Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

Considering the government is allowing chemicals that fatten up Americans in everything, it would be different in some ways. I don't think the government has any right to tell people how fat their kids can be. The end. I'm fat, my wife and my kid are skinny. Whatever. Live and let live already.

Originally posted by thejlxc
Considering the government is allowing chemicals that fatten up Americans in everything, it would be different in some ways. I don't think the government has any right to tell people how fat their kids can be. The end. I'm fat, my wife and my kid are skinny. Whatever. Live and let live already.

Does the government not have a right to stop parents who beat their children either?

Because this isn't because they are fat but it is because they are medically obese and therefore in danger of the health risks involved with that, this invokes a response against the parents from the government as the parents are effectively dooming their children.

Is the response far too much? Yes and the government is really overstepping on the threats of removing the parents however some response to this should be allowed.

What utter crap.....Yes maybe the parents should be penalized. But taking the children away from the Mother and Father is a bit to much on the Children? Its not there fault there obese but you will punish them too on the basis there parents feed them to much! That's it ruin the children life on the basis of mummy and daddy over feeding. Maybe a fine for the parent sis appropriate? They send parents to prison for there children playing truant

reply to post by Oclomat


I did read all posts and should have responded to certain people specifically... I apologize... I'm using my iPhone ATM so it's difficult to pull out the quotes and names to reply to.

I do agree that this could be considered child abuse, but I believe it is something that could be dealt with in a much better way. It does seem like the parents from the OP don't understand basic nutrition which should have been at the top of the list of action items once CPS got involved.

I'm not sure how the system works in other countries but here they are extremely understaffed and essentially drowning in cases. When I left a few years back, the average social worker in my area had a caseload of 60-75. That is an impossible number to keep up with. The fact is that my state is basically bankrupt and is trying to cut even more services along with a hiring freeze. The sad thing is they were just as bad before the economy tanked.

In times like these, social services has to triage their cases and as hard as it is to have to pick the lesser of two evils, there are many other cases that would take priority over this one. Again I have to ask isn't it better to be overfed than not fed at all? Or beat with electrical cords? Or being sexually abused by a family member? There are thousands of children going through all those things and MUCH worse right this second. We can't save them all, that's just simple reality given the current circumstance, but we've got to get our priorities straight!!!

I'm also not sure people know how much the taxpayers pay for foster and group homes. I was a little surprised how some people are quick to side with the OP...

There's no quick fix for this issue... It's going to require a lot of unpopular ideas to truly get things under control. Corporations own our politicians and they're not going to outlaw fast food etc any time soon. There's so many things that would need to change but won't because that would require education. Face it... TPTB want us to be stupid fat consumers and once the health problems start then big pharma gets paid. It's a huge web and it's all going to have to fall before it gets better.

I don't see overweight children as child abuse. When we have cases of child beatings,starvings,and many more terrible offenses it shocks me too see feeding your kids or a inherit weight is abusing ur child.

Originally posted by Imhotepsol

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
reply to post by Imhotepsol

 

but we dont know all the facts. they could have a genetic disorder causing them to be fat . as i have said on other posts the quantity of nutrition available does not equat with the quality which comes from expense and searching. they are part of a culture where the supermarket rules the whole world not just us our side of it. of course they are going to eat and maybe dont know when to stop . they are trained as consumers like so many . also trained as ingrates to god are they but we wont go there. put wrongs to rights> that is correct action .
adding wrongs to punish wrong behavioiurs > that is not correct action which casues a spiral of abuse > into being forced

So where are the fat people in famine ravaged countries then? You can't answer that because there is none. The closest thing they have to fat, is the belly bloat, as their stomach slowly digests itself. The gasses that build up cause the pot belly.

Also I support eugenics. I believe that it is necessary for us to try and increase the calibre of every generation and if we have moved to a point where we have the intelligence to do that, we should. It would cause little harm that instead of another 50cent, snookie, Kardashian or whatever facile waste of a human life will come along that we attempt cultivate the right biology and right environment to produce another Einstein or Hawking.

The breeding culture we have today, coupled with this false sense of entitlement most people seem to have means that today for every one child born into a stable environment there are perhaps another 100 that are being born to irresponsible retards. If we had stricter control regarding the raising of children then those people who are either too stupid or lazy will either not bother, or have to improve themselves before they are allowed. There is nothing wrong with that.

