Should obese kids be taken away from their parents?

[Impish]

I read about the poor single mom who was working two jobs and so she could only take her son to McDonald's and was penalized for it. I was so overcome with tears by this report. A mom struggling to make ends meet and instead of the government helping her a little they are taking the child away.

 

That's a load of carp.

 

I was a single mom of 2. Worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time. The idea that she can ONLY feed her child fast food is just ridiculous. Its laziness. Its groping for an excuse to continue the status quo, rather than actually working to change the situation, which yes, takes more work, more energy, more time...but to say its ALL she can do to feed her child is absolute nonsense.

 

Nobody HAS to eat fast food. Ppl can help themselves.

[YLVD]

:iagree: wholeheartedly! Our grandparents and great-grandparents would not sit back with their hand in a bag of chips and soda in their other hand and blame the government for being overweight. I know there are health conditions that exacerbates the issue. But truth be told, those are rare.

 

To the original question:

I don't think obese children should be removed from the home. But since the government is willing to spend money on this I think they should use that money to educate the family on how to eat and live healthy live styles.

 

I would agree IF the food that we ate was the same food that our grandparents ate. It is very different. There wasn't HCFS added to food, along with other chemicals. That is one huge difference.

[Jennifer3141]

That's a load of carp.

 

I was a single mom of 2. Worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time. The idea that she can ONLY feed her child fast food is just ridiculous. Its laziness. Its groping for an excuse to continue the status quo, rather than actually working to change the situation, which yes, takes more work, more energy, more time...but to say its ALL she can do to feed her child is absolute nonsense.

 

Nobody HAS to eat fast food. Ppl can help themselves.

 

:iagree:

 

It takes ZERO time to build a salad.

[bbmom]

That's a load of carp.

 

I was a single mom of 2. Worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time. The idea that she can ONLY feed her child fast food is just ridiculous. Its laziness. Its groping for an excuse to continue the status quo, rather than actually working to change the situation, which yes, takes more work, more energy, more time...but to say its ALL she can do to feed her child is absolute nonsense.

 

Nobody HAS to eat fast food. Ppl can help themselves.

 

Thank you! That "poor" mom didn't have to take her child anywhere. McDonald's was easier than getting up 15 minutes earlier and throwing something in the crockpot or cooking for the week on a day off or cooking dinner when she got home (and I'm sure was likely falling down tired.) It wasn't necessity, it was convenience.

[justamouse]

Okay, so...

 

1. The government subsidizes the corn industry which leads to HFCS being pit into every.single.processed food in the country.

 

2. The government does not regulate advertising of junk food to minors so they get a constant barrage of encouragement to eat sugary, fat-filled junk.

 

3. The government schools serve lunches mostly devoid of any nutritional value, burgers, fried chicken fingers and the like, and does not restrict (or actually encourages, as a way to increase school funding) vending machines selling junk and sugar water on school property. This food is what most kids get for 1-2 meals of their entire childhoods.

 

4. This has been going on for long enough that the current crop of adults grew up this way and many have no idea how to cook a healthy meal, and also are "used" to eating this way and view it as normal.

 

5. Government planners over the past 50 years have designed an infrastructure that is so car-based that no one can walk or bike to anything because of either distance, or danger to one's life on roads with no accommodations for anything but cars, or both, meaning exercise is now a planned (and usually paid for) activity instead of something that happens naturally over the course of a day because you need to get somewhere (remember when kids walked or biked to school?)

 

6. So now we have a childhood obesity epidemic and the answer is that the government should take people's kids away, because they're going to do a better job. QED.

 

:banghead:

:iagree:

 

I actually think the kid should be put into the hosp or some sort of extreme situation where he can take the weight off quickly and safety before he dies. I think 440 at that age is ...mindboggling.

Edited July 15, 2011 by justamouse

[Joanne]

Thank you! That "poor" mom didn't have to take her child anywhere. McDonald's was easier than getting up 15 minutes earlier and throwing something in the crockpot or cooking for the week on a day off or cooking dinner when she got home (and I'm sure was likely falling down tired.) It wasn't necessity, it was convenience.

 

:glare::001_huh: I've been that mom for years now. Well, I dont drive thru and buy fast food often. But I have learned that poverty, and working poverty level jobs stacked on top of each other while raising kids sucks raw eggs one thousand times over.

 

In addition, the life of a single mom working more than one poverty level job has behaviors, challenges, and realities that are complex and multi-layered.

 

It's also telling and interesting that the mom can't "win" on this forum. She can't win, although she's working 2 freaking jobs and she'd certainly not win if she stayed on assistance.

 

If I knew that Mom, I'd buy her and her child(ren) dinner as often as I could, and I'd help her with laundry, cleaning, and monitoring homework.

[Impish]

:glare::001_huh: I've been that mom for years now. Well, I dont drive thru and buy fast food often. But I have learned that poverty, and working poverty level jobs stacked on top of each other while raising kids sucks raw eggs one thousand times over.

 

In addition, the life of a single mom working more than one poverty level job has behaviors, challenges, and realities that are complex and multi-layered.

 

It's also telling and interesting that the mom can't "win" on this forum. She can't win, although she's working 2 freaking jobs and she'd certainly not win if she stayed on assistance.

 

If I knew that Mom, I'd buy her and her child(ren) dinner as often as I could, and I'd help her with laundry, cleaning, and monitoring homework.

I was a single mom for over a decade.

Yes, it sucks.

But claiming that you CAN'T feed your kid anything but fast food b/c you're a single parent is absolute insanity. Its an excuse, and a poor one at that.

Like buying beer b/c you didn't pay your utility bill.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Imagine if the money that would be given to the foster family was given to the mother instead so she could provide

 

I think this might be a positive hand up for many of the less severe cases of child neglect/abuse. I think it may have been something that would have worked for my babies' mom (based on my understanding of the situation), for example.

[Cheryl in NM]

FWIW, the government has not suggested a program of removing children from their homes for being obese, although it has happened in some isolated cases. This was the AMA publishing an editorial in one of their journals suggesting it.

