Video: Is childhood obesity child abuse/neglect?
posted at 2:25 pm on July 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Bad cases make bad law, says the axiom, and this applies here. Obviously, this teenager has a serious problem that his mother ignored. If she gets prosecuted for felony abuse/neglect, does this open the floodgates to government prosecution of a wide swath of American parenthood? Or does this extreme case justify South Carolina’s actions? Watch the clip:
The mother’s story doesn’t add up, in my opinion. Teenagers eat a lot of bad food when they visit friends, but they don’t all put on 400 pounds of fat. Undoubtedly the mother has had a tough time raising the teen alone, but again, we don’t have legions of 555-pound teens coming from latchkey situations. At the very least, the mother failed to respond properly to the morbid weight gain of her son, who’s practically an invalid at that weight — and notice that her attorney doesn’t claim that the son has some unusual medical condition, but that he simply ate his way to 555 pounds.
I’d say this is actionable by the state and that they’re being reasonable in charging her with criminal abuse/neglect. I understand and agree with the “slippery slope” argument to a point, but this is a case so extreme that failure to respond would be neglect in and of itself. Your opinions may differ, though, so take the poll!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Give the kid a break
he got into TIWYF
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Sure. But other kids have miserable lives too. Should all of their parents be locked up? Yes, the kid is at much greater health risk. If you let your kid play football, he’s at risk for injury, and could even die on the field (especially during summer practice). Is that negligent?
Americans still have a right to make stupid choices, don’t they?
Does the state trump the kid’s wishes? Was he desperately trying to escape, or was he saying “yayy! more pie!”?
I’d love to have some more data on this case. What’s his average calorie intake? Is he eating more than your average high school offensive lineman? Are we putting people in jail based on:
calorie intake
minutes of exercise
body mass index?
To me, none of those issues rise to the level where government needs to intervene.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Bollocks. These people are in control of their own lives. Obesity per se is not a crime. Child neglect/abuse is.
LimeyGeek on July 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I’ve managed to eat myself to 340lbs. Does this mean I can sue the state for abuse? They’re the ones who’ve neglected to regulate food commercials on TV. (my favorite
excusereason for so many in the nation overeating).See, if I’m to blame then that would be “self-abuse” and not the good kind. That’s a psychological condition and might make me eligible for disability. See once the government regulates/criminalizes something, it becomes someone’s pet project for providing for counseling and care for the victims.
jcw46 on July 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I think Rush trimmed back down a lot. Ditto Cammers?
WashJeff on July 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM
It’s prison for you, sir!
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
You know, my first reaction was to be seriously conflicted about this- it’s certainly bad parenting, and just looking at the picture and reading Ed’s comments it does look at least very near to criminally bad parenting- but where’s the line- how overweight does a child have to be before the government can arrest the parent? Who decides what is good nutrition for a child? Do vegetarians get arrested when omnivores are in office, and vice versa? The government’s propensity to do serious damage to innocent families through the guise of CPS is a good reason not to give them more power, but still, I was willing to take Ed’s word for it that this was an exception.
Then I watched the video, and it appears most commenters didn’t. He WAS a chubby kid- his mom worked two jobs to support them and she doesn’t have sweets and cokes in the house at all. He wasn’t just getting food at friends’ houses- He was eating several lunches each day *at the school,* so why aren’t we arresting the school officials who sold this child several lunches a day? And if the school was willing to over-feed him, why is it only the mother being blamed for what he ate in their care?
The lawyers say the mother took advantage of an expensive program they were offered in another state- they packed their bags, drove to another state, went to the facility and the officials there looked at the kid and said, “never mind. We didn’t realize how overweight he is. We can’t help him.” And the state is using this instance *against the mother,* saying, “See, she had this expensive program available and she didn’t take advantage of it,” when, in fact, they were turned away at the door.
