200 lb. third grader placed in foster care

[unsinkable]

Considered a form of medical neglect

 

200 lb Ohio 3rd grader placed in foster care

[FaithManor]

I agree with the doctor quoted who said, "It's a schizophrenic stance!"

 

That said, given that the FDA allows all kinds of dangerous additives into our foods, allows importation of crops from Latin America that have been sprayed with chemicals that are banned here in the states, calls pizza sauce a serving of vegetables, refuses to ban hydrogentated oils even when John Hopkins has proven that this is the single biggest cause of cholesterol build up in ateries (they biopsied the actual cholesterol deposits of patients who died of clogged arteries.) Hydrogentated oils was the bulk of what they found. The stuff sets up like plastic and they estimate that from the time one eliminates it from the diet, it takes three years for the body to break it down and flush it out.

 

As for diabetes, High Fructose Corn Syrup has been hugely implicated as a culprit in this along with genetics. You can't fight your genes, but certainly the government could ban this dangerous additive. Yet, it does not.

 

So, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

On top of this, for those with a weight issue, the current food pyramid is medically misleading. Though whole grains are good, for those that may have blood sugar issues, consumption of a lot of grains is unwise. The food pyramid should show green and red vegetables along with low glycemic fruits at the bottom followed by lean proteins, followed by healthy fats, with sugar and grains being the top of the triangle. Parents who consult the "ever wise" government for nutritional guidance for their overweight children are receiving bad information.

 

What's next? My son with the documented metabolic problem that is severely underweight and who is fed 3500 calories a day of proteins, good fats, and viritually no grains is taken away because despite our best efforts, we can't get him to gain weight (he is currently OFF the bottom of the charts and yet continues to get taller) on any steady basis so he ends up in foster care? :001_huh:

 

Me thinks the government is wrong in this case.

 

Of course, we don't know all of the details. There are always multiple complications and sides to any story.

 

Faith

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The things you cite have nothing to do with Children and Youth services. Ihave seen plenty of shows with parents of morbidly obese children who indulged their children with multiple Big Macs, dozens of desserts, etc. These parents who complicit in their children's obesity IMHO. As for diseases that cause obesity, I believe that is a very rare condition from what I have learned and that most obesity is caused by lack of exercise and overeating ( ask me how I know:(). I also think that parents can greatly influence how much a child eats in the younger years in that they can prevent overeating in most cases and promote healthy eating and exercise.

 

As for this case, I hope that removal was a last resort. 200 pounds for a 3rd grader sounds like an awful lot of weight depending upon the child's height. If this parent is indeed indulging said child and not attempting to correct the situation, then she is etting said child up for a life of misery and poor health:(. To me that can be abuse depending upon the circumstances.

[Parrothead]

I'm pretty much with Faith on this. Until the gov't bans the ____ they are calling food this type thing will continue. When a box of pasta and fake cheese costs less than an apple yet feeds 4 that is what financially strapped people will buy. The kids won't be crying because they are hungry.

 

It is a crying shame that nutritious whole foods costs more per month than the mortgage.

[Plucky]

The things you cite have nothing to do with Children and Youth services. Ihave seen plenty of shows with parents of morbidly obese children who indulged their children with multiple Big Macs, dozens of desserts, etc. These parents who complicit in their children's obesity IMHO. As for diseases that cause obesity, I believe that is a very rare condition from what I have learned and that most obesity is caused by lack of exercise and overeating ( ask me how I know:(). I also think that parents can greatly influence how much a child eats in the younger years in that they can prevent overeating in most cases and promote healthy eating and exercise.

 

As for this case, I hope that removal was a last resort. 200 pounds for a 3rd grader sounds like an awful lot of weight depending upon the child's height. If this parent is indeed indulging said child and not attempting to correct the situation, then she is etting said child up for a life of misery and poor health:(. To me that can be abuse depending upon the circumstances.

 

Actually my doctor would disagree that it is rare, and more and more studies are supporting what Faith has said. Bariatric doctors all over America are treating obese patients with low carb diets and seeing results. The carbs and sugars cause people's blood sugar to spike and cause high cravings. I have lost 50 lbs with my doctor, and these are not uncommon results she is having.

 

This type of information is not being absorbed by regular doctors, nutritionists, or policy makers. Changing opinions is very hard to do with these type of people.

[FaithManor]

The things you cite have nothing to do with Children and Youth services. Ihave seen plenty of shows with parents of morbidly obese children who indulged their children with multiple Big Macs, dozens of desserts, etc. These parents who complicit in their children's obesity IMHO. As for diseases that cause obesity, I believe that is a very rare condition from what I have learned and that most obesity is caused by lack of exercise and overeating ( ask me how I know:(). I also think that parents can greatly influence how much a child eats in the younger years in that they can prevent overeating in most cases and promote healthy eating and exercise.

 

As for this case, I hope that removal was a last resort. 200 pounds for a 3rd grader sounds like an awful lot of weight depending upon the child's height. If this parent is indeed indulging said child and not attempting to correct the situation, then she is etting said child up for a life of misery and poor health:(. To me that can be abuse depending upon the circumstances.

 

 

What I sited was that we should be concerned about a government agency taking this action when the government itself does a lot to promote obesity and weight related diseases. It is the pot calling the kettle black. If the government can't get it's own house in order, then I worry about giving it the go-ahead to make these kinds of judgment calls. The child does not currently have a disease that is being untreated. The sleep apnea is being treated. Though sleep apnea can be caused by weight issues, the converse is also true. Sleep apnea can cause weight gain because of lack of proper oxygenation and sleep disturbances disrupt metabolic function. So, the mom isn't being totally neglectful.