 

I understand that, but is the AMA going to enact that? They can't. So, if this were something to become reality (as the OP asked) the government would be footing the bill. I'd rather see the money spent to help people instead of tear families apart.

[Cheryl in NM]

I would agree IF the food that we ate was the same food that our grandparents ate. It is very different. There wasn't HCFS added to food, along with other chemicals. That is one huge difference.

 

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said, the government should educated people to live healthy.

 

On another note: I agree that the foods we have now are not as healthy as our grandparents.

[Cheryl in NM]

Thank you! That "poor" mom didn't have to take her child anywhere. McDonald's was easier than getting up 15 minutes earlier and throwing something in the crockpot or cooking for the week on a day off or cooking dinner when she got home (and I'm sure was likely falling down tired.) It wasn't necessity, it was convenience.

 

:iagree:

[phathui5]

I don't think that removing a child from the home would be appropriate. I think that many of these parents are uneducated about nutrition and health.

 

Alternatives to removal could include:

 

- regular visits with a nutritionist

- removal of television from the home

- membership to the YMCA (offers a sliding scale, state can fill in the difference)

- counseling

- making it so that a certain percentage of food stamps can only go to fruits/vegetables

[Matryoshka]

I do not disagree with any of the statements below, but I think people of free will can NOT blame a "government" for their eating choices.

 

I'd like to say that "we" are the government, but really, the lobbyists (and the people paying them) are who the government represents. :glare:

 

Nobody has to choose to eat processed food.

No, but it's the default here, and that's because of marketing and shelf space. And marketing of carp to children, which is outlawed in most (all?) European countries, and it's been proven that if you get 'em young, you have brand loyalty for life. Which is why so much money is spent on this kind of advertising.

 

And in many inner cities (where obesity is the worst) there are not proper supermarkets but only convenience type stores where processed food is pretty much all you can buy. Where people are also less likely to have cars, but with the horrible public transportation in this country, it's hard to get anywhere farther away with more choices.

 

My mother cooked from scratch, I cook from scratch, but that is not the norm, unfortunately.

 

It is the parent's responsibility to regulate to what degree minors are exposed to advertisement. One can choose not to watch TV.

And this is why my kids have never watched commercial TV.

 

But a lot of the people in this country "don't see the harm". And especially among the working poor where the obesity level is often highest, TV is used as a babysitter (can't afford quality daycare, or any daycare). Even among the more middle class, there are latchkey children unsupervised in the afternoons. And again, the parents are at least second generation into this. Remember 30 years ago when it was asked "how are these kids watching all that TV going to turn out?" Well, they're parents now.

 

Agreed, school food is carp - but you do not HAVE to participate. And if one chooses to, school lunch are 5 meals per week during teh school year only - the majority of meals is consumed at home.

If my kids went to school, I'd probably pack them a lunch.

 

But for many people in this country, either because they're on the subsidized lunch program or because they're all rushing out of the house in the morning to get to work or both, the school lunch is the default. And for many that qualify for the subsidized plan, the school breakfast too (that's what - poptarts and rice crispy treats, someone said?) That's 10 meals a week of carp. And the same gov't that is accusing parents of feeding their kids carp is the same one who is feeding over half these same kids' meals to them. Are they claiming they'll do better when they have custody??

 

Again, it is the parent who should teach the kids how to cook. Not taking the time for proper meals is, for almost everybody, a CHOICE.

Again, this is second generation. Many people in my generation were never taught to cook by their parents (and it might go even a generation before that, when convenience foods first came out and were hailed as the woman's salvation). Especially people who are working and have never cooked from scratch are going to find it daunting to completely change the way they've eaten their whole lives. And taste inclinations are also set early. While I find processed food (and even white flour) tastes like carp, many people have never gotten accustomed to the taste of non-processed food or *gasp* vegetables - even the adults.

 

Agreed. The infrastructure is a problem - but blaming an abstract government makes no sense. It is the PEOPLE who want to drive everywhere, want to live in houses with big yards so that distances are long, demand a car centered infrastructure. Even in towns WITH sidewalks, parents do not walk their kids to school, do not bike to work etc.

Funny that you'd be the one to answer this way, as my most direct experience of a functional infrastructure is Germany. So easy to get around there. My dd was just there for 3 weeks, and biked 1/2 hour to and from school every day - there were bike lanes everywhere for this. There are reasons that there can be a daily meal for Kaffee and Kuchen without an obesity epidemic (and the Gummi Bears there have sugar in them, not HFCS like the ones here).

 

Here, biking or walking anywhere outside the city is taking your life into your own hands. Where there are sidewalks, they don't go anywhere. There's one in my town that ends one block before it gets to a school - then the kids have to walk on the busy road! If highways started in cornfields and ended in the woods and didn't connect anything to anything else, or ended short of their destination, no one would be using them either. Sidewalks need to start where people are and end where they want to get to - not be built randomly wherever a new development gets plopped in, or just in town centers.

 

When I went to Gymnasium for a year, I remember in Erdkunde class there was a unit on planning that explained how there were rules in Germany about how far away one house could be built from another, and how the exits off the Autobahn were not too frequent "because we can't have people building houses all spread out on lots as big as they can get." As an American, this at first made no sense to me (it even seemed rather offensive). Of course everyone should have yards! as big as they want! Then I thought about it, and how this enabled there to be enough open space to have crops, and also made delivery of electricity and other services more efficient and lower cost, and also how it enabled public transportation to be effective. Even in the countryside, the towns are densely enough laid out that you could walk to the bus stop or from the bus stop home.

 

Here, the zoning laws are actually set up that in many towns the houses have to have 2-acre lots whether people want them or not. Subdivisions and strip malls are not planned by individuals. But we've been slaves to the almighty auto for so long we don't see it any more. Things get done the way they have been done (this goes back to the same theme on no one knows how to cook and eats the same thing they are used to and are loath to change and what's the harm we've been doing it this way for the last 50-70 years).

 

But I do not agree that it is the government who should be in charge of my eating habits - it is still a matter of personal responsibility.

Well here we agree completely. :D I have no problem with the idea of government working for the people (I would love single-payer healthcare!), but the fact is in this country right now and for the last century (or more), it's been all about profit and the money trail and not about what's best for public health or the public good. :glare: Whenever the government starts telling us what to eat, it's usually something that is going to earn some corporation some money, not what's actually good for us.

[phathui5]

Is it less ridiculous when a thin baby is drinking soda out of a baby bottle?

 

I completely agree that feeding a baby soda is absurd. But, I've seen many parents doing that when I've sat in the waiting room of my kids' ped, and none of the little ones drinking it have been very large

 

Any infant/toddler drinking soda out of a bottle or sippy is a sad thing to see. When I worked at WIC, I remember the one mom who came in with two sippy cups for her toddler: one with Sprite and one with orange soda.

 

Agreed, school food is carp - but you do not HAVE to participate. And if one chooses to, school lunch are 5 meals per week during teh school year only - the majority of meals is consumed at home.

 

 

Ignoring the school lunch issue, or thinking it's not a big deal because you don't have to do it hurts the children who are low-income and receive free lunch at school. Just because their parents can't afford to make their lunch doesn't mean they should be eating junk food.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Okay, so...

 

5. Government planners over the past 50 years have designed an infrastructure that is so car-based that no one can walk or bike to anything because of either distance, or danger to one's life on roads with no accommodations for anything but cars, or both, meaning exercise is now a planned (and usually paid for) activity instead of something that happens naturally over the course of a day because you need to get somewhere (remember when kids walked or biked to school?)

 

 

I am a government planner and I think the profession as a whole has done a terrible job since at least the end of WWII. The way the built environment is now cannot be attributed to free market choices. The land use pattern we have now has been highly subsidized and I think it is a large part of the obesity problem.

 

However, I do not know any kid who has died from being overweight but I would doubt anyone on this board could say they do not know at least one kid who was been killed in a car. Far more kids die in car accidents than from being overweight (or from anything else). How many people would be in favor of the government taking kids away because they ride in the car to much? But if we are talking the best interest of the kids we would have to start there. Getting kids out of the car will help them live past 18 and might even help with the obesity problem.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Father of Pearl

[Pamela H in Texas]

Alternatives to removal could include:

 

In many cases, when it is safe to do so, parents are given in-home services.

The children are removed when the parents fail to follow through with services and their children are continuing to be put at risk.

 

The AMA can suggest anything they want (though I think even they would agree with doing safety plans before traumatizing children by removal without giving the family a chance to remediate with a slew of services offered); but CPS is not going to start just snatching overweight children (and remember again, we're talking extremely overweight children who could have complications very soon to immediately, not just the kid who is 20 pounds heavier than he should be). They will investigate when they get a call (as they already do). They will determine need (Is child's health/life at risk? Yes, being 180 pounds at 5 is in itself a severe health risk. Does he have a medical issue causing it? Mom hasn't sought medical help or No.). They will offer services (parenting, dietician, doctors, whatever). If family chooses not to participate or drops the ball, child may be removed (it's a matter of weighing risks as there certainly are issues with being removed from home).

 

I am not about to discount the issue of removing children from their parents. I deal with, on an daily basis, the pain my preschoolers have to go through because they were removed from the home. Unfortunately, that was the lessor of two evils as I also must deal with what they had to go through before CPS removed them (yet again). Their parents had a great deal of control in this situation - they could have fixed ALL of the issues, especially since they've been given services multiple times over the years. For whatever reason, they didn't make the changes or didn't make them stick. The parents, not gov't, hurt these children, almost allowing/causing one of them to die. Who was going to protect these children from their parents?

 

The same is true for 400 pound 10 year olds. If there is not a medical reason and the parents simply are allowing/causing the situation that could mean severely compromised health, even death, then they need to follow through with services ("alternatives to removal"). If they don't, then I think *someone* needs to protect these children.

 

Really, this is a moot point because this already happens. CPS already does investigate severe cases of neglect, already does give these parents services, and already has taken custody of children whose parents refused to help them appropriately. The AMA isn't suggesting anything that doesn't already happen.

Edited July 15, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[kolamum]

Oh, such a touchy topic. There's a local prominent personal trainer who's on tv and she's started saying the same thing. I'd like to know if she even has her own children.

 

There are so many factors in this.. and yeah, while children at age 12 are at huge risks to be weighing 400, I bet the parent didn't think she was abusing him to allow him his every whim even if it meant an unbalanced diet.

 

Many children who become overweight started out at picky eaters and their parents fed them ANYTHING they'd eat just to keep weight on them and for fear they'd lose their kids due to malnurishment. Now here we are at the other end of the spectrum wondering if we should remove them for over feeding.

 

Shouldn't we worry about more important things? Like finding an easier way to educate people. Or, better yet lowering the prices of healthy food so it's not cheaper to buy a bag of chips then it is a bag of apples. If the government is really so worried about the well being of the people maybe they should focus their concerns in different ways.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not into them controlling the prices of food and so on, but really I think there are wiser ways one could go about it.. I think the entire idea is quite silly and that a bit of education would go farther. :)

[Pamela H in Texas]

while children at age 12 are at huge risks to be weighing 400, I bet the parent didn't think she was abusing him to allow him his every whim even if it meant an unbalanced diet.

 

It is very unlikely the parents of my preschoolers believed they were abusing them. Obviously, I can't get into tons of details of their case, but I have no doubt these parents love their children and their children love them. They weren't systematically trying to destroy the kids by what they have done repeatedly. Though their child almost died this last time, that wasn't the goal they had in mind. It doesn't change that it was abuse.

