200 pound boy from Ohio removed from home- 8 years old

[Obesity Discussion]

200 pound boy from Ohio removed from home- 8 years old

Childhood Obesity would be an understatement.

We've had this debate before, and it rears its head again. This boy from Ohio was taken from his parents and put into a foster home, as his parents were warned to get his weight under control and did not do so. He weighs more than 3 times what an average boy his age should weigh.

His parents and case workers had been working together for nearly 2 years to get the child's weight down before he was removed from the house.

The boy suffers from sleep apnea, a frequent issue when you have very severe cases of childhood obesity and uses a CPAP machine to help him get air at night, however this case will now be going through the public court system (costing tax payers $$$), as the custody removal is being challenged by the parents on the basis that the boy is not in imminent danger.

What do you all think about this childhood obesity case? Is it being handled correctly or not?

[Rue]

Yes. I don't think it needs to be a permanent removal - if the family shapes up. But if they've been working with professionals for 2 years, and the boy is still overweight, obviously the parents are sabotaging the effort. If they're sabotaging, they're totally negligent (can't claim ignorance).

But an 8-year so big he needs a machine to get through the night? I'd say that's putting the kid in imminent danger.

[Thin Desire]

Or, it might be that this child has something MEDICALLY WRONG WITH HIM, grrr. I find it VERY hard to believe that an 8 yo child could gain to 200 lbs no matter how much he ate, unless the parents themselves were proportionately larger. We're going down a very slippery slope in this country. But then again, we waved our liberties goodbye a few years ago, so what can we expect.

I'd be curious to know how large his parents are, and what his progress is from foster parents. It's just wrong to separate a happy child from loving parents. 1933 all over again, sigh.

[Quietus]

It's child abuse to feed a kid so much that he gets that fat and already developing health problems like sleep apnea at the age of 8, not to mention the life-long psychological harm he's going to have later from being bullied, etc etc. so I don't think they're wrong to take him out of that situation if it helps the kid lose weight.

I don't know where we draw the line though.. do you only take 200 pound kids or do we start taking 175 pounders? 150? At the end of the day, the people responsible for these kids need to be educated about proper nutrition & exercise or this is going to be a common thing in the future.

[Rue]

It doesn't matter if the kid has a medical issue or not...his parents aren't managing it either way...

There are all different kinds of abuse...being overly permissive (aka loving) is also abuse...

[Thin Desire]

It doesn't matter if the kid has a medical issue or not...his parents aren't managing it either way...

There are all different kinds of abuse...being overly permissive (aka loving) is also abuse...

Rue, I"m not talking about overeating, I believe it's possible the child has some medical issue that causes his body to hold water and gain poundage. It doesn't have to be "overeating". I'm sorry, but I'm not backing down on this one. 100 lbs? 150 lbs? Yeah maybe, but there's no way I can see a child that young reaching 200 lbs on excess candy and pizza alone. There's something medically wrong with the way his body processes food.

And, the boy, nor his parents should be punished for that. I am tired of the culture in this country (and in the industrialized world) that blames various diseases as a moral issue. Right now, my dad is blaming himself for his lung cancer, saying he "deserves it". And, that may be technically true, I won't deny it.

But there are PLENTY of people out there who have been diagnosed with lung cancer who never smoked and yet just the same die of the disease. Are they being "punished" as well.

It's the same issue with weight, there are MANY factors that contribute to it. It's a matter of cause and effect, but the cause and effect is backwards. The obesity is a symptom of something else terribly wrong with this child's body, not the other way around, I'm 99% sure of it. Esp. if the parents are of normal weight and they cared enough to send him into a medical program in the first place. Why would they invest that time and energy in getting him in a doctor in the first place? Do you think the parents WANT him on a CPAP machine?

When I was 14, I gained over 130 lbs in the span of a year, and I wasn't eating any more than any of my peers. Most of that year we had to live with friends, and I ate what they and their skinny son ate, and yet I still managed to gain over 100 lbs. I think there are many factors here at play to be looked at besides calories in, calories out, esp. when we start down the slippery slope of having the state begin taking our children away. That's scary. We've already accepted as a society that this is perfectly normal, think about it, even a thief gets a jury trial if he wishes. But it's become perfectly acceptable for the state to take away children without any recourse for the parents, without a trial, nothing. That is wrong, and I'm not backing down on this one.

To use 1984 speak, that is so double ungood.