 

So, the point I was making is that this is a very scary arena to allow the government, whose own hands in the area of proper nutrition are guilty, to take this action. Again, it has ramifications...if this mother can have her son, who is receiving treatment, taken away for this, then social services can take my non-neglected child away for falling off the growth charts despite ours and our physicians best efforts to prevent that. Is this really where we want to go as a society?

 

What about smokers? We don't take children away from those that smoke even though we've determined the dangerous effects of second hand smoke? Why aren't these children taken away for "future" problems their parents smoking could cause?

 

Do we really want children to be placed in foster care and potentially suffer life-long emotional problems from this because of something that could happen in the future but isn't happening to them right now? Seriously? I don't know many foster parents who would consider this a wise plan.

 

Faith

[unsinkable]

My heart breaks for this family.

 

I've got issues with food , family, emotional eating, etc. that I've alluded to here before. Maybe that is why I feel so achy about this.

 

I wish he could stay with his family and the whole family can work thru it together.

 

I just keep wondering what the young boy is thinking. What if he is thinking if I just didn't eat so much?

Edited November 28, 2011 by unsinkable

[FaithManor]

My heart breaks for this family.

 

I've got issues with food , family, emotional eating, etc. that I've alluded to here before. Maybe that is why I feel so achy about this.

 

I wish he could stay with his family and the whole family can work thru it together.

 

:iagree: There are just so many factors involved. Maybe some oversight is needed, a weekly check-in with a family therapist who can help them stay on track through making such radical changes in family eating habits, exercise, medical check-ups (dealing with the medical system can be grueling in and of itself and especially for a mom who is sustitute teaching full time - found that out from another cite - and taking classes), etc. support, encouragement, assistance, help, this is what is needed. Not the potentially damaging effects of a child being taken away from his parents and possibly landing in a foster family who may not be able to help him with his issue. Seriously, he could end up with a family that is dealing with chldren that have a multitude of eating disorders (sooooo common in abused children) and that may have worse effects on his psyche and ability to gain control of his own eating habits.

 

it really seems to be a short-sighted response.

 

Faith

[dirty ethel rackham]

But now lawyers for the mother say they've been told that the foster mother who has the child in a neighboring suburb is having trouble keeping up with all of his appointments.

 

There was even a discussion about getting the foster mother additional help or moving the child again, this time to a foster home with a personal trainer, Amata said.

 

"I wonder why they didn't offer the mother that kind of extra help," Amata said.

 

This just breaks my heart. The bolded part really gets me. Help the family make changes, don't take the child away. What a way to set the child up for more eating disorders.

[Iucounu]

What's next? My son with the documented metabolic problem that is severely underweight and who is fed 3500 calories a day of proteins, good fats, and viritually no grains is taken away because despite our best efforts, we can't get him to gain weight (he is currently OFF the bottom of the charts and yet continues to get taller) on any steady basis so he ends up in foster care? :001_huh:

No, that would be a different situation. The mother's lawyer in the article admitted that some intervention was appropriate, so I tend to believe the assertion that the mother was not following the doctor's orders. With a 200-pound third grader, a failure to follow doctor's orders to help the kid slim down are not best efforts.

 

I agree with the sentiment that this was hopefully a last resort. But the mother is obviously a big part (perhaps sole cause) of the problem.

 

ETA: After thinking it over and rereading the article carefully, and searching for more info, I don't think we can assume anything, really. Child protective services certainly can make mistakes, and so can judges. I tend to come down on the side of multiple fact-finders who've already assessed a situation unless there's good reason to think otherwise, but it's certainly possible that the article's wrong on some points, or that the mom simply wasn't behaving so unreasonably as to lose her child despite not complying perfectly with a doctor's orders.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Iucounu

[StephanieZ]

I agree that it is a tragic situation. Seems like a Lose-Lose proposition for the child and the family. So sad.

 

I don't know what the best available option would be in this situation, or in situations like this in general. With 1/3 of kids overweight or obese, it is an epidemic, and one not best served by taking these kids away from their families, as obviously there are many negative consequences to disrupting a family.

 

The gov't could and should do much more to promote healthy lifestyles, but, just as in every other area of child-raising, the parents must take the responsibility for ensuring their child's wellbeing despite adverse circumstances.

 

Yes, fast food places put toys in happy meals. However, as a parent, I long ago decided that MY kids don't get happy meals. Period. I have taught them that food places are to get food, not toys. If we go to a fast food place, we pick what we want to EAT and buy it, eat it, and move on. We NEVER buy happy meals, kids meals, or anything that includes a toy or unwanted food or desserts. We make CHOICES. I also (time and time again) have talked to my kids about exactly WHY we make those choices, why those places put toys in food, etc. I teach them about marketing and about healthy choices. I believe that the problem is not so much knowing what foods are healthy as it is having the self control to make good choices. Don't tell me that most parents of obese kids don't know that french fries are not as healthy as a salad, or that Coke isn't as healthy as skim milk. People know these things, they just don't care.

 

Yes, exercise is neglected in public schools, as it is for many homeschooled children as well. This stinks. It should change. In MY family, we prioritize exercise and fitness. We TAKE the time to run, ski, play, work outside, etc. On vacations and in our routine family fun time, we move constantly -- running, biking, swimming, surfing, hiking, kayaking, skiing, etc are a fundamental aspect of our "leisure" so our kids are learning sports and habits that serve them well now and will do so in the future. Whether it is through organized sports, family runs or hikes, or outdoor play, my kids move all the time, as do we adults.