 

There are some evil people who plan how to torture their children. They get some sick pleasure out of it. But the great majority of people whose kids are in CPS custody love their children to the degree they are capable. They neglect and abuse their children out of ignorance, lack of control (of self or circumstances), etc. The gov't system is significantly flawed, but it is what we have right now. Again, the parents are offered services in the home and if they STILL won't stop neglecting and abusing their children (or the neglect/abuse is so severe it immediately puts the child in imminent danger), the children are put in state custody. Ideally, that is a safe place like my home, not somewhere they will be neglected or abused further. But I definitely think my home is better than the morgue for a 10 year old!

[Jyniffrec]

 

However, I do not know any kid who has died from being overweight but I would doubt anyone on this board could say they do not know at least one kid who was been killed in a car. Far more kids die in car accidents than from being overweight (or from anything else). How many people would be in favor of the government taking kids away because they ride in the car to much? But if we are talking the best interest of the kids we would have to start there. Getting kids out of the car will help them live past 18 and might even help with the obesity problem.

 

I remember hearing a principal of an elementary school saying that the kids who lived nearby his school had to ride the school bus and not walk because safety was more important than health. :001_huh:

 

We have a child that has a genetic disorder called MCAD. If she ever gains too much weight she will never be able to lose it. It is genetics pure and simple - her body cannot access stored energy at a certain chain length. We have completely changed our lifestyle in order to accommodate her needs and help her to stay healthy.

 

There are likely many other genetic disorders/conditions out there that we don't know about.

[Matryoshka]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not into them controlling the prices of food and so on,

 

Ah, but that's the whole thing - the prices of food are controlled. Corn especially and soybeans are heavily subsidized. After the corn subsidy started, huge swaths of land were turned over from other crops (vegetables!) to corn. There was so much corn no one knew what to do with it, so now it gets turned into syrup and put into *everything* and making junk artificially cheap.

 

How is it that a bottle of Coke can cost the same or less than a bottle of Dasani water (from the same Coca-Cola company)? That water is the same water they mix with Coke syrup and sweetener - there is no added cost for the labor, time, syrup and sweetener? How can that be the natural price (or are they just making a sinful amount of profit on that water)?

[Josie]

Oh H*ll NO! When will this craziness stop!???!!!! What would be next? If your child has anxiety disorder they will be taken away because it is the cause of the envirment. If your child has frequent bruising on the knees and shins they will be taken away because you allow them to play too much causing the bruises.

[Jyniffrec]

I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of one set of people believing that they can educate others. It is insulting on a lot of levels. If I am a christian (or any other religion) who believes everyone else is going to h-ll because they don't go to my church then I may feel completely justified in removing their children from their home or educating them about why they need to change. I don't really see a difference here. They are both perceived as dire, life threatening situations to those on the outside.

 

This really is about bigotry.

 

I'm not sure it means much to be an American anymore.

[Joanne]

People? :chillpill: Did you read the link? It is just some theorist saying he thinks that possibly kids should be removed.

 

There is not pending legislation, not an organized movement towards this, nothing *real* to be visceral or scared about.

[twoforjoy]

People? :chillpill: Did you read the link? It is just some theorist saying he thinks that possibly kids should be removed.

 

There is not pending legislation, not an organized movement towards this, nothing *real* to be visceral or scared about.

 

I think it does say something about the AMA, though, that they'd even suggest this. I mean, have they ever suggested having the children of smokers removed to protective custody? There is a huge amount of fat-bias within the medical establishment, to a level that is simply not warranted by the evidence, and I think this shows how deeply entrenched it is within the AMA.

[Jyniffrec]

People? :chillpill: Did you read the link? It is just some theorist saying he thinks that possibly kids should be removed.

 

There is not pending legislation, not an organized movement towards this, nothing *real* to be visceral or scared about.

 

In the world I live in, I am under a microscope of doctors, nurses and social workers. My kids are hospitalized several times a year. I am able to handle the pressures of scrutiny and can handle it smoothly but I see a lot of people who are looked down upon those who perceive that they know better than the parents of the kids (who love their children dearly). It breaks my heart to hear the things they are accused of. This conversation is just one aspect of it.

[Josie]

People? :chillpill: Did you read the link? It is just some theorist saying he thinks that possibly kids should be removed.

 

There is not pending legislation, not an organized movement towards this, nothing *real* to be visceral or scared about.

 

This is how change is effectuated....slowly. Put out something that *looks* good to many people and then slowly begin expanding the parameters. It is kind of like a frog being put in nice comfortable pot water and then boiling to death because the frog didn't notice the change in the water temperature.

 

Think of the TV in the sixties...even MARRIED people slept in twin beds. NOW everyone (yes, this is a generalization...just to make a point here--don't think I think EVERY show does this) is romping in the hay even on prime time! We have been desensitized and s.l.o.w.l.y acclimated to the idea that even if it is not ok that it is at least tolerable to see simulated behavior that should be respected enough to remain a private act.

[twoforjoy]

:iagree:

 

It takes ZERO time to build a salad.

 

Have you lived in an inner city where access to supermarkets that have decent produce is extremely limited, if available at all, unless you have a car?

 

And, do you honestly think it's healthier for kids to eat just salads for dinner every night? Because, it's not. A child who ate nothing but salads for dinner would be lacking protein, carbs, fats, and calories. Honestly, a child who eats McDonald's every night is probably going to be better off in the long run than a child who is passed a plate of lettuce, carrots, and tomatoes, because kids who lack necessary calories, fats, and protein have significant health and learning problems. Obviously a middle ground would be ideal, but to say that it would be better for people to, basically, give their kids a plate of iceburg lettuce every night than to feed that a burger and fries is to show how completely unhealthy our ideas about food are in this country.

[tadbhoward]

My mother was a single mom of 3. When I was in high school she worked over 16 hours everyday managing a McDonald's. We hardly ever saw her except for when she fed us from her McDonald's. If she did not feed us McDonald's it was because I ordered pizza for my brothers and I. She was not lazy. She was an incredibly hard worker who did not graduate from high school, dealt with an undiagnosed mental disorder, was a recovering drug addict, and the survivor of severe mental and physical abuse.

 

I guess it was okay though because we were all thin.

[stripe]

I think it would be more productive to bring grocery stores to urban areas, teach people how to cook, and help parents. Would be cheaper and better for families than breaking them up.

 

This is my opinion about prisons, too. An ounce of prevention....

[Julie Smith]

Think of the TV in the sixties...even MARRIED people slept in twin beds.

 

Totally off topic. But I loved the show "Pushing Daises". The two main characters were a love interest, and they lived together. But they slept in separate twin beds. (Mind you if he ever touched her she would die) Other then some dream sequences the two characters never touched in any way what so ever.

[Haiku]

I just posted this in the other thread about this topic:

 

In my pre-kid life, when I worked as a foster care social worker, I had a child on my caseload who was four. He weighed almost 200 pounds and could barely walk. Although he was severely obese, he was malnourished because all he ate was junk food. Although the mother was given nutrition classes and counseling, she continued to feed her son Cheetos and Pepsi as regular meals. She "couldn't afford" decent food. Strangely, she always had her hair perfectly coiffed and her nails elaborately done. He was taken into foster care (due to malnourishment, not weight). His mother would bring donuts and Kool-aid to visits with him. During the time he was on my caseload, he lost a hundred pounds and started playing T-ball. After his mom attended more nutrition classes and more counseling, the child returned home, where he promptly regained most of the weight.

 

This mother had no interest in having a healthy child.

 

Tara

[Joanne]

My mother was a single mom of 3. When I was in high school she worked over 16 hours everyday managing a McDonald's. We hardly ever saw her except for when she fed us from her McDonald's. If she did not feed us McDonald's it was because I ordered pizza for my brothers and I. She was not lazy. She was an incredibly hard worker who did not graduate from high school, dealt with an undiagnosed mental disorder, was a recovering drug addict, and the survivor of severe mental and physical abuse.

 

I guess it was okay though because we were all thin.

 

{{hugs}} What a gracious view.

[twoforjoy]

I think it would be more productive to bring grocery stores to urban areas, teach people how to cook, and help parents. Would be cheaper and better for families than breaking them up.

 

This is my opinion about prisons, too. An ounce of prevention....

 

Sort of o/t, but I think that having incentives for healthier processed and "fast" foods would be more practical.

 

It's my understanding that Americans do not eat out more than people in Europe and Asia, and in fact eat out less than people in some of those places. We also don't eat more "packaged" foods--people in most of Asia and Europe eat just as many packaged foods as we do, and so don't spend more time cooking from-scratch meals. But, the packaged foods we have are more processed and less healthy, and the fast food/take out places we have are also less healthy.

 

I really don't think it's realistic for many people to spend more time cooking, so I think it would be a better use of resources to figure out ways to encourage fast, convenient, and cheap meals (both packaged and take-out) that are healthier than what is currently available.

 

Because, really, if people are faced with the choice of a $10 meal for their whole family at McDonald's, a $25 meal for their whole family at a healthier restaurant, spending 30-45 minutes cooking a tasty meal (and then the time needed to clean up afterwards) from scratch, or putting some lettuce, tomatoes, and carrots in a bowl and calling it dinner, it's not surprising to me at all that many people would, for a number of reasons, choose McDonald's. If we could find a way for them to get a tasty, ready-to-eat, healthy meal on the table cheaply and quickly--and none of the options provide for that--then they'd probably be more likely to choose that.

 

I think the push for "slow food" is bound to fail, because we're not willing to make the other societal changes we'd have to for that to be a reality. Sure, my family enjoys slow, homecooked meals most nights, but that's because I only work part-time for part of the year. It's not difficult for me to find the time to cook. But with single parent and dual income homes a reality for so many people, I think it would be far more practical, for many families, to encourage healthier take-out options and healthier packaged foods than to encourage a return to cooking from scratch.

 

I just think this idea that it's somehow easy to feed their family healthy from-scratch meals is a lie. I love to cook. I do my best to cook healthy, from-scratch meals for my family as many nights as week as possible. But, it's not fast or easy. I'd say that a "quick" meal takes me at least 30 minutes (between prep time and cooking time), and most days I spend significantly more time than that in the kitchen preparing dinner, probably close to an hour or an hour and a half. (Obviously I'm not cooking the entire time, but from the time I start prepping dinner to the time the meal is on the table is about 60-90 minutes.) Again, since I love to cook, and because I'm home during the day, it's not a big deal for me. (Plus, I'm in a two-parent household, so most nights my DH does clean-up. Not having to spend another 20-30 minutes washing dishes after I already spent an hour in the kitchen cooking is a big help.) But, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it's fast and easy to get nutritious home-cooked meals on the table, because it isn't.

Edited July 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Impish]

The article isn't talking about slightly overweight kids.

 

They're talking about children who are severely obese. Life threateningly obese.

 

Is there really a difference btwn children who are being starved by their parents, who do nothing to remedy the situation, and a child that is at severe medical risk from obesity whose parent does nothing to change the situation?

 

Are both situations not in the realm of neglect, medical neglect?

 

If a parent, offered help, education, etc, refuses to change a thing and their child ends up in the hospital or dead, does it matter if its from starvation or obesity? Does society not have a responsibility to protect the child?

 

I'm not a fan of removing children from parents, but there does come a point where the child is in such danger that it is the best alternative out of a lot of bad options.

[Haiku]

I'm not a fan of removing children from parents, but there does come a point where the child is in such danger that it is the best alternative out of a lot of bad options.

 

Yup.

 

It's interesting, as I read this thread, how many excuses are made for parents who are poor and have grossly obese kids. These parents are painted as victims who have no control over the situation.

 

In reality, the vast majority of poor families don't have grossly obese kids. Barring medical issues such as PW, seriously folks, it has to be that the parents aren't doing their job. These families live in the same impoverished neighborhoods that other families without morbidly obese kids live in. They are making choices that result in morbidly obese kids.

 

I think it does far more harm to impoverished families to label them helpless victims than it does to call a spade a spade.

 

Tara

[twoforjoy]

Is there really a difference btwn children who are being starved by their parents, who do nothing to remedy the situation, and a child that is at severe medical risk from obesity whose parent does nothing to change the situation?

 

Yes, there is. Because a child who is being starved is in immediate danger of dying. Even an extremely, extremely obese child is not at immediate risk of death. AFAIK there has never been a single case of a child dying just from being too fat or eating too much, whereas tens of thousands of children die of starvation around the world each day.

 

At most, you could say that they are at a higher risk for developing certain health conditions that could shorten their lifespan. But, research I've seen indicates that even the most severely obese individuals (who make up a tiny, tiny percentage of the population) will still only see maybe a 10-15 year decrease in lifespan.

 

So we're talking about the difference between a child who could die within weeks if they don't get fed, and a child who might have their lifespan shortened by (and I'll go with the most alarmist possible stats here) 15-20 years if they don't lose some weight at some point. That difference is critically important.

 

Now, if a child has diabetes and is being fed sugary foods that are immediately threatening their life, then I'd agree that's the same as a parent starving their child, in terms of risk. But, starvation is a much more immediate, serious health risk than even the most extreme cases of obesity, and so is a far more valid reason to take action like removing a child from their home.

Edited July 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[twoforjoy]

In reality, the vast majority of poor families don't have grossly obese kids. Barring medical issues such as PW, seriously folks, it has to be that the parents aren't doing their job. These families live in the same impoverished neighborhoods that other families without morbidly obese kids live in. They are making choices that result in morbidly obese kids.

 

Do you honestly think that a parent can just overfeed a child to the kinds of weights we're talking about here--200 lbs. toddlers, 500 lbs. adolescents--without there being some serious underlying factor? Because I don't. A parent could not--literally could not--force a child who was predisposed to be normal-weight or perhaps just a bit overweight to eat enough to become that large. You might, with a really unhealthy diet, get a child to weigh 20 or 30 pounds than they normally would. You could not "overnourish" a child to 500 pounds barring a very strong genetic predisposition, metabolic issues, or other biological/hormonal/health issues, unless you were to strap them down and forcefeed them all day. That's just not how body weight works.

 

Of course, the 200 lb. toddler is our newest cultural bogeyman, not a whole lot different from the welfare queen. People claim to see them all over the place, but verified, documented sightings are shockingly rare. FWIW, people comment all the time on how chubby my toddler is, and she weighs 32 lbs. So if a 32 lb. toddler raises eyebrows, I'm kind of guessing that our country isn't actually overrun by 200 lb. two year olds, as many people seem to want to believe.

[RahRah]

I think it would be more productive to bring grocery stores to urban areas, teach people how to cook, and help parents. Would be cheaper and better for families than breaking them up.

 

This is my opinion about prisons, too. An ounce of prevention....

 

A bit off-topic, but I have to say that it isn't just urban areas that may lack a good selection of grocery stores with fresh produce. I've traveled a lot and in rural areas it can be worse than urban areas. Once in the Shennandoah valley in VA, I had to drive 1.5-hours from where we were staying to get to a "proper" grocery store that actually had produce that wasn't in a can, jar or box. Here we were, in the middle of rural farmland, and not a tomato, green bean or anything in sight at the local grocery store! It was all packed foods and no one seemed to think it was odd - I was the oddball asking where I could go to get some fresh vegetables and meat!

[Haiku]

Do you honestly think that a parent can just overfeed a child to the kinds of weights we're talking about here--200 lbs. toddlers, 500 lbs. adolescents--without there being some serious underlying factor?

 

Did you read my first post on this thread, about the child on my caseload who was morbidly obese but also malnourished from the diet his mother fed him? And about how he lost 100 pounds in foster care? Yes, I do believe this.

 

Of course, the 200 lb. toddler is our newest cultural bogeyman, not a whole lot different from the welfare queen.

 

When I had that child on my caseload (nearly 20 years ago), I thought he was an extreme anomaly. But as childhood obesity rates continue to rise, I see, to my great sadness, that he wasn't. I don't think the rate of medical issues causing morbid obesity is rising. I think that it's the rate of parents who feed kids crap. That's my honest opinion. Tar and feather me now. :)

 

Tara

[Impish]

Yes, there is. Because a child who is being starved is in immediate danger of dying. Even an extremely, extremely obese child is not at immediate risk of death. AFAIK there has never been a single case of a child dying just from being too fat or eating too much, whereas tens of thousands of children die of starvation around the world each day.

 

At most, you could say that they are at a higher risk for developing certain health conditions that could shorten their lifespan. But, research I've seen indicates that even the most severely obese individuals (who make up a tiny, tiny percentage of the population) will still only see maybe a 10-15 year decrease in lifespan.

 

So we're talking about the difference between a child who could die within weeks if they don't get fed, and a child who might have their lifespan shortened by (and I'll go with the most alarmist possible stats here) 15-20 years if they don't lose some weight at some point. That difference is critically important.

 

Now, if a child has diabetes and is being fed sugary foods that are immediately threatening their life, then I'd agree that's the same as a parent starving their child, in terms of risk. But, starvation is a much more immediate, serious health risk than even the most extreme cases of obesity, and so is a far more valid reason to take action like removing a child from their home.

Severe obesity can lead to strokes, heart attacks, diabetes. Sleep apnea. Then there's the very real potential for depression, even suicidal ideation.

 

Refusing to address the issue is endangering the child's life. I'm talking *refusing* to. When help, assistance, etc has been given, but no changes are made. Not, "Your kid is fat, we're taking him/her away."

 

I believe that there's a LOT that can be done to remedy the situation before apprehension becomes a consideration. A lot. At the same time, I think that there is the rare case where the parent refuses to do what is needed, and for the child's health and well being, it becomes a serious potential.

 

I'm not saying that its just from feeding the kid carp. I agree that there's likely other underlying medical issues...but those deserve to be dealt with, not ignored. As a parent, its our responsibility to give our children the healthiest possible situation we can, to the best of our ability.

 

Choosing to be ignorant, to ignore health issues, (again, I'm referring to situations where the parents have been made aware, given options, opportunities that they didn't have previously) is a form of neglect, imo.

