricisely!

"it is not the governments's job". PERIOD.
Dec 2, 2011 8:15 PM Guest anne  says in response to Carol:
That's the point. Arrogance. The social workers are "smarter" than parents.
Dec 2, 2011 8:19 PM Guest anne  says in response to carmen:

Many many bad things happen to chldren. The question here is: what is the function of government?
Dec 8, 2011 12:11 PM Guest diane m.  says:

This is an outrage! Newsflash Everyone!  Obesity is a disease!  My son was obese as is mostly everyone on my husbands side of the family due to an inherent metabolic disorder. It took years to resove the problem he had !  After much research and experimentation we finally  discovered  that my son could not eat any white carbs....whatsoever! It was not how much he ate, but WHAT he ate that contributed to his problem.  He weighed  12  1/2 pounds at birth at which time he was labelled "a low glucose baby" ( low blood sugar). I did not have gestational diabetes either.  It was a horrible thing to deal with. After much research, we discovered that "Low glucose babies are almost always overweight, and no one is sure why. We went to nutritionists and Doctors and researched till we were at our witts end.  It's sickening to  see that some people  "have a serious problem" with parents of overweight children. Do you have a problem with parents of children who have other diseases? I cannot wait until they find the cure or the "fat gene" or whatever it is so that some people could find other things to have "serious problems" with.

 

My son is now 20yrs old, stands at 6'5 and weighs 285 lbs.... solid muscle. Bench presses 225 lbs (28 times) Beating records set both  at the college level as well as  in the NFL. He can run the 40 at 4.8 seconds flat . Plays football on a full scholarship.....

 

don't think it's a disease?

Dec 8, 2011 2:33 PM Guest Darryck  says in response to Loretta:
It sounds good.  The child is way overweight, the parents will not help the social workers with this problem.  The child goes to a foster home, where he loses weight. We can all make good arguments to do what we want to do to someone else = kill the baby in the womb, kill people that become paralyzed, disfigured, someone like Teri Schriever.  I think that we are trying to make Utopia here on earth.  Being overweight is a problem, but this is the wrong solution.  I see this as throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Dec 3, 2011 10:32 AM Guest Eliza  says in response to Niki F.:
Study the short term and long term health effects of a severely obese child and it will be obvious that this is a case of child abuse.  That child already has or will soon have type 2 diabetes, clogged coronary arteries, and blood pressure so high that a stroke is likely.  This poor child's ability to run and play with his friends is severely limited.  The child does not feed himself--the parents feed him and they are slowly killing him.  What would you call a case where a child's health is deteriorating at the hands of parents?  Social workers are put in a no win situation.  If they step in and remove the child from the situation, they are accused of abuse of power.  Then when the child has a heart attack, they will be accused of not doing their job.
Dec 3, 2011 2:25 PM Guest Leslie  says:
This is absolutely overstepping. Meanwhile, there are children all over the country who desperately need to be taken away from abusive situations and get caught in the mire of red tape. Some everntually lose their lives. Chances are, the parent was not truly a negligent parent, since the child was doing well otherwise. The trauma of being removed from his home will be much worse for him. Many foster homes do not turn out to be such great places to live, so he could be heading for real trouble. Since the government is increasingly hostile toward Christianity, it is not difficult to see how they could jump the chasm to removing children whose parents insist on teaching them such "unhealthy" beliefs as homosexuality being sinful or the world being created by God.
Dec 3, 2011 2:38 PM Guest Rita W  says:
As a fitness trainer, this is a real-life question that a lot of us in the industry think about. The nature of obesity is often coupled with addictive behaviors, not too different from illegal drugs.  With that in mind, seeing that the child's quality of life, as well as his mortality, is at risk, I tend to look at the situation as dire.  On the surface, he may not seem to be displaying many symptoms, but on the inside, his body is slowing dying from the effects of obesity.  So, in contrast to what most people here think about this situation, I'm inclined to say that the state is within its right to remove the child from the parents until they get their addictions under control.    
Dec 5, 2011 6:18 AM Guest Stacey T.  says:
The judge made the wrong call this time! The government should never be allowed to take children from their home unless the parents are drug addicts, alcoholics, or beating the child or other physical abuse. I don't think the mother is force feeding him. I hope they have checked for underlying conditions such as Prader willi syndrome etc. I do believe someone needs to help this family , but the government is not the one to do that ! I fear that the government is going to try to run every aspect of our lives at some point and that is a scary thought ! We do live in a free country and we should thank God for that.
Dec 5, 2011 6:22 AM Guest Nancy J.  says:

As a Christian who works in Child Protective Services, I suspect that there is more to the story than can be told due to protecting the confidentiality of the parents involved. However, I will say that if the state has monitored this case for over a year and there is still no change, then at some point the state must intervene for the safety of the child. It is never an easy decision to make and the decision to remove is not made lightly because we are trained over and over again about the traumatic impact that removal has on the children. It is a "catch 22"  and there is no good solution. Sadly, sometimes, removal is what is necessary for the protection of the child.

Removal is not what anyone ever wants but unfortunately, it is the last option that is left if a parent has consistently failed to accept their responsibility for the safety, health and well-being of their child. This decision took a year which says to me that it is a case where there were consistent efforts to work with the parent(s) and that the parent(s) consistently made the choice to neglect the health of the child. Tough place for all to be and it is the child who is paying the price.
Dec 4, 2011 11:44 AM Guest Kaye  says:
I was an overweight child, and if they had removed me from my family it would have done one of two things.  I would have realized it was because of food, and either stopped eating (anorexia or bulimia anyone?) or gotten mad and would have eaten constantly, even to stealing food, to show them it wasn't my family's fault.
Dec 4, 2011 3:15 PM Guest dave  says:
Most of you think removing this child from his home is wrong and will lead down the slippery slope of removing children for almost anything at the whim of an overreaching government. If you believe it is always wrong to remove a child from his home, no matter the threat to life, because children are the property of parents who should be allowed to do what they want concerning their children - if this is where you stand, then I have no argument with you. But if you believe it is okay to remove a child who is the victim of physical abuse, when his life is threatened, because his parents may beat him to death - and at the same time you disagree with this decision - I would argue that this precious child's life is also in imminent danger. He could die for any of a number of reasons, heart failure, stroke, sleep apnea, etc. The psychological damage that has been inflicted on this child may never allow him to lead a normal life of any kind. He is being hurt physically and psychologically in his current environment and his life is at risk. Removing him will not damage him any more psychologically, it could give him the only chance he may get to recover and live into adulthood. Thinking this decision will lead to children being removed from homes for religious reasons is like thinking allowing police to pull over reckless drivers will lead to police pulling over drivers because they are driving an suv instead of a hybrid. Decisions made to save lives don't lead to arbitrary decisions based on religion or politics.
Dec 4, 2011 5:03 PM Guest Dawn, RN  says in response to Lee A:

Amen to Lee A's comments. Too many times we see fathers who can't get custody of their children, despite the mother having severe problems (such as drug addiction), because the judge doesn't want to separate the child from its mother.  Yet the father would be the far better parent. Or how about the children of smokers who have frequent hospitalizations due to asthma/reactive airway disease?

So what's to come of this child who's severely overweight (we don't know if there's an undiagnosed medical condition), has been taken from the home and family he's known, and thrown into the "foster system?"  How many kids' lives actually improve in the foster homes? How many of these social workers or judges would want their own children raised by the foster parents most kids are sent to? Granted, there are some great foster parents, but it seems they are few and far between.
Dec 5, 2011 7:21 AM Guest Janell  says:
The state definitely overstepped its bounds.  Part of the problem is the American publics perception that the "state" should step in & fix this, or that, or anything we don't like.  May the Lord step in & protect this child, his parents and family from plans of the enemy to destroy them.  May we lift them up in prayer for the Lord to restore health & relationships.  May we as a society start trusting Him for guidance & deliverance.  In Jesus' name...amen
Dec 5, 2011 5:37 PM Guest george  says:
This does not have to be an "either or" decision.  When ever there is evidence of neglect, it should be investigated.  Specific guidelines of what constitutes "neglect" need to be in place.  To take action outside these guidelines would constitute an infringement on our civil liberties.  When there is neglect evidenced, taking the child from the family should not always be an automatic decision.  Counseling of/with the parents would be one potiential option.  We need to be very careful of what a slippery slope situations like this could mean for any of us.
Dec 5, 2011 8:47 PM Guest Joy G.  says in response to george:

As a retired social worker and having worked a while in protective services, I know that

removing a child from the family is generally a last resort.  Admittedly, there are weaknesses in the foster care system and many kids get "stuck" there and/or suffer from the separation from family. And there are inexperienced and inadequate workers who may not be skillful in their efforts to provide services, especially since many have huge case loads. I agree this situation is a dilemma and there are probably more facts than "just" the dangerous obesity of the child. But I would not jump to the assumption

that the state overstepped its bounds or that this is a sinister intent on the part of those

who took the action. The sadness of the situation is that it is multiplied by many children who are neglected or abused and many who spend years in foster care.
Dec 6, 2011 7:06 AM Guest Karen  says:
I am just curious if the child has been tested for a Thyroid disorder.  Is the state absolutely sure that his obesity is caused by overeating or eating the wrong foods?  And even if it is, has the mother been trying to feed her son healthy meals and has she been trying to get him to exercise and lose weight?  Also, is the mother obese?  There could be a family history.  All these things need to be explored.  Just saying...
Dec 6, 2011 10:42 PM Guest Susan  says:

This is the first I have heard of this story but have to say I am scared and sad.

As a mom of 4 great kids (and happily married to their dad) this story reminds me of how vulnerable to society's whims I realised I was when I had my first baby. What a huge scary thing to take a child away from their mom. Is there a dad? If not, we can blame that on this system of things, certainly not what God asks of us, and not how He designed families to be.

It is sad that there are so many actual poor starving people around our world, and here we seem to have "poor" obiese people. Once again~ this system and lack of logical work ethic and responsibility results in such unhealthy behaviors.

I realise I know few facts of this story. I am sorry for this child and mom.

I am truly grateful for the ability we have to make choices, and I hope I am making the coices that please Him.
Dec 7, 2011 5:42 PM Guest Rennick  says:
How about removing the mother along with the child for a short term in controlled environment to learn and teach discipline? Of course although problems other than sleep apnea do not display themselves yet, all manner of problems are likely to appear soon.
Dec 8, 2011 6:03 AM Guest melissa  says:

I wonder if this child had hidden health issues or was on medicine that caused this dramatic weight gain?
Dec 11, 2011 2:20 AM Guest Paige  says:

Believe it or not, some mothers don't care about their child's weight, at least 2 mothers - 1 in Ohio, and 1 in Bakersfield California.  I know a mother who was informed by the school that her daughter was morbidly obese in at age 7 weighing, 92 pounds.  Now, her daughter is 11 years old, and she weighs 150 pounds less than 5 ft tall.  The State needs to supervise incapable parents for the safety and future of our children.  The State of Ohio should stop in Bakersfield, California and pay this mother a visit.
Dec 19, 2011 12:45 PM Guest Judith J.  says in response to Paige:
The first I heard of this was November 30.  Now it is the 16th of December.  Conceivably this child could have lost one pound a day with proper nutrition and exercise. I'm curious.  Has the child lost 16 pounds under the care of the government appointees?  If not, how is his situation now any different than it was with his natural mother?  This is a clear case of government bullying, power grabbing and arrogance.
Jan 10, 2012 5:04 PM Guest Fayne  says:
Very hard to speak on a subject without knowing what the SW interventions were prior to removing the child. Certainly, the entire child protective agency is designed to protect children and if there is a crime that is punishable post court hearing a ruling by the judge is the only last resort system of justice that exist in the United States. If a person of any age is a danger to self or others that also strips an individual from confidentiality and self- determination as it relates to getting help. This kid is certainly in danger. Mandating the entire family to be on a program would be my ruling for the kid's sake, for s/he is not yet responsible for self. There are many crys for help and morbid obesity is a flashing neon sign.

Actions

Popular Blog Posts