 

It is my belief that it is a fundamental parental resposibility to raise their children in a healthy manner -- both in diet and exercise. If I see a grossly overweight child, I am convinced that their parents are failing them just as seriously as a parent who refuses to address serious allergies, or a parent who refuses to get their child needed medical care, or a parent who neglects the education of their child.

 

I would argue that it is indeed a governmental responsibility to intervene in the life of a child who is being neglected, including those children who are allowed to become grossly obese. I would argue that removing the child from the home would only be a reasonable option after ALL other options are tried, and that the government should offer and require other options that are not as invasive. Of course, this would likely require universal comprehensive health insurance, which is not on the table.

 

Lose-Lose. Parents must take responsibility for this. I think it is SHAMEFUL for a parent to allow their child to deteriorate into a preventable state of unhealth.

[FaithManor]

No, that would be a different situation. The mother's lawyer in the article admitted that some intervention was appropriate, so I tend to believe the assertion that the mother was not following the doctor's orders. With a 200-pound third grader, a failure to follow doctor's orders to help the kid slim down are not best efforts.

 

I agree with the sentiment that this was hopefully a last resort. But the mother is obviously a big part (perhaps sole cause) of the problem.

 

 

I disagree. Though the underlying medical issue is different, the situation is the same. The child in question, according to the doctor interviewed, does not currently have diabetes or heart disease. The child does not have a disease diagnosis that is being neglected. The child has been taken away due to the potential of a future health problem. Therefore, my son could, by the same reasoning, also be taken away on the basis of the potential of a future health problem.

 

Also not that another poster just confirmed that social services has been quoted as saying that the foster mother cannot keep up with the child's appointments or needs and the child may be moved to another home (again, causing more emotional trauma which has MAJOR mental health concerns for the future, depression, PTSD, and suicide being some of the possible future outcomes which apparently do not weigh as heavy on the hearts of social services as future diabetes or heart disease does) and placed with a family for whom a PERSONAL TRAINER may be provided.

 

Why in the blazes wasn't a personal trainer provided to the birth family or for that matter, the school?

 

If the foster mother can't keep up with the child's issues, and the birth mother is working as a full-time subsitute teacher and taking vocational classes in order to allow her to land a better job which in and of itself could help the family with ongoing nutritional issues because we all know healthy food is expensive food, then why on earth is this child in foster care? Seriously, a trained foster parent can't deal with it and there is no condemnation of HER, but the birth mom...to heck with her??? I don't get it.

 

I still maintain that if children are removed from homes for medical neglect based on diseases of the future instead of current diagnoses, then it could happen to me and my son with his opposite weight problems. It could happen to anyone over a variety of issues and I also maintain that smoking is one of them. We all know there can be future, dangerous side-effects to second-hand smoke, yet we do not see a movement among social services to remove children from their homes based on this. Where does this end? Where is the common sense?

 

Faith

[Laurie4b]

The things you cite have nothing to do with Children and Youth services. Ihave seen plenty of shows with parents of morbidly obese children who indulged their children with multiple Big Macs, dozens of desserts, etc. These parents who complicit in their children's obesity IMHO.

 

hmm. I wonder if those shows, for the sake of ratings, deliberately chose families that would provoke outrage in their viewers.

[Impish]

The article stated that they'd worked with the mother for a year before taking this step.

 

I wonder how they were working w/her, and how compliant she was. I would *think* that if she was making serious effort to comply w/the plans laid out, this wouldn't have happened...

[Laurie4b]

My heart breaks for this family.

 

I've got issues with food , family, emotional eating, etc. that I've alluded to here before. Maybe that is why I feel so achy about this.

 

I wish he could stay with his family and the whole family can work thru it together.

 

I just keep wondering what the young boy is thinking. What if he is thinking if I just didn't eat so much?

 

"But now lawyers for the mother say they've been told that the foster mother who has the child in a neighboring suburb is having trouble keeping up with all of his appointments.

 

There was even a discussion about getting the foster mother additional help or moving the child again, this time to a foster home with a personal trainer, Amata said.

 

"I wonder why they didn't offer the mother that kind of extra help," Amata said"

 

Even more hypocrisy, very specific to this boy.

 

And I love how much attention the agency gives to the boy's emotional needs: in addition to considering moving him to still another foster placement (they know full well that every move sets the child back emotionally), he gets to see his mom once a week for 2 hours. That is standard CPS operating procedure no matter what the circumstances and it is government sanctioned emotional abuse of a child. This is one of the reasons that we need reform in the child protective services. They don't so much protect children as take them away from parents. The harm they inflict through their system rarely gets factored into the equation. Because the government is afflicting the abuse, the parent can do nothing to stop it. The only hope is a judge. Judges work day in and day out with social services. They "know" the workers. They see them all the time. Who gets believed when it's a poor mom without the resources to hire a sharp attorney and her own experts?

 

The agency acknowledges that the boy initially lost weight, but then this year began to regain it rapidly. Ummm. How many of us who struggle with weight lose it slowly and regain quickly? I know I have--and the weight comes back much more quickly than pure calories would account for.

 

For all we know, the change in teacher at school could account for it. Perhaps last year's teacher policed what kids shared at lunch and this year's doesn't. It doesn't take much to "regain weight rapidly." Shees.

