County Places 200-Pound Third-Grader In Foster Care

Thank you for the thread and the heads-up I posted the same in error!

I wish I knew more about this case honestly. I don't believe in State sanctioned 'kidnapping'. On the other hand - 200lbs in the third grade? Ouch.

peace

I live outside of Cleveland and first saw this in the local newspaper. The news paper article said that the kid was losing weight and then had a burst of rapid weight gain and that is what made them take him away. But binging after a long period of calorie restriction is 100% normal and happens to most ADULTS let alone CHILDREN that are on a diet. The article also said siblings were sneaking him food.

But anyways, a child should never be taken out of his home and put into a strangers house or group home if there isn't an immediate violent threat towards them.

But the USA needs indoctrinated little soldiers for its hitler youth

Obesity is the #1 cause of health problems in the US in my opinion, and it is absolutely preventable in most cases. However, it can be directly related to the #1 cause of deaths in the US, which is heart disease. Obesity related medical costs were $147 BILLION in 2009. An ABC article said obesity alone accounts for about 10% of medical costs. The obesity rate is so bad in this country, they made a Disney movie out of it. Because of the child's age, the parent is absolutely at fault. I hate to see the government step into things, but unless the kid has some crazy genetic disorder that wasn't preventable, then the parent is responsible for the child's health. Sure, the kid is probably not in "immediate" danger but the stats on obesity are evident. I don't know where we draw the line at removing kids as something like 33% of kids are overweight, but this one seems justified for me.

CDC Causes of Death 2007
CDC Obesity Cost 2009
ABC: Obesity 10% Healthcare Cost
A Nice Wikipedia Article on Obesity in the US
Disney Obesity Movie Starring a Cute Robot

Oh, here is, I believe, the original article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Cleveland Plain Dealer Article

reply to post by DrunkenDonuts


Well USA kids that go to public school get fed junk food. Processed pizza, chicken nuggets, french fries, candy bars, etc.

And congress says pizza is a vegetable

Plus all the Estrogen mimicking chemicals like BPA that are used in the packaging of all the processed foods, bottled drinks, and all soup cans. These all cause obesity.

A 2008 review has concluded that obesity may be increased as a function of BPA exposure, which "...merits concern among scientists and public health officials."[44] A 2009 review of available studies has concluded that "perinatal BPA exposure acts to exert persistent effects on body weight and adiposity".[45] Another 2009 review has concluded that "Eliminating exposures to (BPA) and improving nutrition during development offer the potential for reducing obesity and associated diseases".[46] Other reviews have come with similar conclusions.[47][48] A later study on rats has suggested that perinatal exposure to drinking water containing 1 mg/L of BPA increased adipogenesis in females at weaning.[49] Other study suggested that larger size-for-age was due to a faster growth rate rather than obesity[50]

en.wikipedia.org...


There's a huge obesity problem in the west and especially in the USA because of the processed foods, additives and lifestyle issues.

USA school lunch = unhealthy, full of man made chemicals, and will aid the child in potentially getting fat

The children essentially get fed poison. How is that not "child abuse"?

The USA needs to ban all obesity causing chemicals in the use of food. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON OBESITY PREVENTION!

from the article linked in the OP:

The case plays into an emerging national debate that has some urging social-service agencies to step in when parents have failed to address a weight problem.

Others suggest there's hypocrisy in a government that would advocate taking children away for being overweight while saying it's OK to advertise unhealthy food and put toys in fast-food kids' meals.

In my experience as a social-service worker (not in Ohio), there would have been multiple attempts to educate the parents/mother before the child was removed. She'd have had a case-worker (with an established intervention plan possibly including regular dietican visits and fitness consultants) before the child was removed. Even then, most CPS state agences would try to find a relative with which to place the child.

As for the advertising....just because unhealthy food and toys in kid-meals is advertised doesn't mean the parents have to take their kids there! When I was a kid, we RARELY had chips, soda, or other sugary treats in the house. RARELY did we go out to eat.
My mom cooked 99% of the meals we ate, and despite our begging to go to McDonald's, they just said "NO."

I am now in my early 50s, 5'5" and weigh about 115 lbs. I eat whatever I want, but I have very little interest in sweets, and I raised my own two the same way. A meal out -- especially that included a "toy"! -- is a Treat. A Special Occasion. It should NOT be the main source of sustenance.

Just saying. This mother should have been seeking additional help if what she "tried" failed. If she did not, and the child was "sneaked" food, either he has a medical problem, or the mother is neglectful. I just don't see any other options. The child is sick, or he is neglected. Either way, he needs care, and I'm glad he will get it. Hopefully the mother will be educated in the meantime and/or given further advice as to how to control the child's weight, or they will discover a thyroid problem and be able to help the kid.

That heavy, at that stage in life? A very serious health threat. He will die very prematurely if there is no intervention, and it needs done now or this child will live a very short life.


Perhaps the county should feel like Scrooge and simply say, "let him die and decrease the surplus population"?
With 700 billion people on earth, one young child would surely not be missed?[sarcasm]
I do not agree with a lot of things Child and Family services do. but in this case.
If there is no intervention. This child will die young. They are trying to save this child's life.
We may not like the way our system is set up sometimes, but for now it is all we have.
If the mother cannot help this child, then there had to be a move into a more structured setting, if this child is to survive.
DH

I agree that it is child abuse to allow a young child to become that obese. Parents have quite a bit of control over children at that age, and if they say, "No toys unless you eat your vegetables!" the kids will, albeit grudgingly, eat their freakin' vegetables. It is a sign of an absence of discipline and a mother who is spoiling her kid. Think Dudley Dursley here... yes, this mother is the Aunt Petunia. (When in doubt, use a Harry Potter metaphor.)

That said, taking the child away is extreme and wrong. A solution such as a government-mandated class for the child and the family, as well as regular check-ups from a personal nutritionist, should have seen this problem solved. As well as support for the rest of the family, because honestly, they are probably (though I guess I have no evidence of this) all larger, which is why they do not exercise together. Can the boy actually ride the bike his mother bought him? Not if she cannot ride her own bike because of her own weight problem - how would she have taught him? I don't know enough about the situation but the likelihood is that it is a combination of lack of discipline and laziness on the part of the parent, who wants to justify her kid's problem so that her own problem is also justified. She is spoiling him at the least, and there is a good possibility she herself is also obese.

It just goes to show that not everyone should be parents. But, plenty of people who shouldn't be parents are, and so we should do our best to support them as human beings so that they can grow too and the children don't suffer. State-mandated nutritionist for the family and tax incentives for healthy families so that lower-income families can buy healthy food... these are the solutions that SOLVE the problem rather than just reacting to it like what happened in this case.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I dont think it is right to take the kid away. Maybe more help should have been offered to the family..

I have taken a moment to think more over this...

And a later poster did say and I agree from the article that it was not completely informative...

The steps taken here are not listed and someone said that more could have been done ahead of time...

CPS does not care about the family ... it is sop to decide the outcome regardless of what happens even when families try to play by the rules... Ask any family lawyer... it takes at least a year to get the kids back with good parents....

The money factor comes in large with the Act bill clinton signed....

As for the kid being in danger....

We are missing a few things.... For this to be legal... (You know that document called the constitution...)to search and seizure any property, you have to give reason...

in family court which is civil court...
rulings have come down to this

how bad is the danger and how close is it to harming the kid... And have reasonable attempts been made to limit the danger....

This was not legal... it is a greedy organization over reaching....


So will those in favor of this draw the lines...

So you want the government to have the right to step into your house and monitor food intake of all family members... that is what you are approving of... Tyranny...

oh its ok if they are overweight ...

How many pounds by law do you want to be a crime?

all woman weighing over 175 go to jail in the name of public safety

and all males over 175 as well...


By the way who is going to enforce this... you plan on using an existing organization or create a new one....

or a fat tax...


since this is interest of public health...

All kids with disabilities need to be taken from there parents... it is a controllable health issue.... If they are prevented from breeding the disabilities will disappear from the human race... After all this is a public health issue... And it is preventable.... if every disable person is sterilized no disabilities from genetics will result...

Next We can prevent everyone with IQ's below say 130 from breeding.... we can begin removing the stupid factor from the heard...

Next anyone that believes in any religion we can prevent from having children... only atheist should be allowed to raise children or have them.... we can remove this drain on society...

Next we can prevent all Conservatives from having children ... only those who believe in liberal views should be allowed to participate in child rearing... They are Christians after all, and religion is just a crutch absorbing resources society could put to better use hiring more health officials and social workers....

As the Senate cedes power to Palpatine under the guise of intergalactic security, Natalie Portman's Princess Padme exclaims bitterly, "So this is how liberty dies—to thunderous applause."

In the name of public health, I approve this message ... long live the state....


Please, I am trying to understand where it is ok to violate someones civil liberties in the name of public health

reply to post by ripcontrol

I have taken a moment to think more over this...

Well put.... your whole post was magnificent.

The line has to be drawn somewhere... government simply should not get to have a say in EVERY aspect of our lives.

Family interventions? Great!
Church meetings over the matter? Lovely!
Community organized protest against the parents? Go for it!

The state dismantling a family and scaring the living crap out of a kid possibly already on the verge of a massive heart attack? Bad policy!

Has anyone supporting this action considered the possibility of a glandular or hormonal dysfunction that was undiagnosed by the doctors involved?

Just sayin'... some folks are awful fast to point a finger of blame at others...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yes - I did mention underlying medical problems. I also mentioned that removing the Child from the family home will cause stress and anxiety. Just as in flight or fright - the first thing to switch off is the digestive system. This could be why he lost weight and then gained weight rapidly - stress and anxiety at being removed from his home.

What is wrong with educating the family in their own home? Helping them by educating them about nutrition and exercise is a far kinder and longer lasting solution.

Much Peace...

reply to post by Amanda5

But if I remember correctly, you weren't in favor of this act of war against a parent.

I have to add one thing as well, again aimed at those who support the removal: tonight I will thank God above that you weren't my parents, and that my children are now too old for you to touch.

Especially whoever said earlier that smoking should be a reason to remove children from their families.

TheRedneck

Until there is more information on this I am reluctant to say if this was right or wrong.

I do wonder what would people be saying if the child had died do to being overweight and it came out that the county knew about it and did nothing. This is a delicate situationin which I wish we had all the facts.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I will add - at the age of fifteen I decided I was never going to have Children.I am now much older and I have no regrets. The way we treat Children is without concern for them and I feel deeply for all the damaged Children in this world. Removing Children from their home is hurting them in ways they cannot understand.

I keep thinking we are an evolved and educated humanity - but we still have sooooo far to go.

Much Peace...

This is another excuse to control us. If we had a better food supply etc.... no one person would have any of the ailments we have today. "Take the Power Back"-Rage Against The Machine

Originally posted by hologypsy
This is another excuse to control us. If we had a better food supply etc.... no one person would have any of the ailments we have today. "Take the Power Back"-Rage Against The Machine

I knew this was going to come up. What do you mean by better food supply? Are you referring to high fructose corn syrup, GMO seeds, and the like? Last time I checked you control what you eat, you can also, *gasp*, grow your own food! Lots of people do it. It's hard work, time consuming, but it is entirely possible. I also know school lunches aren't always healthy. But once again this comes down the parent being able to control what the child eats - unless the school doesn't let them bring their own lunch. That's still only one meal out of the day, though.

It all comes down to personal responsibility, and that is hugely lacking in this country. I eat pretty much whatever I want - McDonalds, corn syrup, whatever. It's probably not the best thing for me, BUT, I also exercise regularly and I generally take in less than 2000 calories daily. It baffles me as to how people eat so many calories daily and not do a little calorie counting. People are also living longer than EVER, so the idea that the food is killing us because of pesticides, GMO seeds, corn syrup, etc isn't a very good argument, in my opinion.

If this kid had a hormonal or a glandular issue, or any other issue out his or his mother's control, then fine. If she can prove it then great. But I still think she was at fault and was really poisoning that kid.

reply to post by DrunkenDonuts

If this kid had a hormonal or a glandular issue, or any other issue out his or his mother's control, then fine. If she can prove it then great. But for now, she was poisoning that kid.

"Guilty until proven Innocent"?

Gee that's a unique concept. Last time I heard that was in a history class on WWII Germany...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by DrunkenDonuts

If this kid had a hormonal or a glandular issue, or any other issue out his or his mother's control, then fine. If she can prove it then great. But for now, she was poisoning that kid.

"Guilty until proven Innocent"?

Gee that's a unique concept. Last time I heard that was in a history class on WWII Germany...

TheRedneck

Gee, I guess almost 2/3 of US adults being obese has nothing to do with 1/3 of kids being overweight. Besides, in Nazi Germany they rounded up people and killed them if they didn't fit their ideals. All these people are still alive, I believe. Isn't there some joke called _______'s Law about everything always coming back to Nazis?

*Edit: Godwin's Law. The ultimate defense on the internet, it appears.

I hate when skinny people seem to think they know it all. Chances are you bias skinny people your day will come... More than likely.

Now where did the article state 'what' the child ate? Disgusting Governement funded School Lunches will and do put a huge amount of the weight on children today, even the 'salads' are loaded with fattening ingredients and dressings.

This has to be a parent who has allowed the system to step in and control her which happens everyday. She is probably poor and therefore feels powerless against the system. The stress of having them in your life can cause stress eating. She most likely has no support system nor money for a good attorney.

This is something which is dangerous and reminds me of the Thunderdome society, it is easy to judge and cheer when you think it does not affect you personally, but you just never know.

One more thing to ponder is that when this happens,is allowed to happen, how long before we see any child who is not up to their normal weight also taken away and the parent accused of neglect and slandered before all the facts are presented.

How many people do you know that as a child were called names just as painful as Obese or fat, names like toothpick, stickfigure, skin and bones, underwieght and the rest?

If they can take a child for their weight it works both ways.

reply to post by Amanda5

I am sorry you missed the joy that comes with watching your children grow into someone so special... but I respect your decision.

The real problem is that people have become far too nosy... far too willing to control the lives of others... far too happy to believe everything they are told. And the government has succeeded in twisting that strongest of natural instincts - to protect one's children - into a tool to not only raise revenue easily and regulate who can have children, but also a method to squash the instinct itself. "It's for the children" has become a cry that sickens me to my very soul, for in the government's eyes, it is the same as saying "We need to use and abuse your children". But the people cry "Yes! Yes! A million times yes!" because they never see the horrors of foster care.

The foster home this child is likely to be placed in will likely not give the same care and devotion a biological parent gives. He will be treated as a piece of meat, a job that pays money as long as the minimum is done for him that is required. Everything he knows is being stripped away from him, and he will have nothing to comfort him in his loneliness. Even if he gets lucky and gets a decent home, he is still alone in a strange world.

All quite possibly over a medical condition. That kind of obesity rarely comes from binge overeating.

Nice way to treat our children. God save us from those who want to save us.

I keep thinking we are an evolved and educated humanity...

Not me. I don't believe in evolution, but devolution... well, let's just say our descendants may be throwing poo and swinging from trees some day.

Assuming we survive ourselves that long.

TheRednecks