Should Parents Of Extremely Obese Children Lose Custody?

[Rapture]

Harvard University child obesity expert Dr. David Ludwig's recent claim that some parents should lose custody of their severely obese children has sparked outrage among families and professionals across the country.

The national outcry led one family to share how its personal experience with the matter damaged their lives.

Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children's Hospital Boston and associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, shared his divisive idea in an opinion piece that ran in the Journal of the American Medical Association Wednesday: that state intervention can serve in the best interest of extremely obese children, of which there're about 2 million across the United States.

"In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems," Ludwig co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.

The topic has quickly generated controversy, and the majority of experts contacted by ABC News disagreed with Ludwig and Murtagh's ideas.

A family in Albuquerque, N.M., disagreed with the idea, based not on any medical expertise but on a painful personal experience that they say tore the family apart more than a decade ago.

In a case that shocked many people across the country, 3-year-old Anamarie Regino, weighing 90 pounds, was taken from her outraged parents by government officials and placed in foster care. "Literally, it was two months of hell. It seemed like the longest two months of my life," mother Adela Martinez said. As it turned out, it was two unnecessary months of hell. Anamarie didn't improve at all in foster care, and she was returned to her parents. The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.

"They say it's for the well-being of the child, but it did more damage that any money or therapy could ever to do to fix it," Martinez said.

Anamarie, who is now 14, agreed.

"Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer," Ludwig said.

Ludwig said he believes that children should only be removed in the most extreme cases, and that state officials should first offer counseling and education to parents.

"It should only be used as a last resort," he said. "It's also no guarantee of success, but when we have a 400-pound child with life threatening complications, there may not be any great choices."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/childhood-obesity-call-parents-lose-custody/story?id=14068280

I read about this in the newspaper a couple of days ago. I think its outrageous. There should never be a reason for the government to be able to take a person's child away from them...ever. Unless there are obvious indications of neglect or abuse. Like in the case of the girl in this story...they can't always prove that the parents are being neglectful of their child because it could be genetic...so why put a family through so much unnecessary stress and heartache in the first place?

Instead of going to such extremes as this, wouldn't it make more sense to address the childhood obesity problem before it starts through education in schools and well-child visits at the child's pediatrician ...as well as working with the restaurants and etc...to provide more healthy alternatives? It also doesn't help that healthy food at the grocery store costs substantiallly more than the processed foods for those who are low income and etc...

If the case is found to be genetic then if a healthy lifestyle through education about healthy foods and exercise is found to not be beneficial...then a wait until the child could obtain a lapband system or gastric bypass would make sense.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I think that many of the problems the children strive through in this day and age can be traced back to the parents, whether it is mental problems, severe fatness, unhealthy habits or just being raised as cruel or ignorant or racist people.

I think that many parents of our generation are nothing more then pathetic children themselves. Honestly just because you can teach your kids to eat healthy, or to be open minded or good people, it does not mean that the parents are doing this. I have seen so many fucked up parents I can not personally believe it.

Second, you have to understand a child's mind. they do not think mature like me and you do. You can slam healthy eating and stuff into their heads all day long, but it doesnt mean that they going to learn it through school. Its just like math, some people just do not get it. Being a kid and making life changing decisions without the assistance of a grown adult that can be a figure in their lives can be next to impossible. Plus not to mention you have biased teachers who have children of their own and are not going to reach out and take this childrens hand. I remember early years of school, I was too busy playing with my friends to understand any of the shit they were trying to teach me. It is even harder when they sit next to their friends and do not understand why they can not eat the same thing.

There are parents spitting out babies at age 18 and even younger in some cases. I find that parents should not be allowed to care for a child until they have learned to care for themselves. So in a way I disagree with you because just because me or you came from a suitable family it does not mean that other children would not be better off without their immature non caring parents crippling their mind when it absorbs the most.

Not to mention divorce messes with a kids mind, and in America people have gotten so used to high divorce rates that they do not even take it seriously....when it is indeed a serious thing, especially if you have children.

I think there are a great number of reasons to take protective custody of a child and that parents should only be given so many chances when it comes to handleing another persons life, and that includes letting their children eat shit 24/7

I do not however agree with forceful protective services, I think that the child must have a very informed reason why he should have to decide in the first place, and if he or she chooses to live in an abusive enviorment then I think it should be mandatory for the parents to seek proffesional help or phsycology for themselves and their child to change negative lifestyles that they will one day regret but are too young to understand it.

 

[Will Graham]

I am actually in agreement with the main thrust of what this guy is trying to say, morbid obesity is a very dangerous health risk. I don't mean a few pounds or puppy fat, I mean the weight where you are looking at heart problems, diabetes, and respiratory difficulties and all of that.

The article mentions 'education and counselling first' and I assume they would also have tests to determine a genetic disorder. In regards to obesity it is far more likely to be McDonalds-itis than a bona fide condition. People are making it sound like they are going to snatch up any child who doesn't look like a twig

 

[Shu]

Of course I agree with this. No offense but Obese children, and Overweight children are two different things.

If the parents took them to the doctor in the first place and found out it was because of genetic disposition, then they would have probably had a case in the first place to never lose the kid.

The underlying theme here is... YES it's neglect. When you choose to cook your kids ramen noodles which are high in sodium, then you subject them to high intakes of sodium in which causes extreme complications later down the road, when you could have easily cooked something a bit healthier.. but you wanted to "save" well.. that's neglect.

Neglect is when you choose to save money to buy a new car and over look for your kid's health. In some families when the kid becomes as big as the mother, we often times say "well it must be genetic." Yea.. really.... Hmm.. it's so genetic to not want to work out. Does anyone really ENJOY working out and eating healthy? No. We live in America though where friend food is mostly accessible 5 miles away (especially in the south) for very cheap.

We don't give our kids the needed fiber/protein/vitamins in order to actually replace them when they sweat/build muscles from growth/metabolize. Along with this exercise practice goes along way. If the parents are lazy, well the kid is going to be lazy, unless they choose to be self aware. We blame way too much on genetics these days. Geneology does go along way these days, but unless it's a disease, then get another excuse. Stop bitchin, and take away the coke products (high fructose = almost impossible to break down and metabolize)/ High Fatty Foods/ Sweets.

It will save their teeth, manage their health, and damn make the person feel better as well, not just about themself but breathing/muscle pains.

 

[Ilyena]

I remember watching a video a couple of years ago about a 7 year old child that weighed over 400 pounds. This girl could not walk; she had to drag herself across the floor. She could barely breathe when she moved. It was both sickening and sad. This wasn't a case of genetics. It was a case of her parents giving her whatever she wanted and giving in whenever she cried and complained. I'm sorry but allowing your child to gain so much weight that she can't walk or breathe properly because you can't bear to discipline them is neglect and abuse in my eyes. If you aren't adult enough to tell your child no, then don't have children. YOU are the adult and the parent, it's your job to teach/discipline your child and lay down the rules not the other way around.

So yes, I think if people can't properly discipline or teach their children, then they shouldn't have them and cases like this fall into proper discipline and education. Some children are chubbier than others and everyone has their own ways of eating, cooking, etc. But when it gets to the point where your child is morbidly obese, someone definitely needs to step in because something is definitely wrong.

 

[Linnaete]

The thrust of his argument seems rather reasonable to me. The possibility behind the genetic argument can only go so far. A child may be naturally born as being a bit overweight for their age or compared to their peers, but that's completely different to what a morbidly obese child actually is. A morbidly obese child doesn't get there simply through genes, it's the environment as well. The parents have the responsibility for their children's wellbeing and if they prefer to just laze around on the couch preferring to order takeaway meals, microwave meals and other kinds of fast food for their children day in and day out, that's fundamentally neglect. It's the dangerous compromise of a child's wellbeing by allowing that to happen on a daily basis, and I'm sure everyone knows that this problem is not just a cosmetic one, which is the least of your worries if you are morbidly obese.

The outcry is understandable to an extent. This is pure state intervention, and yes, the idea of snatching children away from their parents with the possibility of subjecting psychological discord to them does seem a frightening prospect, particularly in the States. It's not like hundreds of thousands of kids will be snatched away and totalitarianism has slipped in, no one will ever allow that. For the most serious and extreme cases, I don't see why the prospect of threatening parents of very seriously obese children deserves that much outroar. There was apparently a 12 year old who weighed 400-pounds and it was only in foster care that 130 was shed.

Of course one should seek to exhaust some alternatives first, but aren't they already doing some of that? Aren't restaurants being pressured about this issue and aren't schools already placing heavy emphasis on drilling awareness into elementary school children? Yet there are still around 2 million obese children in the States and frankly, the big business nature of the country means that fast food joints are unlikely to be that wholehearted towards tackling the problem of obesity. Alternative methods are well and good - if they are effective of course - but a lot of the time they're not and in the extreme cases they demand some extreme action before it's too late. A parent who cannot at all address the issue of their child's weight and health is neglect, which is also a fair enough reason to tell them that if they cannot look after the wellbeing of children sufficiently enough, they shouldn't be having children and allowing them to build up serious health risks.

 

[Harlequin]

The problem with the letter of the law is it's too black and white when life is grey. I'm partially in favour of it, mainly because the vast majority of people who are morbidly obese are eating far too much and doing far too little about it, but there are those who suffer conditions which make is considerably harder to do something about it.

My good pal Licky summed it up quite nicely and even though I'm not entirely for telling people what to do, my taxes certainly shouldn't be wasted on treating them if they don't want to control their eating habits.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

I don't think taking the children away from their parents is addressing the problem, at all. Just because extremely obese children are taken from their parents doesn't mean they're going to get any better or even lose any weight, nor do I think every parent who lets their child get to that stage should automatically be branded as a "bad" parent. What seems obvious to most people won't be for others, if the parents are brought up like that themselves and maintained that lifestyle throughout their whole life they may not see any problem with it. Taking away their children isn't exactly helping them learn how to raise their children in a healthy manner.

Some form of counseling should be legally imposed if the child becomes obese but taking their child away from them should be an absolute last form of action.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I don't think taking the children away from their parents is addressing the problem, at all. Just because extremely obese children are taken from their parents doesn't mean they're going to get any better or even lose any weight, nor do I think every parent who lets their child get to that stage should automatically be branded as a "bad" parent. What seems obvious to most people won't be for others, if the parents are brought up like that themselves and maintained that lifestyle throughout their whole life they may not see any problem with it. Taking away their children isn't exactly helping them learn how to raise their children in a healthy manner.

Some form of counseling should be legally imposed if the child becomes obese but taking their child away from them should be an absolute last form of action.

I agree that its a last form of action, but I think it could potentially be more healthy for the kid in an enviorment where they are not fed fatty shit everyday. Children are like sponges in their young age and the sooner you squash problems that are not being handled then the sooner they can change.

The children can grow up getting fatter and fatter, and one day hate their parents for letting it come to this way, or even worse they can assume there is nothing wrong with what they did, thus setting a standard that consumption of crap is just fine.

I feel that if it is settled before hand then the children (who did not realize it at the time) will grow into the understanding of what happened, and possibly not make the same mistakes.

Now I think that if it IS the parents who let them get to that stage (and not genetics or disease) then I would indeed label them "bad" parents in my own personal perspective.

 

[Will Graham]

Some form of counseling should be legally imposed if the child becomes obese but taking their child away from them should be an absolute last form of action.

That's exactly what the guy said, that counselling and education of parents would happen far before the children were removed from the home

And if the parents ignore or disregard that, well the child has a better shot of being placed in the care of people who are educated on this issue and willing to adhere to a healthier diet. Plus there are fairly priced healthy foods available

Also it's not about buying ridiculously healthy expensive foods, just cutting back on junk and making sure a child gets exercise. Plus there are some really expensive fast foods available too, in fact the majority are very pricey here I'd dare to say

Not to mention fast food is much less filling so a child would end up eating far more of it anyways imo

 

[Roland_Deschain]

That's exactly what the guy said, that counselling and education of parents would happen far before the children were removed from the home

And if the parents ignore or disregard that, well the child has a better shot of being placed in the care of people who are educated on this issue and willing to adhere to a healthier diet. Plus there are fairly priced healthy foods available

Also it's not about buying ridiculously healthy expensive foods, just cutting back on junk and making sure a child gets exercise. Plus there are some really expensive fast foods available too, in fact the majority are very pricey here I'd dare to say

Not to mention fast food is much less filling so a child would end up eating far more of it anyways imo

Thats exactly right.

If parents took only a few minutes to use the vast amount of resources available you would realize that you can take three different kinds of low priced vegetables and make a very good meal from it.

It all boils down to being lazy, people bitch and moan that food is so expensive when they spend more then a grocery bill on potatoe chips and fast food meals.

Even the food they already eat, can be healthy. Pizza can come with vegetables, Fast food joints have salads, and you cant get cans of green beans to put as a side of anything for dirt cheap.

 

[Shu]

Trust me, my thing is early onset diabetes. I have two friends that suffer due to their Type 2 diabetes. I remember growing up with one of them and he was allowed excessive juice in the morning, donuts in the mornings and at lunch cokes/mtn dews. The parents would stop by McDonalds at night, and his nickname was named Cheeseburger. His insulin levels were just retarded. He couldn't maintain and his damn pancreas developed it over time.

He weighed around 125lbs at the age of 7 and his height was around mine. I weight 75 lbs and I was a medium build, though I maintained it all through many years of sports. He didn't at the time have to use insulin or glucogen but now I believe he does due to irregularities.

That's the sad part, some people can't help but have health problems later in life because of the way their parents raised them. If they could afford mcdonalds, they could also afford sandwich meat + bread that would last for many more days than one meal.

I don't see the argument here.

 

[Rydia]

It really depends. A parent that is only serving their child junk food and nothing much of nutritional value could certainly be accused of neglect. However, if a parent is neglecting to monitor the food their child eats, then they are probably neglecting other parts of parenting too.

However, I wonder if this is fair to low income families. Should they be held to the same standard if they have difficulty affording healthy food, and instead choose the inexpensive affordable food? Also those that may lack nutritional education?

There are also diseases that can cause obesity.

One of my friends had type 1 diabetes. When she first started taking insulin, she had a rapid weight gain and had difficulty losing all the weight. She changed her diet (which was difficult) and tried her best to exercise, but her diabetes was causing her to be tired almost all the time.

Also Willi Prader syndrome is a genetic disorder that can cause an insatiable hunger in those that have it.
http://www.pwsausa.org/syndrome/index.htm

Wasn't there also a theory or a study, that suggested that intestinal bacteria might be a cause of obesity?

 

[Tmoo]

i think the bigger issue at hand is good parents vs. bad parents. good, mindful parents monitor their child's health, food intake, et al. You have to be ready for this kind of thing when you conceive that kid. If not, then you shouldn't be having kids, not until you know what to expect and have the maturity to follow through with your responsibilities. If it's a genetic problem, then you still have to do your best to combat it, for your child's health. There's a difference between saying little Johnny is overweight because it's genetic when you feed him fast food all the time, and actively working against said genetic problem through a healthy lifestyle. The former is an excuse for bad parenting, and the latter is a proactive approach to improve the health and well-being of the child.

...more on topic, separating kids from their parents due to neglect is fine, but there's a difference between neglect and obesity. correlation does not imply causation, etc.

 

[Ilyena]

Fruits and veggies are not that expensive. Bananas are typically 49-59 cents a pound which typically comes out to less than $2 for a bunch. A head of lettuce is usually between 1-2 dollars. Frozen vegetables are even cheaper than that. You can get a decent sized bag of brown rice for under two dollars and it certainly goes a long way. Whole grain pasta is about the same price as enriched pasta and it's healthier. You could buy enough food for a week's worth of meals for what you would pay to feed a family of five at McDonalds. I just don't see that as a valid excuse.

I don't see an issue with giving children treats every now and again but letting your child eat so much that they become severely or morbidly obese is a problem. I'm not saying let's just take all children who are overweight from their parents but if the parents are aware of the issue and are not doing anything to rectify it, then someone should step in.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I still dont understand why people have fizzy drinks. (alcohol aside)

I'm sure some people are dumb enough to think they quench your thirst (they dehydrate you), but I'd wager most just drink them because they enjoy them and they taste good. There doesn't have to be any benefit aside from enjoyment. Same goes for alcohol, so I'm not sure why you don't get it.


As far as fat kids go, I agree that parents should control their kid's diet. I'm not sure at what age they should be allowed to make their own choices. It'd differ between children, but some will never make the types of choices you want them to regarding their diet or anything else.

However, I'm not sure taking the kids away is the right answer. That sets a precedent for taking a kid away that's much lower.

If we take a kid from their parents because they're obese and that's a health risk, then we should be taking the children away from any family with a religious belief that keeps them from seeking medical attention/doctors. Or from parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. Or those who use 'folk medicine' or homeopathy to treat their children rather than actual medicine. Or people who threaten their children with the threat of damnation when they screw up, as children are wont to do. Or spanking - does it help or not? If it actually makes things worse, then what about parents who spank?

And are the psychological effects of taking a kid from their parent outweighed by the physical problems of their obesity? People talk about the psychological problems caused by divorce, but how much more fucked up is the government taking you away from your parents (when they may be perfectly great parents besides knowing shit all about diet) and putting you in a strange family and not allowing you to see them?

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I'm sure some people are dumb enough to think they quench your thirst (they dehydrate you), but I'd wager most just drink them because they enjoy them and they taste good. There doesn't have to be any benefit aside from enjoyment. Same goes for alcohol, so I'm not sure why you don't get it.


They may dehydrate you BUT, I garuntee you that if you were stranded in a dessert, you would live a long longer if you had a gallon of Soda as opposed to nothing, simply because water IS an element in cola.


As far as fat kids go, I agree that parents should control their kid's diet. I'm not sure at what age they should be allowed to make their own choices. It'd differ between children, but some will never make the types of choices you want them to regarding their diet or anything else.


This is a problem previously mentioned, that parents SHOULD do this and they SHOULD do that. The main substance of this debate is the topic of neglect and being lazy when it comes to children.

However, I'm not sure taking the kids away is the right answer. That sets a precedent for taking a kid away that's much lower.


It has been pointed out that this should only be done in the most extreme of neglect cases, and if its in that genre of case's I do not think the precedent could get much lower.

If we take a kid from their parents because they're obese and that's a health risk, then we should be taking the children away from any family with a religious belief that keeps them from seeking medical attention/doctors. Or from parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. Or those who use 'folk medicine' or homeopathy to treat their children rather than actual medicine. Or people who threaten their children with the threat of damnation when they screw up, as children are wont to do. Or spanking - does it help or not? If it actually makes things worse, then what about parents who spank?


But listen to what your saying and look at what people said already. We would not be taking them away JUST because they are obese, or because it is a health risk. We would take away the children who are "sickly" obese only because of the parents extreme neglect. And lets face it, obeisity is a much greater problem then extreme religious people not taking their kids to a doctor, in American it is anyway. I walk down the street and see enormous people eveywhere, its like an epidemic now.

And are the psychological effects of taking a kid from their parent outweighed by the physical problems of their obesity? People talk about the psychological problems caused by divorce, but how much more fucked up is the government taking you away from your parents (when they may be perfectly great parents besides knowing shit all about diet) and putting you in a strange family and not allowing you to see them?


Well there has been no statement saying that they would not be allowed to visit their children, or that there would be chances to improve to get them back, I think in such situations it would be a part of it.


Honestly IF IT WERE ME, and I grew up to weight 400 pounds, ONLY because my parents let this happen, and lived a miserable life when I could have been healthy if only I had recieved help. I would rather be seperated from my parents when I am young.


Because then when I grow up, and would understand why it had to be done and that it was for my own good, and in result I would not let my children have extreme health problems because I will be able to stand up and excercise with them. In result this action would squash a line of ill thinking along with setting an example for the future children, because if I was taken from my parents, I would make damn sure mine were not taken from me.


Instead of letting them become fat by feeding them crap everyday like its...."ok"

 

[Donald Trump]

I don't know. I'm anti-fat kids but I also don't think that it is the governments job to interfere with how people raise their children. I don't suppose many parents want their children to be fat so they're probably trying as best they can to prevent it. It also depends on the age of the children, by 12 or 13 most children understand the consequences of their diet. Fast food makes you fat and being fat is ugly, most kiddies get this. It's not as if foster care is known for being really great either, the kiddies will probably end up being cared for by Gary Glitter. I don't suppose the Harvard Pastor Doctor was seriously proposing it, merely using an over the top suggestion to create debate about the subject.

 

[Tucker]

I'm surprised so many people agree.

Yes, in the roots, it is a good idea. America is known to have too much obesity.
However, the government has no right to take away someone from the family. This can be a great idea if it only happens with parents' consent. Maybe the parents want to try things at home? Maybe the obesity is caused by something else, like stress, low metabolism?
The things is, we're targetting the wrong person here. Do you think the child is the one sneaking around, buying unhealthy food? Is completely the child's fault that he/she doesn't get enough exercise? No, it's the parents. When the children are brought back the parents could make the same mistake.

Educate the parents so they can educate their children. Isn't that what parenting is all about?

 

[Will Graham]

I'm surprised so many people agree.

Yes, in the roots, it is a good idea. America is known to have too much obesity.
However, the government has no right to take away someone from the family. This can be a great idea if it only happens with parents' consent. Maybe the parents want to try things at home? Maybe the obesity is caused by something else, like stress, low metabolism?
The things is, we're targetting the wrong person here. Do you think the child is the one sneaking around, buying unhealthy food? Is completely the child's fault that he/she doesn't get enough exercise? No, it's the parents. When the children are brought back the parents could make the same mistake.

Educate the parents so they can educate their children. Isn't that what parenting is all about?

Seriously did no one fucking read the thing, the guy heavily recommended education and counselling long before removal of the child. Also I am rather certain it's been proven metabolism = weight was disproven a while ago.

The Government has no right to remove a family's children? I assume you aren't talking about 100% of cases i.e. molestation, abuse etc. And mean only in regards to this issue