[Laurie4b]

:iagree: There are just so many factors involved. Maybe some oversight is needed, a weekly check-in with a family therapist who can help them stay on track through making such radical changes in family eating habits, exercise, medical check-ups (dealing with the medical system can be grueling in and of itself and especially for a mom who is sustitute teaching full time - found that out from another cite - and taking classes), etc. support, encouragement, assistance, help, this is what is needed. Not the potentially damaging effects of a child being taken away from his parents and possibly landing in a foster family who may not be able to help him with his issue. Seriously, he could end up with a family that is dealing with chldren that have a multitude of eating disorders (sooooo common in abused children) and that may have worse effects on his psyche and ability to gain control of his own eating habits.

 

it really seems to be a short-sighted response.

 

Faith

 

The kid is in a Catch-22. If he understood the system, he'd gain all the weight he could this month in foster care before seeing the judge. He'd drive foster parents up the wall trying to keep food away from him. He'd refuse to exercise. That would be his best bet if he wants to get back home. It would also protect his psyche because he'd feel more in control. (I'm not saying this is a good idea, but kids who know the system do stuff like this.)

 

But probably the kid is thinking that this is all his fault. (Imagine the emotional impact that being separated from a loving parent would do to a kid and then imagine the kid blaming himself.) He will probably try to cooperate and will lose some weight, thinking that if he's "good" he'll get to go back home. But what will happen is that the system will decide that foster care "worked" and will keep him longer so that he loses even more weight.

 

I feel really bad for the kid.

[kiana]

That, and it's not like the kids who come through foster care do so well on average.

[Iucounu]

I disagree. Though the underlying medical issue is different, the situation is the same. The child in question, according to the doctor interviewed, does not currently have diabetes or heart disease. The child does not have a disease diagnosis that is being neglected.

Obesity is a health problem in and of itself. I'd rate it as quite serious in the case of a 200-pound third grader, unless the child is six feet tall already.

 

Therefore, my son could, by the same reasoning, also be taken away on the basis of the potential of a future health problem.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You said that you're expending best efforts; the mother in the article is not (ETA: if the article is accurate that she ignored doctors' orders, ignored warnings from youth services for a year, caused the problem and didn't act reasonably in correcting it, etc.). That's how your situation is different.

 

If the foster mother can't keep up with the child's issues, and the birth mother is working as a full-time subsitute teacher and taking vocational classes in order to allow her to land a better job which in and of itself could help the family with ongoing nutritional issues because we all know healthy food is expensive food, then why on earth is this child in foster care?

Whether or not a particular foster parent provides adequate care has no bearing on whether a placement in foster care was appropriate based on neglect.

 

In addition, while it's certainly true that social workers make judgment errors like everyone else on occasion, we don't know to what extent that may have happened here. The general question here is whether a mother who neglects her obese child's health by failing to follow doctor's orders may correctly temporarily lose parental rights by having her child placed in foster care. We're not debating the actual facts, as we don't fully know them.

 

If you're okay with the idea that a child may be taken away under certain circumstances because a parent does not follow doctor's orders to treat a health problem, then we are in agreement; and we might agree that under some circumstances, even an intentional failure to follow a doctor's orders would be okay (delay while seeking a second opinion on a questionable issue, for instance). If you're saying that you don't view obesity as a health problem, we're in disagreement-- and you're also in disagreement with the health-care establishment and, increasingly, state agencies.

 

I still maintain that if children are removed from homes for medical neglect based on diseases of the future instead of current diagnoses, then it could happen to me and my son with his opposite weight problems.

You're making a wild leap of logic that's not based on the facts. You're following doctor's orders, and in your own words expending your best efforts. The mother in the article is not (ETA: or seems not to be) following doctor's orders, and not expending her best efforts.

 

It's really pretty simple. If you've directly encased your child in a massive fat-bag through eating and nutrition choices, with serious long-term health implications, and you don't follow a doctor's orders to turn the situation around that you've created, ignoring warnings from social workers all the while, you're on thin ice. That's fair, and necessary to protect children from their parents' bad choices. The health danger's not as cut-and-dried as situations where a child needs a blood transfusion the parent refuses to approve, since potential death is not as immediate; but the situation is the same in that the state steps in to override a parent's choices which are harming the child.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Iucounu

[Lovin Learnin]

I'm not sure if this is the case here but let us not forget that most low-income neighborhoods are food deserts. It is awfully hard to make healthy choices when you don't have access to fruits and vegetables AND it is far cheaper to just eat fast food. It's no wonder that obesity is more prevalent in these areas.

[Parker Martin]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

[Renee in NC]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

 

She is talking about places where there are no grocery stores and the only options for food are fast food and convenience stores.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

 

In some places it is very difficult to get to a grocery store, so it isn't a matter of cheaper so much as what is available. I've heard of people having to get all their food from a corner store, so largely pre-prepared items.

 

I think even in other places though, a surprising number of people actually just don't know what to do with real food. Cooking means putting something in the oven and heating it up, or maybe frying a bit of meat. And when you are choosing convienience foods, the healthier ones are more expensive, and ready to cook meat cuts are expensive. People just don't know what to do with dried beans or a bunch of in season winter root veg.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with Faith. My son is also underweight, despite feeding my kids high calorie meals for years.

 

Instead of paying a foster family to take care of this child, why not help the parents with healthy food choices and food access? Cleveland is one of those urban areas where it is *known* that access to healthy food is an issue.

 

http://web.me.com/blueheron55/NAC_Site/healthy_food_access.html

eta excerpt from the above linked article:

The study looked at the presence of large retail food establishments (greater than 25,000 square feet) to fast food establishments (establishments that are not traditional “sit down” restaurants). The food balance score for Cuyahoga County was 2.5, meaning that residents across the county travel an average of 2.5 times greater distance to reach a full-service grocer than a fast-food establishment. For the City of Cleveland, the food balance score was 4.5 compared to 2.0 for surrounding suburbs. This indicates acute food access challenges for many residents of Cleveland. This is further compounded by vehicle ownership trends. In Cleveland, an average of 25% of households do not own a vehicle, compared to 14% for the county as a whole. For neighborhoods such as Kinsman and Central, more than 50% of residents do not own vehicles. Additionally, in 34 out of 36 Cleveland neighborhoods, between 25-50% of households are on some form of food assistance.

 

Now, I don't disagree that the mom needs to be better informed about how to make healthy choices *for the family*. Her other kids wouldn't be sneaking their brother treats if there were no treats in the house.

 

 

I agree with this:

 

 

But now lawyers for the mother say they've been told that the foster mother who has the child in a neighboring suburb is having trouble keeping up with all of his appointments.

There was even a discussion about getting the foster mother additional help or moving the child again, this time to a foster home with a personal trainer, Amata said.

"I wonder why they didn't offer the mother that kind of extra help," Amata said.

It would be cheaper for the system to offer help to parents.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Just Robyn]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

 

There are definitely some more expensive convenient foods; not all of them are cheap. Generic macaroni and cheese and ramen are examples of "meals" that are very inexpensive; the price of those doesn't come even close to the $40 or so I spent on ingredients for one (large) pot of soup the other day - and nothing I bought was organic. We got two meals out of that pot of soup. Two "meals" of ramen would have cost maybe $3.

[Lovin Learnin]

It would be cheaper for the system to offer help to parents.

 

Cheaper and more humane.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

 

It's not where *we* live, it's where people like those in the article live. The article I linked in my other post addresses this issue in the county where family in question live. In urban areas there are often no *options* for fruit and veggies.

 

Have you ever worked for a food bank? Many low-income families live in hotels, in their cars, in shelters where they may not even have a kitchen to prepare food from scratch. Are you going to take away all of those kids? Because it would be an extremely expensive proposition to do so.

[Mrs Mungo]

Cheaper and more humane.

 

Exactly. It doesn't make sense to me.

[butterflymommy]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

 

:iagree:

 

Unless the parent is living in a "food dessert" where there are only corner shops and bodegas from which to buy, she should be able to find affordable healthy food for her child.

 

The "health food is expensive" line really bothers me, because it's just not true. Sure, if you want to buy organic avocados, vine ripened tomatoes, and fresh berries, yes, it's expensive. But dried beans and legumes are practically the cheapest foods in the whole store. Bagged apples, carrots, potatoes, yams, and many greens, fresh or frozen, are cheap. Dandelion greens are practically free at the grocery I go to, which is in a very high COL area. Cheap starchy foods like pasta aren't necessarily unhealthy if eaten in modest portions, mixed with lots of veggies.

[TravelingChris]

I lived in Albuquerque NM when a little girl was taken away for obesity. The mother kept complaining to tv stations, newspapers, etc. that the girl had a medical problem and that they were following the diet, exercise, etc. At that time, I really did believe the mother and was very upset the child was taken away from them to go into foster care. Well I moved many times since then and with this story, there was an update on that girl. The doctors finally found the genetic disorder that child had which caused the obesity. It wasn't anything that the parents were doing wrong. They did get her back and she is a teen now.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Actually my doctor would disagree that it is rare, and more and more studies are supporting what Faith has said. Bariatric doctors all over America are treating obese patients with low carb diets and seeing results. The carbs and sugars cause people's blood sugar to spike and cause high cravings. I have lost 50 lbs with my doctor, and these are not uncommon results she is having.

 

This type of information is not being absorbed by regular doctors, nutritionists, or policy makers. Changing opinions is very hard to do with these type of people.

 

I agree with you about too many carbs wrecking havoc on blood sugar and insulin levels resulting in insatiable hunger:( However, this is still treatable with low carb diets. Also, IMHO high carb diets are not a disease per se. I, myself, am suffering with the same and trying to rememdy it with low carb, high protein diet. I do hope to prevent obesity in my ds though since IMHO prevention is much easier than treatment of obesity. As for the low carb diets, I do believe this info is more out there than in decades past. Two family doctors that I have had have recommended low carb, high protein to me for about the past 20 years and then there is the pioneer Dr. Atkins.

[SKL]

A kid would have to eat heck of a lot of boxed mac'n'cheese to be 200 lbs at that age. Obviously this child has a medical problem.

 

We seem to be jumping to conclusions about how hard the mother has tried in vain to help the boy. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. The fact is, there are lots of poor parents out there. Most of them are lucky enough to have kids who are born fairly healthy. So is this mom being punished because her kid is ill, or because she's a poor parent? I don't know.

 

I do agree that there should be no assistance available to foster parents that isn't also available to at-risk kids before they end up in the system.

 

Bottom line, what is best for this child? I assume he wants to be with his family, but if his family is allowing him to get sick and die, he needs to be protected from that.

[FaithManor]

It's not where *we* live, it's where people like those in the article live. The article I linked in my other post addresses this issue in the county where family in question live. In urban areas there are often no *options* for fruit and veggies.

 

Have you ever worked for a food bank? Many low-income families live in hotels, in their cars, in shelters where they may not even have a kitchen to prepare food from scratch. Are you going to take away all of those kids? Because it would be an extremely expensive proposition to do so.

 

 

This is spot on. If you aren't from the Midwest, then you might not undestand much about industrial, Midwestern cities. Those of you on the coasts usually have rather elaborate transit systems. We do not. Even Detroit, while not without cheap, public transit, is not as sophisticated as Chicago and Cleveland has VERY little by way of help with transportation for those in need. Very, very little. In my county here in Michigan, there is ONE, count it ONE, public bus which can be brought to the home of an elderly or disabled individual ONCE per week. That's the amount of ride that can be funded. One trip per week. If your doctor is in any of the towns except the county seat and you have to save that one trip for the doctor, then you are at the mercy of the corner convenience store. I'm not saying that this is the case for this mother, she probably does have transport since she is a full-time substitute teacher and is taking classes, but this is the kind of thing that low-income families tend to face in Midwestern cities and towns. Cleveland also has a HORRIBLE reputation in the midwest for being one of the most polluted places to live and having the least access to good food, a variety of supermarkets, etc. and for an agricultural state, an abysmally low number of farmers' markets. They have the Cleveland Clinic and it is an AMAZING medical facility, but it's housed in a city that is also ranked in the top five WORST places to live in the US. That means that low income families have double strikes against them in terms of becoming healthy.

 

What I spend on groceries in order to have a healthy family, would put most low-income families out of their houses/apartments and into shelters. By the way, the shelters deal with mostly cheap, unhealthy donated items so don't count on shelter food to make a health difference on the positive side except for those that would literally be without substenance.

 

My sister is a social worker in Louisville. She works with families who live in the poorest areas of that city. No public transportation, no grocery stores...literally, they are 100% at the mercy of places like 7-11. How are they supposed to become healthy if resources are not made available to them?

 

Don't start me on what the schools serve either? Shoot, if the government can't do better than that with the school menu, then I'm not certain any of their officials have the right to call into question what is on the menu in anyone's home! Seriously, this week's menu for the local elementary school is:

 

Monday - Pepperoni Pizza, tater tots, chocolate milk and cookies

 

Tuesday - Lasagna (if you've seen this version of it, you could take a ladle and easily skim off 1 cup of oil, I'm not kidding...I've been there as a substitute music teacher and seen the disgusting pans of it) - not whole wheat noodles by the way, chocolate milk, and cake

 

Wednesday - Healthy day according to the school - chicken nuggets, apple slices with caramel dip, cheese sticks, carrot stick (yes, you got that right - 1 carrot stick per child), chocolate milk, and cupcakes

 

Thursday - Macaroni and Cheese, hot dogs, potato chips, canned mandarin oranges, and birthday cake because of the principal's birthday (don't know what the dessert would be if not for the bd, but given the running theme, I'm sure there would be something) and the ever present chocolate milk

 

Friday - Mashed Potatoes, breaded pork patty, creamed corn, roll, and brownies

 

P.E. is 30 minutes once a week - down from the 45 minutes of last year but this allowed them to fire a P.E. teacher and lump elementary P.E. onto a middle school sports coach and afternoon recess has been eliminated.

 

So, I just cannot wrap my brains around the concept that the state can have the child in it's care for six hrs. per day - the formative hours, the hours in which a child is the most active - and this is what they role model to the parents, and then the full-time working parent gets home and is condemned for not doing better. The government just does not get to point the finger on this.

 

Support services for the family. Send the personal trainer to the house three days a week and have him or her do aerobics with all the kids. That is a far better solution than taking the child away.

 

I'm also with Laurie4b on her take. This could make the child develop an eating disorder. He's only nine. He cannot possibly really understand the issues here. From his perspective, he was taken away from his family because he's fat. The adults can try to sugar coat it, they can try and make it medical, they can give all kinds of explanations, but the reality is when that child looks in the mirror, this is likely what he thinks. He could either descend into a depression in which he either doesn't eat at all - potentially dangerous too maybe even become anorexic - or begins eating for emotional comfort and gains even more weight. Yikes!

 

Faith

[Plucky]

I agree with you about too many carbs wrecking havoc on blood sugar and insulin levels resulting in insatiable hunger:( However, this is still treatable with low carb diets. Also, IMHO high carb diets are not a disease per se. I, myself, am suffering with the same and trying to rememdy it with low carb, high protein diet. I do hope to prevent obesity in my ds though since IMHO prevention is much easier than treatment of obesity. As for the low carb diets, I do believe this info is more out there than in decades past. Two family doctors that I have had have recommended low carb, high protein to me for about the past 20 years and then there is the pioneer Dr. Atkins.

 

Okay, cool. I really have no idea how to handle the boy's issue. He does need intervention. I don't know how many foster parent's are going to be able to truly handle his issue.

[SKL]

most low-income neighborhoods are food deserts.

 

This is untrue, unless you have an expansive definition of "food desert."

[Lovin Learnin]

:iagree:

 

Unless the parent is living in a "food dessert" where there are only corner shops and bodegas from which to buy, she should be able to find affordable healthy food for her child.

 

The "health food is expensive" line really bothers me, because it's just not true. Sure, if you want to buy organic avocados, vine ripened tomatoes, and fresh berries, yes, it's expensive. But dried beans and legumes are practically the cheapest foods in the whole store. Bagged apples, carrots, potatoes, yams, and many greens, fresh or frozen, are cheap. Dandelion greens are practically free at the grocery I go to, which is in a very high COL area. Cheap starchy foods like pasta aren't necessarily unhealthy if eaten in modest portions, mixed with lots of veggies.

 

Well I don't know where you live but where I'm from fresh fruits and veggies are expensive. Dried beans and legumes are a legitimate option, and we love and eat a lot of them here, but they are no substitute. And the pp's $40 pot of soup can be cost prohibitive to many families. Couple this with the fact that many children in low income areas are often getting two meals a day at school. How healthy can that be? Damage control at home would be difficult at best, even if the family was trying hard. I believe it's a matter of access and education.

[ciyates]

I don't know what the grocery stores are like where you guys live that convenience food and fast food are cheaper than healthier options. That is definitely not the case where I shop.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: A burger value meal cost about 6 dollars here. I can feed the 3 of us a healthy meal for that.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree::iagree::iagree: A burger value meal cost about 6 dollars here. I can feed the 3 of us a healthy meal for that.

 

With items purchased from 7-11?

[SKL]

This is spot on. If you aren't from the Midwest, then you might not undestand much about industrial, Midwestern cities. Those of you on the coasts usually have rather elaborate transit systems. We do not. Even Detroit, while not without cheap, public transit, is not as sophisticated as Chicago and Cleveland has VERY little by way of help with transportation for those in need. Very, very little. In my county here in Michigan, there is ONE, count it ONE, public bus which can be brought to the home of an elderly or disabled individual ONCE per week. That's the amount of ride that can be funded. One trip per week. If your doctor is in any of the towns except the county seat and you have to save that one trip for the doctor, then you are at the mercy of the corner convenience store. I'm not saying that this is the case for this mother, she probably does have transport since she is a full-time substitute teacher and is taking classes, but this is the kind of thing that low-income families tend to face in Midwestern cities and towns. Cleveland also has a HORRIBLE reputation in the midwest for being one of the most polluted places to live and having the least access to good food, a variety of supermarkets, etc. and for an agricultural state, an abysmally low number of farmers' markets. They have the Cleveland Clinic and it is an AMAZING medical facility, but it's housed in a city that is also ranked in the top five WORST places to live in the US. That means that low income families have double strikes against them in terms of becoming healthy.

 

What I spend on groceries in order to have a healthy family, would put most low-income families out of their houses/apartments and into shelters. By the way, the shelters deal with mostly cheap, unhealthy donated items so don't count on shelter food to make a health difference on the positive side except for those that would literally be without substenance.

 

Cleveland has affordable grocery stores within walking distance and on bus lines all over the place. The cost of decent food in Cleveland (and housing for that matter) is relatively low. And most low-income people here have at least occasional access to a car. People make choices! If this were because of the lack of access, every low-income child in Cleveland would be morbidly obese, and that is obviously not the case.

[Mrs Mungo]

Cleveland has affordable grocery stores within walking distance and on bus lines all over the place. The cost of decent food in Cleveland (and housing for that matter) is relatively low. And most low-income people here have at least occasional access to a car. People make choices! If this were because of the lack of access, every low-income child in Cleveland would be morbidly obese, and that is obviously not the case.

 

I posted a study that linked obesity in children, a lack of transportation and a lack of real grocery stores in this specific area.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Roadrunner]

A kid would have to eat heck of a lot of boxed mac'n'cheese to be 200 lbs at that age. Obviously this child has a medical problem.

 

We seem to be jumping to conclusions about how hard the mother has tried in vain to help the boy. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. The fact is, there are lots of poor parents out there. Most of them are lucky enough to have kids who are born fairly healthy. So is this mom being punished because her kid is ill, or because she's a poor parent? I don't know.

 

I do agree that there should be no assistance available to foster parents that isn't also available to at-risk kids before they end up in the system.

 

Bottom line, what is best for this child? I assume he wants to be with his family, but if his family is allowing him to get sick and die, he needs to be protected from that.

:iagree: That child has siblings, but only he is obese. Why? Because he is sick. He can't stop eating because somewhere in his brain a part that's suppose to say that he had enough isn't working. I would have removed him to the hospital (my guess is the mother probably wouldn't have minded) that tailors to weight issues and if doctors advised consider surgery or other treatment options. That would have been a much better way to help this boy than pushing him into foster care system.

[SKL]

I posted a study that said otherwise.

 

OK, but I have lived and worked and volunteered here all my life. And my current job is in developing the low-income communities here. Does that count for anything?

[beaners]

I just googled the neighborhood mentioned in the article and found 3 Aldis within 4 miles. I saw a Giant Eagle, which we get decent prices from here. I saw a Walmart, a SavALot, a Whole Foods ($$$), and a few other stores. While other areas may not have grocery stores, and the woman may be busy enough to have trouble getting to grocery stores that aren't 24 hours, there are stores in this particular location.

[merry gardens]

Such a strange story. Unless that mother was force-feeding her son against his will, or unless she's doing (or not doing) something else to her son that poses more immediate danger than obesity, the government should not be involved in this case.

 

Will they next arrest the school lunch room workers for contributing to the obesity of a minor?

[beaners]

There are definitely some more expensive convenient foods; not all of them are cheap. Generic macaroni and cheese and ramen are examples of "meals" that are very inexpensive; the price of those doesn't come even close to the $40 or so I spent on ingredients for one (large) pot of soup the other day - and nothing I bought was organic. We got two meals out of that pot of soup. Two "meals" of ramen would have cost maybe $3.

 

I am dying to know what you bought for a $40 pot of soup. I'm not being snarky. I am really curious what you bought, how prices are in your area, and how big the pot was. I can't imagine anything that would fill my largest stock pot and cost $40. If the recipe is awesome, you can include it. (But unless I could make it less expensively, I don't think I'd be able to!)

[SKL]

I posted a study that linked obesity in children, a lack of transportation and a lack of real grocery stores in this specific area.

 

When I was a kid, "walking distance" was defined a lot differently than it is now. And that is probably why kids were skinnier then. That's a lifestyle and health issue in itself. Drive through here - you'll see Aldi's and other groceries all over the place.

[Plucky]

A kid would have to eat heck of a lot of boxed mac'n'cheese to be 200 lbs at that age. Obviously this child has a medical problem.

 

We seem to be jumping to conclusions about how hard the mother has tried in vain to help the boy. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. The fact is, there are lots of poor parents out there. Most of them are lucky enough to have kids who are born fairly healthy. So is this mom being punished because her kid is ill, or because she's a poor parent? I don't know.

 

I do agree that there should be no assistance available to foster parents that isn't also available to at-risk kids before they end up in the system.

 

Bottom line, what is best for this child? I assume he wants to be with his family, but if his family is allowing him to get sick and die, he needs to be protected from that.

 

I agree, too. I know as a foster parent that we don't receive nearly enough to care for an average damaged child, and the state here is cutting back more and more on kids that need it. Make the services available to the parents and keep the kid home. Kids should be removed when they are in severe danger. Things aren't hopeless yet with this family.

[MHowell]

County workers were alerted to the child's weight in early 2010 after his mother took him to a hospital for breathing problems. He was diagnosed with sleep apnea, which can be weight-related, and was given the breathing machine. Social workers began to monitor him under what the county calls protective supervision.

Last year, the boy lost weight but in recent months began to gain it back rapidly. That's when the county moved to take the child, records show.

 

 

I feel like maybe some of you missed this part. His heath was beginning to become impacted and though there was some shown improvement, he was quickly gaining the weight back. This to me sounds like the mother was slipping on her parental duties. Obviously if he was losing weight at one point then his condition isn't 100% biological or because of an actual health problem. She as the mother saw improvement in her son but then fell back into the norm and he gained it back. That IS HER FAULT.

 

I truly hope for the sake of the child his weight can become controlled and he can be reunited with his family.

[Mrs Mungo]

When I was a kid, "walking distance" was defined a lot differently than it is now. And that is probably why kids were skinnier then. That's a lifestyle and health issue in itself. Drive through here - you'll see Aldi's and other groceries all over the place.

 

When we lived in Hawaii there were lots of grocery stores down in Honolulu. But, you'd *easily* pay double the price that you would in a normal grocery store. Honolulu is also *tops* in pedestrian deaths. Why? Because the speed limits were too high and pedestrian crossings too few for the area. Lots of factors go into things like "walking distance."

 

There isn't a safe road or sidewalk to travel if I wanted to walk to my nearest store. It's 2.8 miles away (driving) and takes 8 minutes to drive it. It would be 2.4 miles if I could walk, but I would have to walk down a street where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour. When I had little kids that would have meant pushing a stroller or pulling a wagon for 45 minutes, 2 miles of it down the road without sidewalks and a 45 mph speed limit.

[Iucounu]

It's not for sure that the faster recent weight gain wasn't partly due to some undiscovered medical problem. I'm a complete layperson on medical issues, but imagine that something like worsening diabetes could play a role (yes, it's true that he was screened for diabetes at some point, but this is just an example).

 

In any event that's beside the point. Relative distance to grocery stores is beside the point, and so are vehicle ownership patterns in a city like Cleveland with extensive public transportation; if one mom can ride the bus to get meat, so can another. Even the mother's lawyers aren't claiming it was impossible for her to buy healthy food; we shouldn't assume it was so burdensome that a properly concerned parent would not have done so.

 

The real question is this: if a parent doesn't follow doctors' instructions to treat a medical problem, and even ignores warnings from social workers to do so, and a child's health worsens as a result, can it be appropriate to take the child away? In other words, can it be child neglect?

 

I really don't understand how people can argue that it can't possibly be in the case of obesity, and that's essentially what's happening here. We really don't know the extent of any neglect in this case, though we can speculate all day long. Sure, she might not have actually been neglectful; maybe this was a knee-jerk response to an underlying medical condition she didn't help to cause or worsen-- and if so, of course anyone would wish justice to be done and that her child is returned ASAP.

 

While the juvenile system definitely makes some mistakes, we simply aren't in a position as good as the social workers and judges involved to evaluate this case. I'm sure the woman is in the middle of appealing this with help from her attorneys. If she loses, perhaps we'll learn more about the case then, or perhaps not-- in which case I imagine we'll be back here, with some arguing how the woman should never have lost custody of her whoppingly big son in the first place, despite teasers hinting at ignoring doctors' advice and other warnings, and a rapid worsening in his health problem.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Iucounu

[Mrs Mungo]

The real question is this: if a parent doesn't follow doctors' instructions to treat a medical problem, and even ignores warnings from social workers to do so, and a child's health worsens as a result, can it be appropriate to take the child away? In other words, can it be child neglect?

 

How specific have the instructions of the doctors been? If they can get a personal trainer to help a foster parents, then why can they not do that for the mom? How does it make sense to provide *more help* for a foster parent than to the natural parent(s?)?

 

Again, like Faith, my son is underweight. It's easy to say, "you need to put some weight on him" and much harder to actually *make that happen*. I can't feed him a jar of mayonnaise every meal.

 

If they are going to provide help to the foster parents, it makes more sense to me to provide that help to the natural parent(s?).