I admit it's alarming to read about a 3rd grader that weighs almost as much as I do, but unless the parents are also large, then he is not eating to that weight. Some people's bodies work differently, Mine did, that's why I'm so passionate about this.

I will use your experience as an example. You eat VERY well and in very small amounts, you get PLENTY of activity, in addition to exercise on top of your daily life, and yet your weight fluctuates about 5 lbs and you still can't get below 159, yet all the books say eventually it should happen, but a series of stressors such as your meds are keeping that from happening.

I believe a similar process is happening with this boy's body, and instead of punishing him and taking him from his family, solutions should be made instead of blame to try and find a cure. I'm willing to bet money he won't actually lose weight in foster care. If the parents didn't care, they wouldn't have sent him to a doctor, and he wouldn't be treated for the sleep apnea in the first place.

I'm sorry I'm so verbose on this one, but it really bugs me. I know it won't do any good, we're going to allow the state to take away our children and being legislating minute details in our lives down to what we are allowed to eat, but at least I am speaking up about it, someone must.

[Rue]

I'm all for discussing and verboseness!

The problem though, is that while yes...some people have medical issues that affect weight MOST do not. Yet, because we inherently want to blame someone or something for our issues it's almost like we all hope that it's NOT our fault (I'm like that as well) - so that we have a valid excuse to be the way we are because the alternative (being slack, lazy, etc.) is not what we want to hear.

Yes...I'm not dropping the last 5 lbs...but I suspect that's because I'm still eating too much for my activity level. And while I have some minor health issues that are annoying and make the process more difficult - my weight is soley my doing. However, it would be very easy for me to use those health issues as an excuse (and I'll put it out there that they're legitimate excuses to some extent).

I honestly didn't think I could lose any weight when I started (due to my health) - but when I finally sucked it up and did it 'right', sure enough, the weight came off.

And, while I'd luv to eat more...I am certainly not starving to death on what I'm eating...or even close to it...that in itself speaks a lot to how little food we actually need vs. what we think we need.

As far as smoking and lung cancer goes. No one ever said only smokers get lung cancer. Anyone can get lung cancer. Smoking only increases your risk of it. Is it your fault if you smoke and get ill? Yes. Is it sad? Yes. My parents both died early (of cancer), I suspect their years of smoking had something to do with it.

Adult onset (Type II) diabetes runs rampent in my family. Part of the reason I lost the weight was to reduce my risks of getting it. Every single family member of mine, who's diabetic, is also significantly overweight. So who's fault is it? It's not their fault (or mine) for carrying the genes for diabetes, but it's their fault for not taking steps to avoid it.

I'll take you up on your bet. I bet that boy loses a signficant amount of weight while in Foster Care.

[Quietus]

I don't think there's any documented case of a human gaining fat without eating an excess of calories. Bear in mind, that doesn't always mean they started eating more food, but can also mean the food they were eating is now more than what they're burning due to aging, lowered activity, etc. That's why people tend to gain weight later in life, not because being older makes you gain fat, but because you're not expending as much energy as you used to and still eating the same.

There can be conditions that make it easier or harder for a person to gain fat, but at the end of the day they still have to be eating excess calories for that to happen, that's how the human body works biologically. We don't store excess fat without taking in excess energy. If a person doesn't know the amount of calories they should be eating to not gain fat, that's their responsibility to learn and can't be blamed on other things.

For example, if you know you have hypothyroidism or something that can slow the metabolism, all else being equal you have to eat less than someone who doesn't have that condition to accomodate it, or you might gain weight. Still, gaining of weight is not the fault of the condition or disease but of the person not adjusting their diet accordingly.

[Thin Desire]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that same person needs less vitamins and minerals and other nutrients just because the body isn't burning calories as much as someone else's. It just means their body burns it at a different rate as someone else's, which is fine, if every human being was treated with respect regardless of body type. Your post only confirms to me that each of us is DIFFERENT, why not accept that instead of starving people to fit within a box.

To take this child away from a loving home because his body works differently and the mother refuses to starve her child so his body can match another person's is morally repugnant to me. I'm sorry but I'm not backing down on this one.

Yes, he can starve, but he is also missing vitamins and minerals he may need, which is part of the reason many obese people are deficient in many vitamins and minerals, because of the years of dieting. I suffer osteoarthritis because of this fact.

I know I'm yelling into the wilderness on this one, but that won't stop me. When they come after your child or parent, maybe you can see my point of view. We are going down a slippery slope and it is wrong. I don't know all the facts in this case, but we have a parent here who was sending her child to doctors AND treating him for his medical conditions. This doesn't sound like a neglectful parent to me just judging from the facts presented.

[Rue]

I'm on lunch...and doing some quick reading...

Genetics of course plays a role...just a quick look around any gathering of people and you'll see those that have that typical 'thin' look and those that tend to plumpness. But that's all normal and can be managed.

There are a number of genetic disorders, with underlying genetic anomalies, in which obesity is an issue.

Ex. Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Alstrom syndrome, Cohen syndrome, Albright's hereditary osteodystrophy (pseudohypoparathyroidism), Carpenter syndrome, MOMO syndrome, Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Börjeson-Forssman-Lehman syndrome.

I think all of those are also linked with mental retardation, and controlling the diet and exercise are still the main management tools - and those caring for individuals with these genetic conditions have to manage it. Not to mention, they are all very rare. Only 6 confirmed cases of MOMO worldwide for example.

Otherwise, an underactive thyroid can be an issue (ex. Cushing's, some pregnancy related disfunctions, etc.). The thyroid controls metabolism. Lack of function also makes you sleepy and unenergetic...so that's part of the weight gain. Again, it needs to be diagnosed, treated and weight has to be managed accordingly.

Depression, arthritis, fibro, etc., also lead to weight gain - but don't actually cause weight gain.

Excess weight (and I mean obesity, not just a little extra padding) is linked to numerous health issues, so while you certainly don't have to be skinny, you do need to keep it under control.

Yes, you may have a rare medical condition that causes you to gain weight. Regardless, you have to learn how to manage it - because even if you have an issue, the weight compounds the health risks.

[Rue]

TD, no one is suggesting anyone starves. And you certainly don't need to overeat to get all your nutrients. Malnutrition has become a major issue among overweight people in general because they don't eat enough healthy foods even though they're eating way too much food. A daily vitamin will take care of most nutritional deficits (not all of course).

[Quietus]

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.. you don't have to starve to lose weight.. you do have to be at a calorie deficit but it would be melodramatic to say a 500 daily calorie deficit is anywhere near starving or that it would put someone in danger of vitamin/mineral deficiency when they can just take a multi-vitamin.

Now, if there's such a thing as being predisposed to be obese I would fit in that category, both my parents were overweight and so was I from age 10-25 and still can put fat on easily if i'm not careful with what I eat. Nonetheless, staying at a calorie deficit made me gradually drop over 100 pounds in a year, and during that time my weight never went up, only down or maintained because my calories were always 300-500 under what I was burning. So, even if someone has obese genes they'll still lose weight on a deficit because that's how the human body works.

You don't have to eat 1200 calories or less to lose weight if you don't want to, eat 2000 and get daily activity and you can still lose a pound a week. Eat 3000, lift weights and run daily and you still lose fat. There's no circumstance where a human couldn't lose weight by either reducing their calorie intake and/or upping their activity, so when a person tries to point to other things as the reason they can't lose weight, it says to me they either aren't going about it the right way, or aren't dedicated enough.

[Obesity Discussion]

It's child abuse to feed a kid so much that he gets that fat and already developing health problems like sleep apnea at the age of 8, not to mention the life-long psychological harm he's going to have later from being bullied, etc etc. so I don't think they're wrong to take him out of that situation if it helps the kid lose weight.

I don't know where we draw the line though.. do you only take 200 pound kids or do we start taking 175 pounders? 150? At the end of the day, the people responsible for these kids need to be educated about proper nutrition & exercise or this is going to be a common thing in the future.

There probably should be some agreed upon standard for age/height/sex to remove the subjective nature of this issue if governments plan on enforcing this.

[Thin Desire]

Seems to be some misunderstanding here.. you don't have to starve to lose weight.. you do have to be at a calorie deficit but it would be melodramatic to say a 500 daily calorie deficit is anywhere near starving or that it would put someone in danger of vitamin/mineral deficiency when they can just take a multi-vitamin.

Now, if there's such a thing as being predisposed to be obese I would fit in that category, both my parents were overweight and so was I from age 10-25 and still can put fat on easily if i'm not careful with what I eat. Nonetheless, staying at a calorie deficit made me gradually drop over 100 pounds in a year, and during that time my weight never went up, only down or maintained because my calories were always 300-500 under what I was burning. So, even if someone has obese genes they'll still lose weight on a deficit because that's how the human body works.

You don't have to eat 1200 calories or less to lose weight if you don't want to, eat 2000 and get daily activity and you can still lose a pound a week. Eat 3000, lift weights and run daily and you still lose fat. There's no circumstance where a human couldn't lose weight by either reducing their calorie intake and/or upping their activity, so when a person tries to point to other things as the reason they can't lose weight, it says to me they either aren't going about it the right way, or aren't dedicated enough.

Quietus, it's not that I'm misunderstanding you, it's that everyone is different. Not everyone fits the standard metabolism bill and not everyone's obesity can be blamed on "gluttony and sloth". We're talking about a 200-lb 8 yo boy here, something is incredibly wrong with his body. Obviously we're not getting the full facts. We don't know the extenuating circumstances, we don't know the weight of his parents. We don't know if there were other circumstances that the media has omitted or is not privy to to why he was removed from the home. But something is amiss.

If you look at Prader-Willi Syndrome ALONE, rare, but not that rare, their bodies need only about 1200 calories to MAINTAIN, and if they want to lose weight - 600-800 kcal per day.

Medical Home Portal - Nutrition and diet in Prader-Willi syndrome

So, not only is that a cruel disease where they are constantly hungry, but if they want to just MAINTAIN, they must eat only 1200 kcal per day, if they want to lose any, it's gonna be 600. I think anybody would be throwing temper tantrums and stealing food under those circumstances, not just a poor child. So yes, in SOME people "starvation" or what would be considered starvation IS required. It's not an equal play field for everyone. I'm not saying this boy has P-W, I dunno what is wrong, but there are many conditions that might explain the rapid weight gain. I will say it until I'm blue int he face, not everyone has an equal playing field.

For me? Most of the time I maintain on 1200 per day, I don't lose. If I want to lose, I'd better take it down to 800 or fasting. It's not always this way, sometimes I can take it up to 2000, heck I have lost after 3000, it just depends on how my metabolism is feeling that day. That alone makes me question that calories in, calories out is all there is. Oftentimes, there is a huge disconnect between my actual intake and whether I gain or lose. I have a feeling this boy is having similar issues. I think one reason why many of the conditions are identified as "rare" is because doctors don't take the time to thoroughly examine the issue, such as the girl that was removed from the home only to later fine out she had a genetic disorder from birth that caused the weight gain.

This blame game isn't helping solve anything. It's like blaming cancer or paralysis on the victim. And taking innocent children from loving parents is not the answer. Unless there was some kind of unrelated abuse that is not revealed, I think it is wrong. The mother had the child under medical supervision, that's what I know. If that were not the case, I would feel differently.

[Rue]

Okay...so the mother had the child under medical supervision...but what if she was ignoring all the advice at home? Is it abuse then?

[Thin Desire]

It would be abuse if she wasn't following doctor's orders. That having been said, doctor's usually don't believe an obese person when they say they are cutting calories if they are not losing weight, at least MOST doctors, not all. They usually are quick to blame the patient, so they are most likely going to use the old canard that she "isn't following doctor's advice" and not believe her before checking further into the situation and doing more tests on the boy.

It's certainly not justified in my opinion to take the child away from a loving home, any more than it's justified to take a child with cancer away or one with a broken leg. If I child breaks an arm while riding a bike, is the parent negligent and "neglectful" for allowing the child to ride the bike in the first place. Should the child be taken away?

In this scenario, it seems absurd to even mention it, but it's perfectly ok to say that a fat child should be taken from the home in a similar circumstance, it's just wrong.

Not all bodies are the same. Yes it takes calories to gain weight, but but this can very GREATLY from person to person. Some people are "easy keepers" as we have discussed before. This child does not deserve to have his life ruined. Being fat is not usually a choice, either by the parent or the child. You can have the same level of activity, the same food, the same refrigerator, and have one fat child and one thin child.

My aunt adopted a family of 4 children, all naturally skinny. My aunt is morbidly obese, had to have bypass as is her daughter (who was thin as a child btw due to her preference for healthy foods, but those days are gone, lol). The kids are all naturally thin. Years later, my aunt still has to deal with weight problems despite the fact that she is quite active. The kids are still naturally thin if not thinner than they were when they moved in. Only the oldest girl put on a few lbs, but not anywhere near to "obese", just on the high end of her acceptable BMI. The rest are as bone thin as ever. Same house, similar levels of activity, same fridge, same food, but genetics makes an appearance.

Yes, we CAN take off the weight, but there's gonna be variation and people prone to obesity. And IMHO, we are going down a slippery slope when we start thinking it's ok for the state to take away fat kids. Where is that line drawn? I highly doubt that this boy will lose a significant amount in foster care, until his medical issues are solved.

