Ohio puts 200-pound third-grader in foster care

Ohio puts 200-pound third-grader in foster care

Associated Press
Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011

CLEVELAND — An Ohio third-grader who weighs more than 200 pounds has been taken from his family and placed into foster care after county social workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

The Plain Dealer reports ( http://bit.ly/t68M7D) that the Cleveland 8-year-old is considered severely obese and at risk for such diseases as diabetes and hypertension.

The case is the first state officials can recall of a child being put in foster care strictly for a weight-related issue.

Lawyers for the mother say the county overreached when authorities took the boy last week. They say the medical problems he is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger.

A spokeswoman says the county removed the child because caseworkers saw his mother's inability to reduce his weight as medical neglect.

On one hand, I can't see why. On the other hand, I'm against this because the state has no right to do this to begin with.

Venezuela? North Korea? Where? I guess this is the norm in liberal-land.

Any time we see government jumping into the family situation, it is troubling. Taking people's children is one of those things that violates so many concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that it is just really difficult to find justification except in the most extreme cases.

Arx Ferrum wrote:Any time we see government jumping into the family situation, it is troubling. Taking people's children is one of those things that violates so many concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that it is just really difficult to find justification except in the most extreme cases.

But what of abuse cases? This child at 200pounds is clearly being abused. There's no medical condition here, just plain obesity. No trips to the park, no playing, eating and sitting at most.

This child's heart could explode and his health is in jeopardy. If this isn't abuse, what do you call it?

Neglect, maybe? Surely not abuse.

Like I said, I understand the things here related to this but I also have a heavy problem with the state deciding they can take ones kid for whatever reason. A court should be able to place a kid with other relatives instead of just taking them and placing them in state home until further notice.

Don't relatives have the choice to adopt the child and care for it?

BubbleBliss wrote:
Don't relatives have the choice to adopt the child and care for it?

I think that may vary state by state. I'm not sure. But you would think so.

I'd hope so...

TexasBlue wrote:Neglect, maybe? Surely not abuse.

Like I said, I understand the things here related to this but I also have a heavy problem with the state deciding they can take ones kid for whatever reason. A court should be able to place a kid with other relatives instead of just taking them and placing them in state home until further notice.

I can't argue with placing them in with relatives first. But if a child is being abused or neglected, then the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the child. NO one should be allowed to procreate so they can abuse...

Cookie Parker wrote:

But what of abuse cases? This child at 200pounds is clearly being abused. There's no medical condition here, just plain obesity. No trips to the park, no playing, eating and sitting at most.

This child's heart could explode and his health is in jeopardy. If this isn't abuse, what do you call it?

Well Dr. Parker, I assume you are personally familiar with this particular case because calling a child abused... well, without knowing more than Nancy Grace, means you are either leaping or have the inside dope.

So yes, IF abused? Yes. But beyond knowing that for certain. No.

Arx Ferrum wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:

But what of abuse cases? This child at 200pounds is clearly being abused. There's no medical condition here, just plain obesity. No trips to the park, no playing, eating and sitting at most.

This child's heart could explode and his health is in jeopardy. If this isn't abuse, what do you call it?

Well Dr. Parker, I assume you are personally familiar with this particular case because calling a child abused... well, without knowing more than Nancy Grace, means you are either leaping or have the inside dope.

So yes, IF abused? Yes. But beyond knowing that for certain. No.

What would you call allowing a young child to get to 200 pounds? Love?

What would you call allowing a young child to get to 200 pounds? Love?

I am the (biologic) father of four of my own, and then three more who belong to my current partner. In each of these people, there are unique conditions and circumstances that have to be recognized and addressed in order to gain even the slightest understanding of how and why they are who they are.

Families are the same way. Unless you are personally... nay, intimately familiar with the history and details of any family, passing judgment based on flimsy reports from the news media nothing but... well, foolish.

Of course we don't know exactly why this kid was 200 lbs because we weren't there. All we have to go on is a few paragraphs in the news! How do you convince yourself that, from this body of evidence, you have sufficient information to make that call?

As a parent, I DO know that if my child weighed 200 lbs at 8 years old due to some medical situation, the last thing I would want was a whole gaggle of Gladys Kravitz's (reference: 'Bewitched' - 1960's sitcom) waddling around my life, peeking in my windows, sniffing my bedsheets and passing judgment on me and mine.

So, my point is, that the state should use extreme discretion when snatching children from families and that we should not automatically assume that they, the state, have applied said discretion because it is abundantly clear from record that bureaucracies are not very adept at much beyond applying the obligatory rubber stamp and knee-jerk to any situation.

Just because the newspaper (or web) says something is a particular way, doesn't make it so.

Cookie Parker wrote:What would you call allowing a young child to get to 200 pounds? Love?

If the parents ever ran out of food..... dinner.

I know a lady in Texas who has a condition that keeps her heavy. I can't remember the medical term for it, but she is and always will be fat.

I'm not saying that's the issue here, but we don't know for a fact (yet).

Arx Ferrum wrote:

What would you call allowing a young child to get to 200 pounds? Love?

I am the (biologic) father of four of my own, and then three more who belong to my current partner. In each of these people, there are unique conditions and circumstances that have to be recognized and addressed in order to gain even the slightest understanding of how and why they are who they are.

Families are the same way. Unless you are personally... nay, intimately familiar with the history and details of any family, passing judgment based on flimsy reports from the news media nothing but... well, foolish.

Of course we don't know exactly why this kid was 200 lbs because we weren't there. All we have to go on is a few paragraphs in the news! How do you convince yourself that, from this body of evidence, you have sufficient information to make that call?

As a parent, I DO know that if my child weighed 200 lbs at 8 years old due to some medical situation, the last thing I would want was a whole gaggle of Gladys Kravitz's (reference: 'Bewitched' - 1960's sitcom) waddling around my life, peeking in my windows, sniffing my bedsheets and passing judgment on me and mine.

So, my point is, that the state should use extreme discretion when snatching children from families and that we should not automatically assume that they, the state, have applied said discretion because it is abundantly clear from record that bureaucracies are not very adept at much beyond applying the obligatory rubber stamp and knee-jerk to any situation.

Just because the newspaper (or web) says something is a particular way, doesn't make it so.

I don't argue with that in the least. I do believe that the abuse here was visible...200 pounds. It would be like seeing bruises and broken bones on a child and snatching his/her from the home, as well. Visible abuse should be addressed.

TexasBlue wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:What would you call allowing a young child to get to 200 pounds? Love?

If the parents ever ran out of food..... dinner.