Do you really think that in a world of 4 billion people that we can just go on with "hey I have sperm lets use it"? It is a sad fact of our time that we have to admit that no, its no longer our choice any more. I would be surprised it we didn't see more of this type of policing over the coming years as resources become more strained and hunger (not the I ate 10 minutes ago, but I'm fat so I need to eat again, but real hunger) becomes rampant.

It will not be possible to allow fat people to continue to consume a disproportionate amount of resources. It's not fair. Every fat person is directly responsible for the the death by starvation of someone else. Just because we have a monetised way of obtaining food that removes direct interaction, nether the less, because they have taken more they have deprived someone else. Simple as.

edit on 4/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)

www.welshwomensaid.org...

Those are really quite extreme views you have posted as a supporter of eugenics. on the genetic disorder issue you would definitely find fat people in currently undernourished countries , if , there were enough food for them to eat to get fat. and some of them would have th gene disorder where their bodies do not issue the signal *stop eating*

we have to resist sliding into eugenics but provide top grade education for people ; this would acheive the same ends as you desire without the force which always becomes necessary in the end.
eugenics performed by the state is for the state, not for the people. that is the very grave danger here. the sum of individual circumstances like this report of this case by the DM equals to collective repression in the end, especially as precedent cases go through courts.
i see the end of eugenics as being in awful places like concentration and death camps. seriously eugenics is so not good its laughable > have you seen The Life of Brian by monty python? where brian is spat on by the warder as he is thrown into a prison cell with a man chained half way up the wall saying "he spat on you, that's blatant favouritism that is !" he goes into a an hilarious rant about how the romans should punish everyone while cleaning up society and how crucifixion is "too good for em" .
eugenics is not what the voter voted for or what the taxpayer in this country england demands. if you fail to receive a reception here as a eugenicist, perhaps you should go and see what the tutsis did with the hutu tribe in rwanda. the you can follow through eugenic ideas to their full end> somewhere other than the uk

Originally posted by Flyer
Good, making your kids fat is a form of child abuse.
They will likely stay fat all their life and have health problems.

If you want to keep your kids, teach them to eat properly instead of feeding them crap to keep them quiet.

Word!

Some people should not have kids at all.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You dont' own your children, and neither does the State. Parents are the natural guardians of their children, not the State.

''State'' and ''society'' are not synonymous.

Parents are the guardians of their children due to convenience. Adoption and fostering shows strong evidence that there is absolutely no necessity for a child to be raised by his or her biological parent(s).

exactly where is that evidence penfold? you contribute notable facts to threads but this is an apologists response for unacceptable eugenic practises, which equate with psychological and emotional abuse? in terms of human rights made for societies against the influences of state or other criminal acts , its anabomination you provide an excuse for. and you assume that the state already controls children over and above their guardians. child molesters is what that makes them then> i dont think the children would be happy about it either

and after all 'no necessity for parents to be natural guardians' DOES NOT equal all children removed by the state being fostered. you cant use unrelated evidence to put facts about things. i propose you dont have a source for that.
what about the kids in winterbourne view? where were their natural guardians while the state provided the evil nannies to them which beat the up tortured them and shoved drugs into them to shut them up . then covered it up in case one of the police who ignored it decided they should act as guardians for them instead?
and one of these being kidnapped for being too fat could easily end up somewhere similar that the cqc consistently ignore. its not based on assumptions as eugenics is to say that one of the children being taken could happen to react with violence to the separation and be diagnosed with learning disabilities because he wouldnt give up his rights , be seen as needing to be in a 'lowsecure' unit as winterbourne view was and then where would the child be? needing his natural parents? well what could they do now? they cant even find him nor he them. it is desperately sad and shameful in the extreme what they are doing here. absolutely inexcusable.
so dont try to pass off kidnapping as foster care. foster careers should be ashamed of themselves too for going along with this state which does this sort of thing.

it is violence masquerading as love ; how dare they pretend to care more than parents about their children? how dare it matter more than the child's own wishes?
this is the politics of experience and way too many assumptions and apologies are being made for absolutely abhorrent practises . we hated hitler for it and we still hate him now . he or this neo nanny supernazi government will never be the master will never be the master of us.
that's why they have to write books like mein kampf ; 'my struggle' < its pathetic

human rights - 30 articles ; they made them in 1948 AGAINST NAZIST IDEALS IN GOVERNMENT


answer it> winterbourne view> was that good for children? do them no harm did it?

I myself have an interest in health foods and healthy lifestyle, and I find disgust in parents that feed their children and pets wrong destroying their lives.

It's a thought-provoking and tricky situation, but what is clear is children cannot understand why they're fat, it's up to their parents to be parents and not friends who give them all the freedom they want. I dislike the term freedom everytime it's used in an evil context, such as destroying nature or not being one with nature : eating dead food.

The lives of 7 children could be ruined because of sick parents, it's good for them they're taken away to treatment, but I think someone should've thought their parents the basics of healthy eating, it's not so darn difficult. And to be taken to custody and never see their parents again sounds a bit harsh, but really there goes a limit somewhere. The reason why social workers interrupt this is also the fact these people would never go to jobs cos they don't have the necessary health.

reply to post by Jonas86


There must exist a serious risk of further harm to justify interventions such as what is proposed. if the case is not thrown out by the judge , what it will mean is that the state can separate families virtually for good over *potential* future health issues as minor as being currently overweight.

separating families on a food basis is cutting very close to the bone. so close that it is the state who is clearly acting in the wrong here (from what the dm puts) trying to create legal precedence for family interventions based on diet almost in singularity.

perhaps the reason the family were observed under curfew for 2 years while NOT being educated about what they should eat for 2 years , was to help set this precedence. it forms 'evidence ' that the social workers can put to a court about how they had not changed. in reality they were not empowered to make informed choices about food, but left to wallow and fall apart under observation which would be intolerable to anyone. it warrants further investigation of the names and faces this is coming from.

So; they are, effectively, setting their kids up for a lifetime of chronic illnesses and diseases. Not to mention taunts and jibes form their fellow classmates or work colleagues.

Maybe taking their kids off them was a little extreme, but they should not be allowed to mistreat their children in that way, it is tantamount to child abuse

reply to post by MrWendal


WOW!! The calculations on that sight blew my mind. It stated "The ideal weight for a person my height (6ft) would be between 140 and 177 pounds." I'm in my mid 40's and in great shape and health. I'm a smoker, but I also work out regularly. The last time that I weighed under 180lbs, my doctor asked had I been ill. Even at my average of 184lbs I still appear slim to skinny to most anyone who sees me. Like you stated, it depends on the person indvidually.

If the the parents caused the children bodily harm I don't see a problem with this...depends on how fat they are. It's a fact that nutrition habits you pick up during childhood often stick with people forever. Given that, stopping them from making their kids fat, and giving them a whole array of health issues, I don't see a problem with them having their kids taken away.

Not if they were slightly overweight though...I'm taking about proper fat, not just "chubby".

There is no 'fat gene', people who eat too much educate their body to ignore the I'm full signals.

The family was under observation for a long time. The reason for them having this attention must have been known to the parents. In a situation like this, what type of fool would not educate themselves about healthy lifestyles?

The parents obviously either knew they lacking as parents yet did nothing to help themselves. Seven children to parents who either were not intelligent enough to gain the necessary skills to look after the kids or knew but couldn't be bothered to care for them properly. What a sad situation, there is something to be said for restricting the amount of children that some people just churn out without the skills to look after them.

As a parent of three I cannot imagine anyone having children and not putting their interests first. I am not in favour of eugenics at all but where is the sense in allowing people to reproduce who do not do the basic research on how to look after their children? You do not buy a bird then expect it to live on pork pies! Our offspring are our most precious gift, over feeding IS a major health risk to a child. It makes future metabolism difficult to control and regulate, it is abuse.

Taking kids from parents should only be done when the child is at serious potential risk, agreed. The repercussions for these kids could have a serious lasting effect on their lives, if the environment was loving and beneficial for these kids they would not be taken away. Love means realising when you are hurting your kids and taking steps to stop it, full stop.

reply to post by EvanB


Not seeing too much issue with this to be honest.

There is no excuse to feed your children until they are clinically (and likely morbidly) obese. Where you say they are from a 'loving family' I simply cannot agree with that statement. The parents no doubt love their children but not love them enough to send them into an out of control obesity spiral.

Fact. These parents have failed to raise the children within a healthy lifestyle so why should they be allowed to continue to raise a child knowing that they will not give the child the best option at life. They will just allow the child to sink further into an abyss.

Being obese is disgusting but the children have little understanding so what the parents are doing is in fact what I find disgusting.

Personally, I believe that there are better ways to handle this than to take the children away but the parents clearly cannot follow a healthy diet or lifestyle. As such, drastic measures have to be taken before these children just become another fat burden on the NHS. The council, in my opinion, should have done more but at what point do parents stop being parents and expect everyone else to raise their children?

The father, aged 56, said: ‘We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; we’ve cut out snacks and only ever allowed the kids sweets on a Saturday. But nothing we’ve done has ever been enough.

How admirable ... you have tried to sort the diet out but evidently you have not succeeded or encouraged exercise. As such, you have failed to succeed in your children losing weight. I am sceptical, however, that they even bothered to do their dieting when no-one was looking.

To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable.

No! What is intolerable is the fact that you feed your child to unacceptable levels. What is intolerable is that you have now forced your child into a school life where they will be bullied because of what you as a failure to parenting have done.

There are too many unfit parents in Britain that should not have kids. Having a child is a responsibility not to be taken lazily or lightly. More people need to think first and f*ck later.

Originally posted by Threegirls
There is no 'fat gene', people who eat too much educate their body to ignore the I'm full signals.

As a parent of three I cannot imagine anyone having children and not putting their interests first. I am not in favour of eugenics at all but where is the sense in allowing people to reproduce who do not do the basic research on how to look after their children? You do not buy a bird then expect it to live on pork pies! Our offspring are our most precious gift, over feeding IS a major health risk to a child. It makes future metabolism difficult to control and regulate, it is abuse.

Taking kids from parents should only be done when the child is at serious potential risk, agreed. The repercussions for these kids could have a serious lasting effect on their lives, if the environment was loving and beneficial for these kids they would not be taken away. Love means realising when you are hurting your kids and taking steps to stop it, full stop.

You cannot treat people like farm animals , controlling when and where they reproduce. they have all got human rights, you'd be walking all over them as the state is trying its hardest to do.
you say future metablolsm is a serious potential risk ? got any evidence of that ? it could not be categorised as abuse but it is neglect here we are talking about ; of the children's health and well being.
the most neglectful are the social services, observing without educating or even showing them the right shops to go in and how to manage a food budget > neglecting the children they all are, not just the parents.
what do social services propose they will eat affter separation? something some ultrananny foster carer is better at giving them? like more and more cheapoid rubbish the supermarkets knock out ?
agaion what serious lasting effects come from being overweight? heart disease? 1 in 3 of us already dies of that
why does it equal a risk to some fat kids and not others?
and lastly love does not mean what you said it does !realising you are hurting people) absolutely not. thats as far from the truth as it could be. if it was , social services should fold themselves up. Full stop

reply to post by george_gaz


this is a load of assumptions start to finish. why are you sticking up for ultrannanny tactics like this? without any facts i might add. only assumptions. i cant stand people who make assumptions and start acting on their assumptions as if they had a right to assume stuff and start messing around with other peoples lives based on nothing but an ego tistical air of social snobbery. and more and more assumptions. its disgusting, your assumptive assumptive attitude is sickening
i hope the supernazi bstrds go to hell

Originally posted by Griffo
So; they are, effectively, setting their kids up for a lifetime of chronic illnesses and diseases. Not to mention taunts and jibes form their fellow classmates or work colleagues.

Maybe taking their kids off them was a little extreme, but they should not be allowed to mistreat their children in that way, it is tantamount to child abuse

it is called neglect not chld abuse , and taking children on the basis of being overweight is kidnap ; thats more than a little extreme .

are taunts and jibes a seious risk? no. what chronic illnessess havent they got from being fat yet? none.

are either of these serious risk of further harm then ? no .

Originally posted by Griffo
So; they are, effectively, setting their kids up for a lifetime of chronic illnesses and diseases. Not to mention taunts and jibes form their fellow classmates or work colleagues.

Maybe taking their kids off them was a little extreme, but they should not be allowed to mistreat their children in that way, it is tantamount to child abuse

I agree up to a point. Parents who knowingly feed their children unhealthy food to the extent the child becomes clinically obese are abusing their children. However there must be more humane and cost effective ways of dealing with this family. Taking kids away from their parents has to be the very last resort in any case.

These authorities to my knowledge get more money the more children they can snatch, hence they go after *easy* targets instead of actually helping children who's lives actually ARE at immediate risk by truly abusive parents.