Community | November 28, 2011 | 18 comments

SuperNanny State: 200-Pound Ohio Boy Taken from Family, Placed Into Foster Care

Image
congoboy
Back in July, the Los Angeles Times reported on the issue of placing obese children in foster care after a doctor at Boston’s Children’s Hospital suggested that might be the best place for them. The paper predicted that this possibility is “not going to happen soon.”

How quickly things change after an Ohio third grader, who weighs more than 200 pounds, was taken from his family last month and placed into foster care because county social workers said his mother wasn’t doing enough to control his weight.
The 8-year-old Cleveland Heights boy is considered ”severely obese and at risk for developing such diseases as diabetes and hypertension,” the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports. So, in the land of obesity, case workers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio have drawn a line in the cellulose.

Cuyahoga County doesn’t have a specific policy in place for dealing with severely obese children. But Mary Louise Madigan, a spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Family Services, told the Plain Dealer the organization removed the child in question because case workers considered the mother’s inability to get her son’s weight down a form of medical neglect.
“This child’s problem was so severe that we had to take custody,” Madigan told the newspaper.

She claims her agency worked with the mother for more than a year before asking Juvenile Court for custody of the child. It’s a very slippery slope, however, given that the Ohio Health Department estimates more than 12 percent of third-graders statewide are severely obese (1,380 in Cuyahoga County alone) and this is the first reported child taken into custody.

Children are generally only removed from homes where there is strong evidence of physical abuse, neglect or undernourishment. According to CBS News, lawyers for the mother are now arguing the state has “overreached.” They say the medical problems the boy is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger to his health.

The lawyers said they’ve seen children left in homes with abusive parents and drug addicts, but this boy had a normal childhood, participated in school active, and was on his elementary school honor roll.

“They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don’t love my child,” the boy’s mother, who did not wish to be identified, told the Plain Dealer. “Of course I love him. Of course I want him to lose weight. It’s a lifestyle change, and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying.”

The boy has lost a few pounds and has received treatment for his sleep apnea. The downside is he’s living in a foster home and is now subject to the whims of the foster care system. His mother only gets to see him once a week for two hours.

Next month, the mother and the state of Ohio will debate the case in front of a Juvenile Court magistrate to decide what is in the boy’s best interest. A trial is set on the child’s 9th birthday.

From the sounds of it, the mother is doing what she can to get her son the weight control treatment he needs and, you have to wonder why the state would remove the boy from the home instead of actively helping him to lose weight, especially if he’s in a stable, loving environment — albeit one that is prone to give him the diabeetus.

It should be pointed out that the photo of the kid in this article is not the kid in question, but rather the first result when you image search “fat kid.” The more you know. http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/supernanny-state-200-pound-ohio-boy-taken-from-f...
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Obesity,  Childhood Obesity,  nanny state
  3.     
    |

18 comments // SuperNanny State: 200-Pound Ohio Boy Taken from Family, Placed Into Foster Care

  • Kelly_Balthrop
    • +1
      Kelly_Balthrop  

    • While I think this is extreme, it's acceptable under certain conditions. First, they should rule out a thyroid or other medical condition that may be no fault of the parent. I the parent is neglegent to the extent that it is putting his life at unreasonable risk, it may be nessesary for the state to intervene for the childs safety. I would only approve in the most extreme conditions where the child is at risk.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
    • +1
      congoboy  
    • Kelly_Balthrop:

      agreed. but the article states percieved future health problems. now i guess none of us know the whole story but if the childs safety wasnt at risk then the states intervention was inappropriate

    • 6 months ago
  • Kelly_Balthrop
  • WakeUpPeople
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  

    • "an Ohio third grader, who weighs more than 200 pounds, was taken from his family last month and placed into foster care because county social workers said his mother wasn’t doing enough to control his weight."

      I condone this.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • congoboy:

      Taking the kid. The parents are irresponsible to allow him to grow to the size he is. My parents knew I liked eating crap and they locked the freaking refrigerator.

      As a parent, you exercise a huge amount of control over your child's diet. Even if you can't cook, you can feed them salad. That kid didn't get that way from eating school lunches or having a thyroid disorder (whatever that means).

      Obesity is an epidemic and it has to be battled as if it is a spreading disease.

      A lot of it is mentality. People who give a shit don't get fat, or stop being fat.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
  • CreditFigaro
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • CreditFigaro:

      With strings attached, of course.

      I'm not racist, but I am fattist. If you are fat, then you ought to be treated differently by the state. If you don't want the state to have control over your life, buy your own plan.

      Not every choice is a good choice to have, many of which cause destruction to those around you, financial or otherwise. Such choices should be discouraged.

      Ways to do this:

      Extra tax on medically unhealthy foods: trans fats, and other crap ought to have a HUGE tax on them, or medical warnings on proven crap foods.
      Tax relief for people who keep their body fat %age low.
      Appropriate food classification: Herman Cain didn't get rich by selling vegetables.

      Provide incentives for good behavior, tools for participants in the market to make good decisions for themselves and so on.

      If someone chooses to be fat in a system where there are alarms and sirens going off at every bad decision they make, they may be held solely responsible, but when the market tries to fool them into eating crap, it's hard to judge them.

      Here is what I discovered during thought yesterday: neither of our perspectives are wrong.

      HOWEVER

      One can be more right than another, DEPENDING ON CONTEXT.

      When the unemployment rate is over 10% you can't judge someone for not having a job. How the hell are you supposed to get a job in a system where you have no control and no financial resources to do something about it? It's possible, but it just ain't going to happen for most people, no matter what set of choices they make.

      When the unemployment rate is under 4% how the hell can you NOT have a job? There must be something wrong with you that you need to fix, and there are plenty of opportunities to do so.

      Think about it.

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • CreditFigaro:

      to a degree i'll have to disagree with you there. in my opinion if someone knowingly is abusing their bodies whether its smoking or eating shitty food and becoming morbidly obese then they should be responsible for their own behavior. now if a person has private insurance and pays a higher premium for health care or pays a higher healthcare tax if government run because of their poor lifestyle choices then so be it. but i dont think my taxes should pay for the health care of an individual who chooses to abuse their body. fuck if i can get healthcare under any circumstance i may as well be a heroin addict and sponge off the system like so many others. wheres the incentive to remain healthy?

    • 6 months ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • congoboy:

      "wheres the incentive to remain healthy?"

      Sex? Long life? The ability to work?

      Just because you are protected from the bottom doesn't mean there is an incentive to fall as far as you can.

      Do you think sales people WANT to utilize their draw? Do you think investment bankers WANT to lose money because they still get a fee for holding assets?

      NO!

      Certain crazy people exist, but they don't go unnoticed by the system, if it is a functional system.

      "in my opinion if someone knowingly is abusing their bodies whether its smoking or eating shitty food and becoming morbidly obese then they should be responsible for their own behavior. now if a person has private insurance and pays a higher premium for health care or pays a higher healthcare tax if government run because of their poor lifestyle choices then so be it."

      Now we are talking. Tax the FUCK out of fat people. Agree 100%.

      If you are over a certain BMI, you have to get tested for Body Fat %age. If it is over 30%, you get a medicare percentage increase of 5 percentage points of your income.

      Better yet, if you are in the 5-12% range (male) and 10-20% range (female) you get a huge tax break.

      How about that?

    • 6 months ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • CreditFigaro:

      although i was being hypothetical concerning my own health i did make a point. i of course am into eating and remaining as healthy as i can to live a long and fruitful life, but there are plenty of tub o lards and smokers who arent. tax fat fucks, smokers and anyone else who make poor lifestyle choices? sounds good to me

    • 6 months ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
more from Community:
from the community

top videos