And, one last thing I wanted to bring up, it was mentioned that you can take a multi-vitamin to supplement your vitamin needs, well frankly that is a non-sequitur. It still does not explain the fact that our bodies are built differently from the get go, some people smaller, some bigger, as that is a very 21st century solution to a problem to artificially make a person's body "acceptable". To have to take a pill to supplement nutrition we are not getting to allow our bodies to match the majority of the population is absurd, ESPECIALLY, when the excuse for this whole thing is "health".

We didn't have multi-vitamins in a pill even 100 years ago. But we're so dredged in our level of brainwashing in this instance we can't see for forest for the trees. It then stops becoming an issue of health, and more about physical appearance and conformity.

Apologies again for writing a book here, lol. I just feel passionate about this. This is wrong. Unless there is some other circumstance, which there may very well be. I wouldn't be surprised. If there is some other non-weight related issue, such as physical abuse, then the whole thing is moot, he should be removed from the home. But if the mother is complying with doctor's orders, then this is a tyranny for this boy and his mother. Because I know from personal experience, doctor's will not believe a fat person 90% of the time when ti comes to calories, although in personal experience, I've had rather the opposite happen. Doctor's tell me to STOP cutting calories because I was nutritionally deficient, which is another reason I bring it up.

[Rue]

As I said, discussion (and passion) all good!

I'll agree with you that a doctor might not believe that a person is overweight due to something beyond their control...but I doubt they would apply that to a 6 or 8 year old. They would take that more seriously because a child is NOT in charge of what he/she eats.

I also disagree with you that removing a child from a home ruins their life...in this instance it may save a life.

Even if the parents are loving (and they may not be)...you can kill with kindness...and that is abuse. Loving a child does not trump the health and safety of that child.

And again...let's just make up some figures...

If 90% of people are overweight due to overeating...and 10% are overweight due to legitimate medical reasons...we can't really treat every person as if they are an exception. No society can function that way.

Nor can we take the approach that we should be able to eat how much we want, when we want and of poor quality if we want - we KNOW that approach doesn't work. So we need to model good behaviour, teach nutrition, moderation and self-control...that is the job of a parent. If the parent can't/won't take on that role, then they are negligent. I'd say in most cases, we police ourselves, so most kids are likely fine...but if we see a child that is suffering under poor parenting...it's wrong for us to turn a blind eye...

And yes...if a child had a broken leg...and the parents didn't fit him with a cast and allow it to heal, then that child should be removed from the home.

The fat child isn't being removed because he was allowed to eat (= ride a bike) he is being removed because his weight isn't being managed (= no cast).

[Rue]

Regarding vitamins. You take the vitamins to fit a need. If we eat well we don't need vitamins. 100 years ago there were also a lot more health issues/ deaths/ retardation that resulted from vitamin deficiencies...we so rarely see some of those diseases these days that we think they no longer exist (although, as I've said that's changing with the increased malnrution we're currently seeing).

While we are all different...most of us fall into a range of 'normal' - what we are discussing here is a child that is way out of any extremem of 'normal'.

I don't see how taking a vitamin connects with enforced conformity...you can't 'see' if someone is taking vitamins...it's just an easy safety net.

[Thin Desire]

As I said, discussion (and passion) all good!

I'll agree with you that a doctor might not believe that a person is overweight due to something beyond their control...but I doubt they would apply that to a 6 or 8 year old. They would take that more seriously because a child is NOT in charge of what he/she eats.

In this case, what I am referring to since it is a child, is that the doctor won't believe, as they didn't, the child's mother. He isn't necessarily eating badly or too much, there may be something metabolically wrong with him, and I just hate to see his life ruined if that is the case. It might not be, I dunno. There's probably some other factor, it just scares me that this is where we have come to.

Perhaps, something temporarily, like custody of the child in a controlled envrionment to monitor his caloric intake medically and get a BMR and glandular tests on him. ALL of these steps should be taken BEFORE he is removed from a loving home, and it sounds like his mom does care for him, or he'd have never been treated for his conditions in the first place.

I am really curious to see how this child does in foster care, if he loses any weight, or does in fact have a glandular problem. Time will tell on this one.

[bigmoma]

I find this element of American society very disturbing. Also, I am curious why then children with other 'conditions' are not also put up for adoption. For example, children with other types of eating disorders such as Bulimia or Anorexia. If a parent 'permits' them to continue inhabiting this disordered condition why is that any different?