[stripe]

A bit off-topic, but I have to say that it isn't just urban areas that may lack a good selection of grocery stores with fresh produce.

 

You're right, of course (I listened to a report on the lack of fresh produce in parts of California where most of the country's produce is grown!). It's such a horrible problem.

[regentrude]

Funny that you'd be the one to answer this way, as my most direct experience of a functional infrastructure is Germany. So easy to get around there. My dd was just there for 3 weeks, and biked 1/2 hour to and from school every day - there were bike lanes everywhere for this. There are reasons that there can be a daily meal for Kaffee and Kuchen without an obesity epidemic (and the Gummi Bears there have sugar in them, not HFCS like the ones here).

Here, biking or walking anywhere outside the city is taking your life into your own hands. Where there are sidewalks, they don't go anywhere. There's one in my town that ends one block before it gets to a school - then the kids have to walk on the busy road! If highways started in cornfields and ended in the woods and didn't connect anything to anything else, or ended short of their destination, no one would be using them either. Sidewalks need to start where people are and end where they want to get to - not be built randomly wherever a new development gets plopped in, or just in town centers.

 

When I went to Gymnasium for a year, I remember in Erdkunde class there was a unit on planning that explained how there were rules in Germany about how far away one house could be built from another, and how the exits off the Autobahn were not too frequent "because we can't have people building houses all spread out on lots as big as they can get." As an American, this at first made no sense to me (it even seemed rather offensive). Of course everyone should have yards! as big as they want! Then I thought about it, and how this enabled there to be enough open space to have crops, and also made delivery of electricity and other services more efficient and lower cost, and also how it enabled public transportation to be effective. Even in the countryside, the towns are densely enough laid out that you could walk to the bus stop or from the bus stop home.

 

 

The reason I wrote it is because I see in my small American town that people do not USE the side walks to walk to school, and despite very little traffic do not bike to work. They get in the car to drive one mile. Not because "the government" makes them, but because they just do not want to exert themselves. We were the only people in our street who walked to school when the kids still attended ps.

I agree that a pedestrian and bike friendly infrastructure is great - but I disagree that "the government" forced the car centered infrastructure on the people - the PEOPLE want to drive everywhere.

In our town, a bike path was planned and the neighbors protested - they had no problem being next to a busy street, but did not want people biking next to their properties. Hello ???? (Fortunately, reason prevailed and the path was built)

People also complained about lack of parking - because there were not enough parking spaces directly in front of the stores on main street - the free public parkig lot was a three minute walk behind main street, and that was apparently asking too much.

I think all zonig laws etc are correlated to people's wishes. They want the big yards. But then let's not blame anybody else for the sprawl.

[stripe]

Think of the TV in the sixties...even MARRIED people slept in twin beds. NOW everyone (yes, this is a generalization...just to make a point here--don't think I think EVERY show does this) is romping in the hay even on prime time!

 

But that was just weird. And deceptive since it was so unrealistic. Who did that in real life? I'm not a fan of explicit tv programming, but I'd rather skip he bedroom scenes than insinuate that married intimacy is scandalous. That breeds the dysfunctional attitude towards sexuality rampant in our culture now. The same weird approach is common with food. I don't think demonizing either helps. Everyone eats, and most adults are sexually active. Let's do both healthily and appropriately.

[regentrude]

It's my understanding that Americans do not eat out more than people in Europe and Asia, and in fact eat out less than people in some of those places.

 

 

Americans definitely eat out more often than Germans - because in Germany, restaurant prices are insanely high and no family could afford eating out as often as we do in the US. (A meal and water for a family of four in an normal restaurant cost easily $70-80)

 

We also don't eat more "packaged" foods--people in most of Asia and Europe eat just as many packaged foods as we do, and so don't spend more time cooking from-scratch meals.

Again, my experience in Germany is different (as are the experiences of my Italian and French friends) Many households do not even have microwaves. Everybody I know cooks mostly from scratch or serves the traditional dinner which consists of bread, cheese and maybe a salad or some fruit. You can eat healthy and unprocessed food without having to spend hours cooking in the kitchen.

[twoforjoy]

Americans definitely eat out more often than Germans - because in Germany, restaurant prices are insanely high and no family could afford eating out as often as we do in the US. (A meal and water for a family of four in an normal restaurant cost easily $70-80)

 

Again, my experience in Germany is different (as are the experiences of my Italian and French friends) Many households do not even have microwaves. Everybody I know cooks mostly from scratch or serves the traditional dinner which consists of bread, cheese and maybe a salad or some fruit. You can eat healthy and unprocessed food without having to spend hours cooking in the kitchen.

 

I saw that a study of French and American eating habits found that the French eat just as much packaged food as Americans.

 

Not to mention, we don't want to overestimate the difference between Americans and Europeans in terms of body size. American is not overrun by 200 lb. toddlers and 500 lb. adults, as I mentioned above. While America does have a higher percentage of people who are overweight or obese, most overweight and obese Americans are not that large. They are, in terms of actually body weight, not significantly heavier than Europeans.

 

Here's a list I found from 2006 of the average BMI of Europeans:

 

Malta - 26.6

Greece - 25.9

Finland - 25.8

Luxembourg - 25.7

Hungary - 25.6

Cyprus - 25.6

Lithuania - 25.5

Slovenia - 25.5

Denmark - 25.5

UK - 25.4

Italy - 24.3

France - 24.5

Austria - 24.8

Poland - 24.8

Netherlands - 24.9

Slovakia - 25.0

Belgium - 25.1

Latvia - 25.1

Estonia - 25.2

Czech Rep - 25.2

 

The difference between the "fattest" and "slimmest" nations was only 2.3, which is something like 6-8 pounds in many cases. According to the CDC, in the U.S. the average adult man has a BMI of 26.6 and the average adult woman has a BMI of 26.5. Again, we're talking about the average American, then, being in the range of maybe 6-10 pounds heavier than your average French person, not that French people are all thin and Americans are all 400+ pounds, despite the popular mythology.