Mom worked two jobs, the boy spent too much unsupervised time stuffing his face, and probably mom used food to make up for her not being there far too often. She’s not been a responsible parent. Can we arrest the father, too, because he’s apparently not in the picture at all- and that’s far more irresponsible. Can we arrest the school officials who fed the boy several lunches a day? That was certainly irresponsible.
And the boy is in foster care- so the state is punishing the child as well as the mother.
This is not the clear case it looks to be just based on the picture.
DeputyHeadmistress on July 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Well said. This is a slippery slope. If we criminalize the parent(s) of a kid because he’s obese, which leads to health problems then we can criminalize anyone who eats foods which can “cause cancer” (based on the research study du jour).
I’m against criminalizing these kinds of cases when social stigma should be sufficient.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Yes he did. I believe he said he lost 60 lbs.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM
The Mom is an unfit parent, but so are most of the liberals out there for teaching their children to be dependants of the State. Ultimately, this ridiculous kid is in charge of what he puts in his mouth. Sorry, nanny-staters.
Jaibones on July 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM
And a caning for your Mom.
Jaibones on July 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM
The GRAYING first liar speaking about Iraq….praising the troops. After hearing Hawk’s assessment of Afghanistan last night, I hope someone calls the liar out.
HornetSting on July 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I can see it now, just as “second-hand smoke” BS allowed the various governments to trample over our most precious private property rights, the scourge of obesity is going to make it illegal to stuff your face in front of a minor. Movies with fat people are all going to be rated X, so kids can’t see them and be tempted into obesity …
progressoverpeace on July 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I’ve heard/read that the state tried other methods of intervention and the mother would/did not cooperate. Having a fat child is one thing – but letting a teen become disabled due to morbid obesity is parental neglect/abuse.
Can’t say it should be criminal but I do think he should be removed from her care because it appears tha5t she is unable to properly care for him
katiejane on July 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Heh. That slut’ll tell us she looks like Megyn Kelly.
Jaibones on July 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I blame Bush
faraway on July 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM
The time for talk is over. The time to act is now. This kid needs his own line item at Recovery.gov.
Cuffy Meigs on July 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I’ll try not to drop the soap
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Forgot to add – for all you bemoaning the “state” interferring in her life – you can bet he’s on some sort of govt health care plan.
katiejane on July 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Look, folks, this isn’t hard.
There is a bell-curve…if mommy was starving the kid, nobody here would have any kick with charging her with neglect/abuse. On the other end of the curve, the same rationale should apply. In the broad middle, mommy would have no liability, and no jury would put it on her.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM
So when the law says it is okay for a government hussy to enter your home and counsel you on end-of-life options your okay with that?
chemman on July 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM
He would be, if he were remotely mature & competent enough to make such judgments. As he isn’t, just how do you expect him to be responsible?
I’m no nanny stater, far from it, but I recognize a situation where somebody that is profoundly responsible for anothers’ life has been derelict and caused that life to deteriorate to utter shit.
Who is going to stand up for the criminal abuse of this kids rights if not the state? Do we step in and prosecute when he’s dead at 18?
The very same argument some are using to deflect responsibility for making the tough decisions (“why didn’t the school do something earlier?”) can be applied to us now. We can see the problem, so why are we contemplating not doing anything?
LimeyGeek on July 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Silly question, and for about a thousand reasons.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
This is not good parenting – definitely neglectful, ignorant, guilt ridden and irresponsible parenting. Abusive? No. Hmmm, one has to wonder what role the Liberal agenda played in all this? Under Obamacare, will no one get fat?Government hasn’t helped this boy yet. They think if we just hand them our brains, all will work out just fine.
Last week in a thread on transgender hate crimes legislation on my site, someone called me an abusive parent because I was against a hate crimes bill as written, because I’m conservative, because I’m Catholic, am raising my child as a Catholic and send her to Catholic school. I never said anything derogatory or hateful about TG people, just that I did not want to explain it to my ten year old – I added age because her age is the deciding factor on what she gets to know when. I was treated to a barrage of hateful accusations, against me, my family and the Catholic church in general and told I was ruining my child, abusing her. And all that from members of the party in charge. Scary to think how much power they’ve coalesced.
Does this family need help? Yes. Should the mother go to jail? No.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Hey, if this kid weighed 70 lbs. and bones were protruding, it would most certainly be “criminal neglect”. Same thing here. She was criminal in her neglect to stop him from eating.
JAM on July 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Most likely, he’s prohibited from being involved by court order. See my previous comment at 3:10.
platypus on July 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
The opposite of starving is force-feeding, not over-feeding.
progressoverpeace on July 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Obama Care Hotline Operator: “Oh, I’m sorry, but we don’t cover lyposuction…however we can send you a very informative multi-colored high gloss pamphlet explaining the risks of obesity…have a nice day and thanks for callin Obama-care!”
Liberty or Death on July 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Really? Do you trust juries, or not?
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Maybe it’s something in the air in SC:
http://www.wyff4.com/news/20143106/detail.html
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:34 PM
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Hey…I heard on the radio today that a cancer awareness group wants to put a warning label on your beloved hotdogs…
ladyingray on July 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Yes, really. It’s a question of options. Starving a kid leaves the kid no options. He just can’t eat, even if he wants to. Force-feeding a kid leaves no option. He just must eat. Over-feeding lets the kid choose. You might not like over-feeding, but it doesn’t compare to starving a kid.
I don’t generally trust juries. Why?
progressoverpeace on July 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM
You mean twinkies don’t jump into my mouth by themselves? Damn! Since I am sitting here eating a slice of tres leches chocolate cake, I can hardly talk. But ….. Someone is the enabler in this situation. Jailtime? I say let a jury decide….
catlady on July 22, 2009 at 3:37 PM
It’s def a moral issue for us as a society, as many health-related things are, but it’s not a criminal issue.
I’d put it up there w/ abstinence, etc. It’s listed as 1/7 of the deadly sins and condemned by practically every religion.
But I don’t want to live in NY state over it.
bluelightbrigade on July 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I was just trying to qualify who was coming at this from the elitist point of view.
So you cannot starve a kid by neglect? Hmmm….
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Noooooooooo! What am I doing to my kids! I am killing them. Oooooo wait…I ate a lot of hot growing up, still do.
We need judges to start laughing at these suits.
WashJeff on July 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I’m with Ed on this. At his age – 14 – this is abuse and neglect.
What if the kid was 14 and weighed 50 pounds? Wouldn’t you want to prosecute the mother in that case?
I think extremely under or over weight are both abuse/neglect. His health is at great risk, and is eating himself to death.
Bottom line, she is responsible for her minor children.
sarainitaly on July 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Ridiculous. Prosecute real crimes, not things that make us feel uncomfortable.
evergreen on July 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM
How do we know that he’s mentally incapable of making choices? Are you doing a psychiatric evaluation of him based on a CNN report?
Careful. The theory that every person’s story is different doesn’t really fit the liberal playbook. You have to think of it as more like flashcards. Fat kid=bad mom. Nevermind that the nanny state that’s punishing her GAVE HIM EXTRA FOOD.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Ladyingray
Thanks.
I managed to finally kick the “pills” 6 years ago.
I still work out a lot-I’m walking my first marathon in October-but at 5.2/128-I look and feel healthy. I never thought I say that 128 was good- but it is.
I’ll admit it-I like being a “mighty mouse”-but I also wouldn’t wish what I’ve been through on anybody either.
annoyinglittletwerp on July 22, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Carnack says: My peers voted for Obama.
WashJeff on July 22, 2009 at 3:42 PM
No need. He is a minor. We ascribe to minors a limited capacity to make decisions. Again, a jury could evaluate what they thought about who was…and was not…responsible for this kid’s condition.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM
LOL. Starting to smell some intellectual dishonesty here. You argue that’s the law while a “thousand” different reasons are given by others.
chemman on July 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I know! LOL
How have we ever survived?
ladyingray on July 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Heh.
progressoverpeace on July 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM
At least, until they put you in jail for serving hotdogs and cake at your kid’s birthday party.
Again. When did Americans lose the right to be stupid? There are MILLIONS of poor parents out there. Should they all go to jail? I’m pretty sure that the mom of a teen age crack dealer is more negligent than this mom. Do we REALLY want the government to decide who’s being a good parent?
Why not have concerned neighbors or teachers intervene? Or find the kid a different program to help? Charging her with a crime doesn’t help this situation get fixed. It just makes some people better.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
WTF…???
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
And I disagree that if the kid was starving, there would be criminal charges. Maybe if he died there would be, but our crappy social services system claims it’s number one goal is always to keep the child with the parent. Why wasn’t this kid removed from his abusive home at 250 lbs? As long as the kid is able to say he wants to stay with mommy and mommy says she will follow a prescribed plan, the state is reluctant to take him away – mostly because there is nowhere for him to go.
I volunteered as a CASA guardian ad litem in the court system in Ohio and the judges loved me because I always recommended permanent removal. The social workers hated me for the same reason – it meant more work. You are kidding yourself if you think the system is for the kids. It’s for the bureaucrats to maintain control over the populace. I was never so disgusted as when the local pols would show up at our fundraisers, the same day they cut our funding, to glad hand for votes and checks.
If you know a family in trouble, step in yourself. Get them into a non-profit or church sponsored program, invite them to church with you, invite them to dinner, offer assistance – anything to avoid social services intervention. CFS departments around the country are bloated with lifetime bureaucrats who do the minimum to keep the job. My sister-in-law’s sister runs a dept in Ohio where one of her social workers has been completely disabled by a stroke at age 53. He needs two more years for full gov’t pension so his wife and NA roll him into his office everyday and leave him there, drooling, soiling himself, suffering, unable to even turn on his computer (he is however, supposedly lucid so even he knows how awful this is). When she mentioned this to her superiors at the county she was told to just reassign cases and let it go. “He wants his full pension and we don’t need the lawsuit” was their answer. OMG. Maybe this kid was on his client list.
Step in yourself and save a family. And foster or mentor a kid. It only takes one genuinely caring adult to lead a child in the right direction, even in a sea of uncaring mediocrity. I know, I’ve seen it happen.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
catlady
You’re in great shape so enjoy it
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
If your kid has a heart condition and you have been told he should not play some sports but you sign the form allowing him to play anyway without revealing his heart condition, you’re criminally negligent. Again, you’re sadly mistaken if you think you have some mythical right to do what ever you want with your kid. You don’t.
Blake on July 22, 2009 at 3:48 PM
ladyingray on July 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I love hot dogs, on occasion, and just read they increase your chance of colon cancer.
Each year, more than 50,000 people die from colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death due to cancer for men and women combined. (Lung cancer is the first.) Someone dies from colorectal cancer every 9.3 minutes. More lives are lost each year to colorectal cancer than to breast cancer and AIDS combined.
I am all for personal responsibility, but I can’t help but think that so many of my friends and family have/died from cancer because of things we ingest and breathe (that we assume are safe, because they are FDA approved…). I don’t think it’s normal that two of my 30 something friends have breast cancer, and my dad and FIL have prostate cancer. And my grandparents all had cancer.
If the food is doing it, I would like to know.
sarainitaly on July 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM
That is the right notion.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Gotta disagree with you there, Rags. She wasn’t forcefeeding the kid, and frankly, he’s old enough to know better. He’s not an infant; he’s 14 years old and can feed himself.
Also, been thinking about how does one stop him from eating? Chain him to his room? How do you monitor what he does when he’s out and about? How does she manage that while working?
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I agree that you’re not allowed to do whatever you want. But the evidence seems to indicate that she worked hard, tried to put her kid in a program to lose the weight, and her efforts were at least somewhat hurt by the school’s lax supervision (he ate 3 lunches a day at school).
Is sending her to jail, (and him to a foster home) really the solution here? How about friends and neighbors stepping in to help the woman find a solution to her kid’s problem?
Our legal system is not the only, or even the best, way to fix things. And I’m wary of the slippery slope we get on once we invite the government to be the ultimate parental authority on our children.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
That thought has been going through my head on this thread. I HATE the idea that it is state intervention. The first line of defense should be the extended family. Second, is freinds and neighbors. Third, religious or community organizations she belongs to.
We, as a society, get the government we deserve. The more civil we are to each other, the less government is required.
WashJeff on July 22, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I don’t think it’s any one thing…
ladyingray on July 22, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I know you have better sense that this. If you had a kid who was killing himself with food, what would you do?
You don’t have to chain him to his bed. You limit what comes into the house. You buy raw foods, like rice and beans. You don’t keep tons of food…prepared food…in the house.
When he’s out and about?!?!?! That kid is hardly ambulatory!! But he would need money to buy food, so what would you do?
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:56 PM
For example, let’s say the kid goes to school and eats too much, defying his mom’s efforts to cut his calories? That’s apparently one thing that happened in this case. Mom goes to jail because lunchladyland wasn’t paying attention – is that a just outcome?
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
550 lbs? whoa. Now, if he can turn in a 6 second 40 time, he’ll probably be able to get a football scholarship at USC.
University of South Carolina, the original USC.
I R A Darth Aggie on July 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
And, look, if mom tried everything she could, does anyone here think that anybody would be messing with her?
Hell, I’d represent her for free, and it would be a cake walk (I know, it was wrong…wrong of me…)
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Many here are comparing this to the other end of the spectrum where a child is being starved to death and saying the both equal abuse.
I have to disagree as with starvation, there is no food provided. The child is not given a choice of eating or starving. They are forced into starvation.
In this instance, the child was provided with the food he needed. Then, he took more than he needed, ate second and third lunches at school (btw, school lunches are supposed to be ~1400 calories EACH because the thought is that kids won’t be getting any food at home so it’s their food for the day) and snacked his little heart out at his friends’ houses.
I babysat a girl like this. The whole family was on the chubby side, but, at 8, she was massive. She never felt full, no matter how much she had eaten. When I would babysit, her parents would give me strict rules about what she could have. As I mentioned, they were a chubbier family, so, it wasn’t super restrictive. It was usually 1 slice of pizza and a soda for dinner and then a couple cookies later for a snack.
If a CPS worker had come in an hour after dinner and seen her sobbing, swearing that her parents said she could have more pizza, clutching her stomach like it was hurting her and saying that she was starving, I probably would have been charged with abuse.
Some kids over eat and, if their parents do what needs to be done to get them healthy, it’s not necessarily any better or prettier than giving up and letting them eat what they want.
JadeNYU on July 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
How about we just execute the whole family? They’re clearly shitty human specimens, so let’s cull them from the herd.
Eugenics FTW!
LimeyGeek on July 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
He’s not an infant; he’s 14 years old and can feed himself.
He didn’t get that overweight in a few months. He hasn’t always been 14. And 14 is a minor – his parents are responsible for him, and his actions.
sarainitaly on July 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
No. It isn’t a remotely likely outcome, either.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Food and environment, combine with your genetic predispositions seems to be what determines your fate.
I’m the fourth in my maternal line to grow up in the rust belt and have a thyroid deficiency. Every generation, it happens at a younger age even though as a society we have better health, eat better, cleaner water, etc…
Everyone in my family (on maternal paternal and paternal maternal and paternal sides) that smokes gets lung cancer and eventually dies from it. We just don’t smoke.
No breast cancer, none whatsoever, going back over 100 years. And all our mammograms show healthy breasts – confirmed by our husbands.
MS is in our family – 5 incidences in three generations, all women, all presented in late 30′s, all over the country, all distantly related. This one scares me the most – the next generation in my immediate family is 9 girls out of 10 kids. I’d get tested for it but you know – insurance.
My 85 year old Papa had quintuple bypass 15 years ago. He’s always been slim, watched his cholesterol because genetically it’s high. If he eats it, it goes right to his heart. He’s 80% blocked and could go at any time. I send him cannoli’s from Mike’s Pastry in Boston-why suffer needlessly now?
It’s a crapshoot – some people follow all the rules and still die young and miserable. The only lesson is to know yourself and monitor your own health. Make good decisions and know your own risks and adjust accordingly. I grew up on Cleveland hot dogs – just not everyday.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Guess what? People lie! You have no way of knowing what she is saying is true. Seriously, why do you assume that she is telling the truth and that the authorities are the ones who are acting in bad faith?
It might be. Why do you assume they haven’t tried to find a solution? What authority do they have to order friends and neighbors to step in? What if the mother is refusing all help?
But, some times it is the only way when other methods fail. And I’m aware of the slippery slope when government doesn’t become involved – a dead kid and everybody yapping about why didn’t the authorities step in.
Blake on July 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Also folks, gee, maybe she’s applying some shinola to her parenting for the camera…y’know, the same way all parents say their gang-banging punk kid is ‘a good kid’….
LimeyGeek on July 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
It’s a crapshoot – some people follow all the rules and still die young and miserable. The only lesson is to know yourself and monitor your own health. Make good decisions and know your own risks and adjust accordingly. I grew up on Cleveland hot dogs – just not everyday.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Yep. I agree.
ladyingray on July 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM
That just scares me. Then its:
Parents smoking in their own home endangering kids
Parents letting kids ride ATVs are endangering kids
The list goes on and on.
broker1 on July 22, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I would love to agree with this. But governments aren’t generally heralded for their ability to make nuanced decisions. Government messes with people all the time. For all we know, the social services person here is pursuing action because their boss wants to justify his department’s budget.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Dare to be fat
Fat is where it’s at…
… Havin’ a ball with cholesterol!
– Root Boy Slim
Parley on July 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM
JadeNYU on July 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Girls (and some boys) starve themselves, sometimes to death, every day in America. A child doesn’t have to be denied food to starve.
If a parent left their child to starve to death from Anorexia and never intervened, I would charge them with abuse and neglect as well.
sarainitaly on July 22, 2009 at 4:10 PM
ladyingray on July 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Hey, it’s just getting a head start on Obamacare. We’ll be reduced to WebMD and the neighborhood witch doctor if this debacle passes so go get your blood tests done now! Before it’s too late.
Maybe if our government empowered people through it’s “social services” rather than enslaving them, we’d be healthier, happier, wealthier, etc…
I said yesterday that maybe we should go door to door and ask people which they would prefer – a government healthcare program paid for through taxes or instructions on how to go out and earn enough money to buy the best healthcare money can buy? I’m thinking “Show me the money” would be the overwhelming response.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 4:11 PM
People do indeed lie. There are people on both sides of this case. In general, I’ll tend to assume the government is going to screw things up until I see evidence otherwise. Even if this lady a terrible mother, I don’t see where tossing her in jail automatically improves the kid’s life.
From a broader perspective, I’m against giving the government even more rights to impose their will on the private lives of citizens.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM
You forgot:
Parents forcing kids to do chores
Parents forcing kids to go to church
Parents telling kids who their friends can be
Parents telling kids when they should have sex – oh wait, we’re already not allowed to comment on that one – oops.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Look, I practice family law in Texas. I agree with a lot of what you say here. The law is a sledge hammer, not a scalpel.
I have seen CPS types over-step. I fight them. That helps them understand their roll.
Conversely, I have pled with CPS types to do some damn thing when kids were actually threatened.
So, I kinda know the worf and woof of this subject.
This kid is threatened. I’m not about to judge momma without the facts. Likewise, I am not about to go all tapioca about statist intervention in this case without knowing the facts.
I DO trust juries. Not blindly, by any means. I have seen juries do some inexplicable things. But, generally, I trust my fellow citizens to make sound judgments.
This is one of those cases where I can readily see that nobody on the CPS side of the equation is over-stepping, but I don’t pretend to know all the facts. Maybe they are, in which case I hope they are penalized for it.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I would hate to be one of those people who lived a perfect healthy life, and died at 35 jogging. If I’m going to go, i hope it’s while eating a Root beer float or something enjoyable.
I agree a lot has to do with genetics, but I still freak out about what we are consuming and breathing. I have seen too many young people get cancer.
sarainitaly on July 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
That is awful. I see it in other families, even my sister in law, but thankfully not mine. It seems like cancer clusters – in families, in neighborhoods, in ethnic groups. When you look at the big picture, it’s not as random as we think.
But we’ve made so many advances in early detection (we have a friend working on blood test diagnosis at MIT and it is amazing where we could be in just 2 or 3 years) and treatments. But as for prevention, there are no guarantees. But little in life is guaranteed.
I think your attitude is fantastic. I share it as do most of my friends and some of my family. A good attitude goes a long way towards maintaining good health, physical and mental.
Now, I must get back to being a parent or I might just get accused of something.
gopmom on July 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Again, this is a VERY unlikely outcome. I doubt anyone is seriously trying to put her in the penal system. The precursor for taking the child into custody may be getting a misdemeanor conviction against mom.
If things are as reported, mom will be counseled to put the kid into the custody of someone else under a settlement, and that will perhaps be the best of all possible outcomes.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Agreed. There are a lot of crappy parents out there, but we don’t arrest them for being crappy parents.
redfoxbluestate on July 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM
That’s reasonable. I’ll definitely be interested in seeing more facts come out about this case.
hawksruleva on July 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Now the cops are going to be wondering around looking for fat kids with their parents. C’mon this is a complete joke. This is more out of the Book of Hitler. Perfect people in a perfect world. Everyone else should be punished for not being so perfect
Tremmy on July 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Well, I still don’t think your argument about starvation is valid. It’s the intent, isn’t it?
Yes, I agree that there should have been some major intervention. When he hit 200 lbs, she should have cut off any and all money, stocked only produce and high fiber foods, and put him on a serious exercise regimen. But to call that criminal? It debases the real meaning of child abuse.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Technically speaking, every possible deviation from “perfect” parenting counts as child abuse, since it places the child at a competitive disadvantage (at the very least) over all other children.
But no, unless the woman force-fed the kid, it’s decidedly not child abuse.
Don’t get squishy on us, Ed.
cackcon on July 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Maybe the kid is just big boned.
Jeff from WI on July 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
As one of the other posters mentioned after watching the video, it looks like this mom attempted to help her child as well. She didn’t keep junk food in the house. She tried to get him help through a state program.
Just as parents with anorexic children are often unable to save their child from themselves, parents with obese children aren’t always at fault.
If it’s the case that she kept giving him more and more food because she didn’t want to be bothered with his whining or she and her friends wanted to see how large he’d get, that rises to the level of abuse. If it’s simply that she didn’t have time to follow him 24/7 and make sure that he didn’t sneak extra food and no one else fed him, well, that’s asking a lot of any parent, especially one that’s the sole breadwinner for the family.
JadeNYU on July 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Another reason why single parenthood is bad for the child.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Neglect can be totally passive. A lot of negligent parents have no specific intent to harm their kid. Druggies are a class of people that, in Texas, are considered per se negligent. Drug use sets up a presumption that a parent is negligent.
A lot of state statutes make no distinction between abuse and neglect.
Should parents be criminally liable for neglect? Well, I would say yes, in the right circumstances. I expect most here would agree.
Should this mom go to jail? I would never begin to try to answer that without knowing this case, and I really doubt anyone wants to jail her. I DO think they are really trying to get her attention, and that it has come time to take definitive steps to get control of this situation.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Why is “mom” raising the kid alone? Dad die? Or another spin the wheel to find out daddy deal.
Jeff from WI on July 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM
.
Heh. I consider them criminal.
Okay, I agree with that.
You know, the underlying issue is single parenthood. If there were two parents in the equation, one could have been at home to better supervise the kid. Plus, it would have provided a united front to discipline him from overeating.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM
But how many fat kids come from two parent homes?
I’d say plenty
perhaps there is some study out there
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Respectfully, this is just wrong. Abuse and neglect are defined by statute. Perfect parenting is certainly not the requirement. No statute with which I am familiar has anything like a “competitive disadvantage” standard. Generally, abuse has to cause “substantial” physical or emotional impairment.
Texas expressly exempts both parents and teachers from liability for assaulting a child if imposing reasonable corporal punishment.
As a general rule, most of us would find our state laws regarding abuse and neglect of kids pretty sensible.
We have a lot to worry about in America today. I really think this issue is not one.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Maybe the kid is just big boned.
Jeff from WI on July 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
He’s a husky boy
blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Our family had a similar situation in that I have a sister who is a single mother, who works hard, never accepted a dime from the State, but has a boy who was becoming obese, because she couldn’t supervise his eating all the time (I think he was compensating for some insecurities, too).
Her siblings and parents (yeah, me as well) had to “intervene” by having a family pow wow, telling her she had to do something about my nephew’s weight problem. At first she freaked on us, “Are you saying I’m a bad mother? Mind your own business!” kind of reaction. But after a while, she started to see the light, stopped buying junk food, and processed food, and enrolled him in a gym where they both go work out. He’s doing okay, now, and is active in sports in school.
Again, this involved extended family intervention. The broken family is the root of most of our social ills. I bet this woman didn’t have that advantage.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM
I see a future SEC scholarship at Nose Tackle for the kid.
Jeff from WI on July 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I agree. Especially as respects male kids in mom’s home. There comes a time when “hormone poisoning” hits the kid, and they need a bigger, meaner, stronger person in the house than momma, someone they can’t boss around. I’ve seen it happen TOOOOO many times. (Please, don’t anyone write me telling me that moms can be great single parents even to sons…I know this. I just know the tendency, too.)
I am very old fashioned about all this. Kids need two parents…or two parents and a cop…to get through puberty.
I look back on my own adolescence and wonder how in the world I survived….
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I have a major issue with this because is it better for the kid to go through life fat and as much as we know happy or is forcing to eat and be hungry better. Where is the line for abuse on that side of things. At the end of all this, mom keep the fat kid happy but show him his options in life eventually he will die fat or get passed his food addiction
Tremmy on July 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Yes, I agree that in the case of a male child, a father is even more necessary when he gets older. I remember a young, single mother (very petite) who had a little boy who, by the time he was 6 years old, could almost reach her shoulders. He was a BIG kid. She got in trouble by some other neighbor calling CPS on her because she spanked him with a wooden spoon. I was there, and saw she only whacked his butt because he disobeyed her – no harm done. Fortunately, the social worker had a lot of common sense and privately told her that she saw nothing wrong with discipling him now, as he would be handful when he got bigger. I also told her that she had to make him respect her, because if she didn’t do it now, he was going to be hell as an adolescent.
atheling on July 22, 2009 at 5:01 PM
He was apparently eating extra at school. Are they jailing the lunch room ladies?
What point is served by charging this lady with a felony?
The Whistler on July 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Do you wonder if you were getting the real story?
For what it’s worth, felony charges seem excessive to me, too. But prosecutors play horse-trading pretty hard, and they may have no intention of pushing that charge.
Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »