Social workers remove new-born baby from obese mother, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 12:59 AM by spellbound

I don't think a woman of that size could possibly be a good mother, purely from a physical point of view. She probably can hardly heave herself around the house, let alone chase toddlers.

And is there just one father? I cannot believe there is even one man who would want to mate with a woman that size, unless he is pretty weird. OK, that is a sexist and fattist remark - sorry, I am trying to cope with reality here.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 01:26 AM by Flighty

Originally posted by Ulala
reply to post by Finn1916

This is them.

The local council has spent over £100,000 on this family over the years, dealing with all their various "issues". £100,000 ... and that doesn't even include the costs of their social security benefits too.

God help any poor child born to that woman ... for it surely lost the lottery of life at conception.

It seems that this 100,00 pounds hasn't been spent YET.
This article is from July, 2009 and is the same family before this baby was born.

Now in a desperate bid to get them to lose weight, the authority has taken the unprecedented step of putting the family ‘out to tender’ by offering a £114,000 contract for their care.

Three full-time professionals will advise the parents and their six children on general health issues, diet and lifestyle choices.

A council source said: “The family were a massive drain on resources and the decision was taken to put them out to tender in order to contain the spending necessary to get them sorted out.

www.express.co.uk...

So the drain on resources at that stage in July was more to do with a drain on their services rather than being a direct result of financial support for help.

This 100,000 support hasn't yet been given because in the OPs article from 22nd October, 3 months AFTER the tender for professionals to help, the father said that "the support that they were offered had yet to be acted up".

The father said social workers had assured him last week that they would not go near the hospital and that he believed an interim report by Dundee Families Project recommending intensive support for the whole family was to be acted upon. He said he was “shocked and traumatised” that social workers had come into the labour ward and attempted to serve papers on his wife.

www.timesonline.co.uk...#

What I find hypocritical is that in the related links on the recent timesonline article there is this story......

October 15, 2009
Most children killed at home ‘had been monitored by social services’

Two thirds of children killed or seriously injured by their parents were being monitored by social workers at the time — with one in five on the “at-risk” register.

In a study of all serious case reviews published in the past year, Ofsted found 19 per cent of the 219 children were subject to a child protection plan, the system covering those in most danger.
Yet despite their parents being under strict notice to improve care, and social workers regularly monitoring behaviour, they still suffered serious and even fatal abuse

Research shows that child abuse as a result of a combination of alcohol or drug abuse, and mental health problems in the home, is a new area of concern in child protection. Experts say that many social workers are not trained to cope with such complicated problems.

So it's easier to pick on fatties to justify their jobs ,as they're totally hopeless at picking out real child abusers and killers.

But the report criticised some outside agencies for failing to pass on vital information — in particular adult mental health services, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres. The Conservatives said the findings “set off all sorts of alarm bells”.

Yet this families problems with Child Services seemed to have started when THEY contacted the Department for help.

Tim Loughton, the Shadow Children’s Minister, said: “It is deeply worrying that so many children have been killed, but it is completely unacceptable that so many have died whilst on social services’ radar.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

So apparently you can keep your abused kids at home and torture them and kill them because they won't be removed because your nice and thin and therefore won't have your 6 kids removed.

And apparently, according to the father they've been accused of other things that aren't true....

He said: "They've claimed the kids have been subjected to physical and emotional abuse, as well as physical neglect, but it's just not true. We love our kids. We strongly deny these accusations and are taking legal advice."

And according to this news site , they now HAVE THEIR BABY BACK but now have had their remaining 3 children removed......

The infant, who was born on Monday by Caesarean section, was taken from her mother at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee after a sheriff granted social workers a removal order amid fears she would become dangerously overweight.

However, on Thursday, a children's panel ruled that the baby could return to the family on the condition that the parents cooperate "one hundred per cent" with social workers and care professionals.

The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is emotionally torn by the developments. He welcomed the decision to return their new baby girl, but was also distraught at losing another three children into care.

Three of the family’s children - not including the baby - are already in care of the local authority and on Wednesday the children's panel in Dundee ruled that the three children still living at the family home be removed. They were taken from school into care on Thursday.

"We never thought it would come to this. We had to tell the three kids last night that they were going into care. They were really upset and angry and we spent all night consoling them."

He added: "My wife is barely holding up. At least she knows she is getting her wee baby back."

news.stv.tv...

My God, this family has been totally traumatised. They asked for help and this is what they have got in return.

I've heard of keystone cops, but it now seems there is such a thing as keystone social workers.

Kids being killed who were left at home while under notification but these people who's main problem is OBESITY have every single child in their family removed and traumatised by these people.

Unbelievable. Another story on ATS about the Obese being treated like second class citizens by doctors and now this.
What's the world coming to?

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Flighty]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 01:45 AM by hadriana

I was reading COMMON SENSE the other day - the pamplet by Thomas Paine that woke so many colonist up to the need to break from a despotic government and form their own..and he was talking about how

if a government starts doing things that you would be upset should a criminal do, then you have a problem with your government, because governments are all powerful and naturally, get away with their actions.

Well,for me that was like WOW, oh man, common sense! Thanks, I needed that.

SO...would you be upset if you read that a child was taken by a criminal from a mothers arms because the criminal did not like it that the mother was fat?

Do you get upset when you hear about babies kidnapped? I do. It would have to be a really crappy parent for me to think they'd be better off with a kidnapper.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 02:36 AM by proteus33

were they voted in or just hired. we have all seen were local agencies in euope and america have started doing things not because they were authorized to do.
but because they knew they could get away with it. i have a friend they took his 6 yearold daughter and his 3 month old because some idiotic teacher said she didn't think girl was getting fed whole family eats like a group of horses i eat with them all the time but he and his wife are bean poles same with the daughter she is as tall as a 10 year old at 6. but because some busy body who has no children of her own contacted ss my friend no longer has his kids. goverment on all levels and in all countries needs to be a replaced or b shook up so all the dead wood falls out

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 02:47 AM by Northernwolf

Just because the mother is obese dosnt meen the child will be.

I know a woman who is well over 300bs (not sure how much that is in stone) and her kids are skinny as a rail.

Time to leave that parenting to the parents.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 03:28 AM by cybertroy

I'm sorry, but I've known some very wonderful overweight people. I took a very sweet girl to the prom one year. She was larger than girls I normally took out. Her mom was overweight, and her father was too. The father died (not sure why), but they have since trimmed down. I think these guys may have just been more prone to gaining weight. Some folks just put on weight easier, that's all, it's just a different challenge for some people to trim down to a healthier weight. These were wonderful, loving people.

Is the government going to tell me how to take care of myself? So, Big Brother now has to forcefully barge into my kitchen and tell me how to take care of myself? This comes from the ones that let us drink chlorinated water, the same ones that let us eat hormone injected meat, the same ones who let destructive drugs get fed to us by "health care professionals," the same ones that set the RDA too low on vitamins and minerals. So Big Brother actually gives a rats ass about us? Right.

No, they shouldn't take the ladies baby away just based of weight.

But, a person shouldn't abuse the system and have a million kids and look for a handout. If you cannot support more kids, then don't have them.

Troy

[edit on 24-10-2009 by cybertroy]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 03:50 AM by Trexter Ziam

I don't like the color of your hair, let's take your children from you. I don't like your crooked teeth, hawk-like nose, freckles, pointy-chin, cab-door ears, hairlicks, widow's peak, close-eyes, round eyes, green eyes, and so on ..., let's take your children from you.

I've known a lot of obese and even extremely obese people. Some were genetically obese, others as a consequence of specific horrific events in their upbringing, and the others I have no idea how they blimped-out.

Point is, the parents should be judged on how they bring up their children. Are they good students? Are they well-behaved? Are they well-loved?

Parents who encourage their children to go into sports (and forsake their traditional studies) are much worse than any generalization one can make about obese parents.

If that whole family is on-the-dole ... just cut their food stamps down.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:22 AM by moocowman

reply to post by Finn1916

Turns out several of their kids are big,

Using the word big (which mostly women do including my old mum lol) seems to be somewhat of an attempt to be over polite or somehow sanitize what is actually meant.

Let's not mess about with the reality of things, Arnold Schwarzenegger could be described as "big" whilst I (according to my kids lol) could be described as "Fat".

At the end of the day though, we all know that being fat is downright unhealthy for the individual but there again this is all relative to the degree of obesity.

So who exactly decides what is an acceptable level of fat that an individual is allowed, before being forced to diet or undergo euthanasia as a burden to society ?

Who decides how to distribute the labels "Big", "Fat", "Obese" "Clinically Obese" ?

Should children be removed from parents that are either big, fat ,obese or clinically obese ? Or should they be removed if they child has become one of these ?

If we are to insist that a child is potentially at risk from a fat parent and should be removed for its' own safety. Do we not have the moral obligation to remove children from parents that consume alcohol, take drugs or smoke ?

Do we criminalize the poor bastard who's job involves sitting on their butt 5-7 days a week completely stressed out trying to keep that job, stuffing Mcdonalds and donuts trying to get by ?

It is one thing perhaps, to try and educate fat people but if the culture generally encourages over consumption where's the point?

When we think about obese people do we have a tendency to think of the more "trailer park" types who are easy targets for the overzealous box ticking bureaucrats?

If we really are concerned about the welfare over other peoples children would it not be better to take the kids swimming than into a care home ?

There again it would appear that society cannot get involved with other peoples children for fear of being labeled a pedo, what's the answer ?

We all know that drinking soda has the potential to do us harm, if we fail to control ourselves but we still allow Coca Cola and Pepsi to tell our children how they should consume more of it, who are the criminals here, who are the responsible parents ?

[edit on 24-10-2009 by moocowman]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 08:33 AM by moocowman

Originally posted by mamabeth
I dare someone to try and take my kids from me,using only my weight
as an excuse.Those ,who would foolishly try, would regret it.

If you were getting divorced and your spouse was a drug taking overweight binge drinking unhygienic screaming nutter. Your children would be taken whether you like it or not, if you happen to be the one without a vagina.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 09:42 AM by berenike

reply to post by Flighty

Thank you for your post and for all the information you provided.

I'm so happy to know that the family got their baby back but feel so miserable for the three remaining children.

They are not just being taken away from their home and parents but are being deprived of all the joy of a new baby sister just as she has arrived.

The other three are no better off, either.

How can anyone explain to these kids, especially the younger ones, that they are being removed from their parents because they fed them too well? Oh, and because they are all fat.

Just going on what I have read in the newspaper articles this reeks to me of social services over-reacting and trying to cover their own butts because there are so many other cases in the news at the moment that have shown them up to be completely inept. Your post makes that point very well.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 09:58 AM by elfie

reply to post by berenike

Those are great suggestions!

I can't understand the thinking behind the decision that was made at all. Only the mother can nurse her baby and create the bonding experience that is so important to the infant's overall health. Bringing in a nutritionist/nanny to educate/monitor the family on healthful eating would be a lot cheaper than to provide foster funding for 3 children., while keeping the family intact. I think it's a sad state of affairs.

Also the image of the family is a bit old, I've been seeing it for awhile now.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 10:02 AM by nixie_nox

23 stone converts to 322 lbs.
I have known mothers who weighed that much perfectly capable of taking care of their kids and their home.

Now if the mother was unable to get up, move around, or take care of her kids in an emergency, then I would say yes.

But jsut because she is overweight? Absolutely not.

They fear the kids being obese? They don't know why their mother is obese in the first place.

And you can't take children away from families because of what you might "think" will happen.

this is just absud.If they mother is underweight, will they take the kids away because they think she won't feed them?

I work with the social services office. There are far more serious neglect cases out there to worry about.

There are kids in foster care being locked in closets and starved to death and they are worried about a fat mum.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 10:21 AM by nixie_nox

reply to post by CoffinFeeder

This has absolutely nothing to do with socialized healthcare. Don't take a situation that has nothing do with the topic and try to turn it into an example for your agenda.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 10:27 AM by nixie_nox

reply to post by CrazyMamaCecilia

How old are you, 12?

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 11:15 AM by virraszto

First of all, I don't agree at all with taking the children from this family because they are overweight. In that case, they will be doing the same thing to any person who is not 100 % of an imaginary perfect standard. Who's next?

Second of all, from one who has been raised in the foster system and has seen all the abuses first hand--what is going to happen when these children who are removed from their overweight mother (where no abuse is present), get put in a foster home, and get abused? Possibly even killed? It is a scenario that could happen. Then what?

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 11:32 AM by undo

a few "fat" people -- let's see ya take their kids away...

riiiight..

Aretha Franklin
Luciano Pavarotti
Orson Welles
James Earl Jones
Pope John XXIII
President Ulysses S. Grant
Winston Churchill
Santa Claus
Marlon Brando
Michael Moore
All the King Henrys

what happened was, the family in that article were fat AND poor.
that's what happens when you're both, apparently.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by undo]

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 11:45 AM by undo

hehehe
media-2.web.britannica.com...

can you imagine child services marching into the vatican and lecturing on negative weight influences ........

seriously folks. some of ya need to come back down to the planet with the rest of us.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 11:46 AM by woody19

This is terrible for a mother to go through but if she is that over weight, then that means she can't even take care of herself let alone 6 children. I never could understand why people let themselves get like that.

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 11:50 AM by undo