Edited July 15, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Wayfaring Stranger]

 

Refusing to address the issue is endangering the child's life.

 

As a parent, its our responsibility to give our children the healthiest possible situation we can, to the best of our ability.

 

Choosing to be ignorant, to ignore health issues, is a form of neglect, imo.

 

If you look at the facts toddlers (1-4), kids (5-9), young teens (10-14) and older teens (15-19) are far more likely to die in a car wreck than from heart disease, diabetes, and suicides (about 3 times higher for toddlers, about 7 times higher for kids, about twice as high for young teens and nearly 3 times for teenagers). Until kids are taken away from families that drive to much it makes no sense to even think about doing it for child obesity.

 

I know this is off topic but I do not understand why all these other health issues get so much attention, when the biggest health issue of our time (which can be almost cured by parking the car) gets none.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Father of Pearl

[Momof3littles]

Severe obesity can lead to strokes, heart attacks, diabetes. Sleep apnea. Then there's the very real potential for depression, even suicidal ideation.

 

Refusing to address the issue is endangering the child's life. I'm talking *refusing* to. When help, assistance, etc has been given, but no changes are made. Not, "Your kid is fat, we're taking him/her away."

 

I believe that there's a LOT that can be done to remedy the situation before apprehension becomes a consideration. A lot. At the same time, I think that there is the rare case where the parent refuses to do what is needed, and for the child's health and well being, it becomes a serious potential.

 

I'm not saying that its just from feeding the kid carp. I agree that there's likely other underlying medical issues...but those deserve to be dealt with, not ignored. As a parent, its our responsibility to give our children the healthiest possible situation we can, to the best of our ability.

 

Choosing to be ignorant, to ignore health issues, (again, I'm referring to situations where the parents have been made aware, given options, opportunities that they didn't have previously) is a form of neglect, imo.

 

I guess where I struggle with this is that in order to "fix" a child who is IR it takes eating healthy, unprocessed, whole foods. Some families simply cannot afford proteins and lots of produce (sadly). Unlike a RX medication, I don't think many of these families are going to receive any financial assistance in addressing the problem from a dietary standpoint. They may not have access to a car to get to a full-blown grocery store, and need to rely on public transit.

 

Even if they want to fix the problem, they may not have the resources to adequately address it. JMO, but I think this is where poverty and obesity are so often intertwined to the point that it is tough to fix the problem.

 

Obviously there are lots of middle class children, etc. who are obese as well. I guess I feel for the families that don't have the resources to address the problem. I have insulin resistance, and my DH had Ha1c numbers that were creeping up, so we eat lower carb. It isn't inexpensive, and we are not hurting financially.

 

I also don't think many doctors do a great job of educating families. The advice seems to be have these kids exercise more, and eat less. It would be nice if there was more parent-education and coaching. Some people have access to that, but IME, many people do not.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Momof3littles

[twoforjoy]

Severe obesity can lead to strokes, heart attacks, diabetes. Sleep apnea. Then there's the very real potential for depression, even suicidal ideation.

 

Maybe if we didn't stigmatize fat people so much, there wouldn't be such a potential for depression and suicide. And, while severe obesity can be one factor in those things, there simply isn't evidence that children are dying of strokes, heart attacks, and diabetes because they are too fat (rather than because the actual health issue itself isn't being dealt with).

 

Refusing to address the issue is endangering the child's life. I'm talking *refusing* to. When help, assistance, etc has been given, but no changes are made. Not, "Your kid is fat, we're taking him/her away."

 

I believe that there's a LOT that can be done to remedy the situation before apprehension becomes a consideration. A lot. At the same time, I think that there is the rare case where the parent refuses to do what is needed, and for the child's health and well being, it becomes a serious potential.

 

I'm not saying that its just from feeding the kid carp. I agree that there's likely other underlying medical issues...but those deserve to be dealt with, not ignored. As a parent, its our responsibility to give our children the healthiest possible situation we can, to the best of our ability.

 

Choosing to be ignorant, to ignore health issues, (again, I'm referring to situations where the parents have been made aware, given options, opportunities that they didn't have previously) is a form of neglect, imo.

 

The problem is, it's conflating body size with health. By all means, take children's health seriously. But, just like we accept that some children are very, very, very thin but still healthy, we need to accept that some children are very, very, very fat but still healthy. Body size and health are not the same thing. Intervening in a family because a child has health problems is one thing; intervening in a family because the child has a body size that's on the extreme end of the spectrum is another. I don't think we do anybody any good when we make body size the issue, rather than health.

[Mrs Mungo]

A bit off-topic, but I have to say that it isn't just urban areas that may lack a good selection of grocery stores with fresh produce. I've traveled a lot and in rural areas it can be worse than urban areas. Once in the Shennandoah valley in VA, I had to drive 1.5-hours from where we were staying to get to a "proper" grocery store that actually had produce that wasn't in a can, jar or box. Here we were, in the middle of rural farmland, and not a tomato, green bean or anything in sight at the local grocery store! It was all packed foods and no one seemed to think it was odd - I was the oddball asking where I could go to get some fresh vegetables and meat!

 

 

There are groups working on this for urban areas.

 

http://www.thegrio.com/top-stories/grocery-truck-caters-to-underserved-market.php

 

http://www.foodista.com/blog/2011/05/17/mobile-grocery-trucks-feeding-the-food-deserts

[YLVD]

I am a government planner and I think the profession as a whole has done a terrible job since at least the end of WWII. The way the built environment is now cannot be attributed to free market choices. The land use pattern we have now has been highly subsidized and I think it is a large part of the obesity problem.

 

However, I do not know any kid who has died from being overweight but I would doubt anyone on this board could say they do not know at least one kid who was been killed in a car. Far more kids die in car accidents than from being overweight (or from anything else). How many people would be in favor of the government taking kids away because they ride in the car to much? But if we are talking the best interest of the kids we would have to start there. Getting kids out of the car will help them live past 18 and might even help with the obesity problem.

 

:iagree: