You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 04:37:13 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect  (Read 8699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jude

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2009, 08:37:46 AM »
Life is hard.  And as a poor parent of two beautiful children I try hard and it really doesn't help that I constantly feel inadiquite for the things that I can't give them without someone throwing aside all caution for the feelings of others and throwing it into my face.  Yes I am poor and I have kids.  I have a job.  My husband has a job.  We both work constantly to take care of our family meaning we get zip time together as a family.  But why do I have kids then when I'm so obviously poor?  Because, I got pregnant and I didn't kill my baby or put it up for adoption, I kept it because I loved it.  With all of my heart.  Do we struggle?  Yes.  Should this mean I shouldn't have my children and am a selfish person for having them and bringing them into such a shitty existance?  I would certainly hope not.  Sometimes I think poor is like a trap.  I was born and raised poor.  I am still poor.  I have a feeling I will always be poor no matter how hard I try to claw my way out.  Life isn't fair.  I've learned to deal with this fact.
I think my original comments were worded poorly, as it seems like everyone is internalizing them as a personal insult on any lower class parents.  As for the poster I'm responding to, you're clearly a caring, dedicated parent who is doing their best and succeeding at being a good parent.  I have no quarrel with you.

As I thought (but apparently I failed to word it properly) I stated clearly, I'm only against people keeping their child if they're hurting them because they cannot provide for them.  I'd hope any decent, loving parent wouldn't want to keep their child if they honestly could not give their child what they need.  I'm not advocating taking away people's children because they can't give them a big Christmas, afford to send them to summer camps, buy them an iPod, or because they occasionally struggle to provide for them.  I'm advocating taking away their child if they fail to provide the basic necessities on a regular basis.  And I do consider allowing your child to reach 500 lbs to be a failure of basic responsibilities (which is really my only controversial point of view; everything else is a matter of current law which I agree with).

Being morbidly obese greatly reduces your quality of life, your life expectancy, and as a young person prevents you from growing up properly and becoming responsible for yourself.  It's not a simple matter of "the kid is a little unhealthy and unpleasant to look at."  It's a matter of, "who is going to hire this kid, if something happens to his mother who's going to pay for him to live in an assisted living facility, and how is this child ever going to be a productive member of society?"
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 08:40:35 AM by RandomNumber »

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2009, 07:35:55 PM »
Yes. It's always better to take away children, than to help the family.

What do kids need their families for? I mean, honestly. Let's not act like things like reactive attachment disorder can happen to children who LOSE their parents because people would rather take the child than help the parents.

Let's not look at the terrible, horrifically life-altering pain of losing your family just because they are poor. No, let's just pretend that it's best for the child, nod sagely, and leave the poor parents to rot in hell, the child to rot in foster care, and call it a day.

Anyone who advocates taking a child from their parents for any period of time, when there is no violent abuse involved has no knowledge of how losing one's family does to a child.

As a nation, and as communities, we can afford to make poverty temporary for our fellows.

We can NOT undo the terrible damage done by the permanent situation of denying a child the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT of being with his or her family.

That's a RIGHT of a child. The RIGHT to their family of origin.

Before you violate that right, as with any human right, please come up with something better than, "you lost your family because they were poor and we couldn't be bothered to help them," or "sorry kid, I know you miss your mother, but you're a fatass."

Neither of these come anywhere near justifiable reasons to brutally strip children of the RIGHT to the family that they know and love.

Children don't understand "we took you away for your own good," they only understand that the family they love is gone, ripped from them in a single moment, leaving only an horrific hole in their heart and their lives. The result is terrible shock, pain, and a lifelong struggle with abandonment issues.

And for what? Oh yeah, cause their parents committed the devastating sin of being poor and not knowing how to get the right help, or being refused the right help.

Somehow, making the child pay the agonizing, soul-devouring cost of being torn from their family, because their family is poor, seems disproportionate to me.

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the absolutely life-destroying and excruciating pain of losing a child. A pain worse than death. If we are going to take away the children of poor people, why not just execute them? It would be kinder in the long run.

Not to mention, it would be cheaper in the long run, too. So why stop at just destroying their lives by ripping their babies from their arms. Have we no compassion at all?

I dare any of you to look someone who has lost their child in the face and tell them that they'll be just fine. Because I lost a baby 15 years ago, and I'll NEVER be just fine. No, I didn't lose him this way, but I lost him. And the pain never goes away. I still weep brokenly at his birthday, on holidays... heck, randomly throughout the year, even.

I also lost my mother and father as a child, and was adopted. Then I lost those parents at 13 and was taken by the state.

I have nobody. I wouldn't mind being poor, and being loved. But instead, all the family I have is my husband and my daughter. That's it. There's not a single person in my life that I can sit around and talk about my past with. None.

No one in the world has always known me. NO ONE.

For what do I pay this terrible price?

You would make this boy pay this horrible price because he's fat? It's THAT big of a crime to be fat that you lose the only person in the world who loves you-- because someone else decided she wasn't good enough at loving you?

You would make a child become an adoptee, and experience the pain and grief of knowing for their entire life that they weren't wanted... because they committed the terrible crime of being born to someone poor?

You would make a woman live for the rest of her lifetime with the horrible, agonizing grief of losing a child, for the crime of being poor? For the crime of making love?

What price is NOT too high for the terrible crime of being poor and daring to make love in spite of it?

And at what point do these become human beings that you are stealing the families of, instead of numbers and statistics and just "those poor people"?

How about we take your family away if you get poor? That's easier than helping you, you know. And heck, it's just a kid, what do you want it for anyway? I mean, think of all the poor childless couples out there.

It's just a mother. No problem to replace her. Piece of cake. You won't notice the difference when we take your mother and give you another one, right?

Because after all, people are replaceable, aren't they? Especially the poor ones, or the fat ones, right?

This child is a PERSON. And just because he's overweight doesn't make him LESS OF A PERSON. And taking someone away from their family, is an act of violence to the person taken from their family.

It was an act of violence against this boy to take him from the mother who, god bless her heart, loves him.

Maybe she didn't love him the way that you expect someone to love their child, but that doesn't mean she doesn't WANT to and TRY to do the best she can for him.

The price is FAR too high for the crime.

Don't think so? Think about having YOUR family taken away from you. Imagine being overweight, and the price being losing everyone who loves you.

Now does it seem fair? I bet it doesn't, when it's YOU that has to lose your family. All of a sudden, being fat just doesn't seem like such a horrific crime, does it.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2009, 07:38:52 PM »
Phoenix, I think you're taking this a bit too personal.  Please, this is not the place for that sort of thing. 

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2009, 08:24:58 PM »
I am deeply passionate about the separation of families. I KNOW the damage it does.

That may or may not be personal, but at the end of the day, the child is the one being punished here. Where is the right place to stand up for the rights of children?

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2009, 08:30:52 PM »
Would you advocate leaving the child in the hands of someone that could not provide food, shelter or clothing?  Perhaps if a person did not believe in medicine and so did not take their child to be treated for simple ailments.  Maybe leave the child in the custody of someone not mentally capable of taking care of them.  There are situations where the child is at greater risk being with their parent.  That is a harsh but very real truth.

Offline RhapsodyTopic starter

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2009, 08:37:32 PM »
Perhaps if a person did not believe in medicine and so did not take their child to be treated for simple ailments. 

There are many religious beliefs, protected by law, that do not include certain types of medicine, such as blood transfusions, psychiatry, certain treatments and vaccinations, and certain kinds of remedies for various conditions and disorders. 

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2009, 08:40:16 PM »
Quite a few people do not believe in vaccinations either.  Just because it's different doesn't make it wrong.  Though I do not prescribe to these beliefs.   

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2009, 08:43:40 PM »
Yes, but in the past the government has removed a child from the care of its parents for not seeking proper medical treatment.  Parents have also been prosecuted for failing to seek emergency care while claiming religious belief.  Recently a child was able to overturn his own parents rights in regards to cancer treatment.  Also with vaccinations, children are still required to have them in order to particpate in certain activities such as summer camps and some government programs. 

The government has stepped in on the side of the child before in those cases.  While those families that do have those religious beliefs may impose them to a certain extent, the government has defended the child's ability to seek medical treatment.

Offline Jude

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2009, 08:51:20 PM »
I didn't intend to offend anyone with my words, I'd like to apologize.  I seemed to have communicated my points poorly and offended many people, and even though I feel that they don't understand the position I was advocating, I don't think that's defense enough to justify the upset I seem to have caused.  I'm sorry.

I don't think I'll post on this thread anymore, just for the record I wasn't advocating taking someone's child simply because they had trouble providing for them; only if they regularly failed to meet their responsibilities as a parent regardless of minor government assistance.

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2009, 09:45:17 PM »
Would you advocate leaving the child in the hands of someone that could not provide food, shelter or clothing?  Perhaps if a person did not believe in medicine and so did not take their child to be treated for simple ailments.  Maybe leave the child in the custody of someone not mentally capable of taking care of them.  There are situations where the child is at greater risk being with their parent.  That is a harsh but very real truth.

I would advocate taking EXTREME care in making the choice to remove a child. Imminent danger situations are one thing. In those cases, then the agonizing decision must be made to protect the child. However, this boy was not in imminent danger, and the mother had in fact begun to try to rectify the decision when she was arrested and her child taken.

However, the problem is that when you start making decisions to take a child away because the parents didn't take the "proper" measures, or because a parent is not "mentally fit" to care for a child, then you enter a very dangerous and slippery slope.

The law only actually allows for a child to be taken away from the parents in the event that criminal charges are applied, AND the parent is found guilty by a speedy jury trial. But all the time, because parents don't know their rights, things like this happen where the child is taken without due process. It's actually totally illegal.

In the absence of a crime or imminent danger, wherein the parents are found guilty in a court of law, I do not advocate taking their children away from them.

In cases of severe neglect or abuse, there is imminent danger. If a trial by jury were to find this woman guilty of neglect, and not merely some social workers and a judge doing so (an illegal situation in the USA), then I am for the removal of the child because the right to life trumps the right to be with the family.

However, proper assistance was not rendered to this woman, and her rights and the rights of the child in question were violated. While eventual danger could be argued in the case of obesity, and it's possible a proper jury trial could find her guilty of gross negligence... he is not in imminent danger, and no trial by jury has as yet found her guilty of gross negligence.

Therefor, the child should still be with his mother.

You cannot get me to agree to the taking of children by comparing a case of obesity to a child who is imminent danger.

This is NOT an imminent danger case, so my answer in this case is that I can NOT advocate that the child be removed.

Nor can I advocate that the child of a person whose religious beliefs prevent certain procedures be taken away. At what time do we begin taking their children? Only if they end up needing those specific procedures? This will frighten all of them out of seeking any medical care.

Should we simply take all children away from anyone whose religious or philosophical positions MAY someday endanger their children?

Do we force unwanted procedures on people?

Where do we stop violating someone's religious rights? When their or their children's lives are in danger? Or when they MIGHT become in danger?

When is it okay to begin to violate YOUR rights to make your own decisions about your life- and death? When is it okay to take way YOUR right to make choices about YOUR child? When you decide to have your child undertake a treatment that has a 1% chance of killing the child? No one who vaccinates their children could keep their children then. Nor could anyone who doesn't vaccinate.

The violation of the religious rights of any people is a dangerous territory. Deciding when and if to violate those rights must be done with indescribable caution, because once that threshold has been crossed, it's dangerous for everyone who has any spiritual beliefs at all-- even those who have none.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2009, 09:51:11 PM »
Do we force unwanted procedures on people?

Where do we stop violating someone's religious rights? When their or their children's lives are in danger? Or when they MIGHT become in danger?

Just for the record - I watch a lot of DHC (Discovery Health Channel), and one of the programs that documented actual hospital cases involved a situation where a blood transfusion would have saved a woman's life.  However, because of her religious beliefs, and the fact that the doctors knew her religious beliefs, they ethically could not administer that transfusion.  (If they didn't know, and there hadn't been any way for them to find out, it might have turned out differently.)  Anyone of legal age has the right to refuse treatment - it's when they are below 'legal age' that things start getting gray.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2009, 09:54:19 PM »
Well in that case she had the right to choose to die.  But almost never, even in religious cases, will a parent choose to let their child die.  Wait. . .I have nothing to back that up except for the love I know as a parent so please don't ask for proof. . .I can't give it and actually, if you have proof against it, I want it. . .I love knowledge!  Even if it's just a 1% chance of success if it could help I'd jump on it.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2009, 09:55:47 PM »
Well in that case she had the right to choose to die.  But almost never, even in religious cases, will a parent choose to let their child die.  Wait. . .I have nothing to back that up except for the love I know as a parent so please don't ask for proof. . .I can't give it.  Even if it's just a 1% chance of success if it could help I'd jump on it.

That was my point - she had the right to choose, and the procedure wasn't forced on her.  :)

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2009, 09:57:42 PM »
*grins*  I know, I just ran with it a few steps further.  :)  *high fives*

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2009, 09:58:39 PM »
I didn't intend to offend anyone with my words, I'd like to apologize.  I seemed to have communicated my points poorly and offended many people, and even though I feel that they don't understand the position I was advocating, I don't think that's defense enough to justify the upset I seem to have caused.  I'm sorry.

I don't think I'll post on this thread anymore, just for the record I wasn't advocating taking someone's child simply because they had trouble providing for them; only if they regularly failed to meet their responsibilities as a parent regardless of minor government assistance.

My responses were not really to you, but to the many people in the USA who DO very definitely espouse the idea that poor people shouldn't have children, and if they do have them, shouldn't be allowed to keep them.

That is not your intent, as you have explained. But there are a surprising number of people who very strongly espouse these beliefs. They not only espouse them, but they push VERY hard to get young women to relinquish their babies for adoption, simply because she is poor.

This, however, has horrifying and lifelong consequences for the mother (almost 100% of mothers who relinquish have PTSD and few if any ever recover from it). It also has very negative and painful consequences for the adoptee. But these issues are not only ignored, but are often outright denied.

Yet, let's face it, we all inherently KNOW that people are irreplaceable. Yet with adoption, somehow people lose all sight of that, and think that mothers can be replaced like old, dirty socks, and the baby won't even notice that the ONLY person they've known for 9 months is suddenly and inexplicably gone forever.

Adoption is sold as a panacea for the poor, unwed pregnant woman. The miracle that gets rid of her problem, saves the child from certain and of course endless poverty, and bestows a miraculous gift upon the paying adopters. Then we all forget that it also fills the coffers of the agencies-- even 'not for profit' or 'nonprofit' agencies actually DO profit. Selling babies for adoption is a 1.8 billion dollar profitable INDUSTRY in the USA. The mother doesn't make any money, but the agencies make loads.

The problem is that this billing of adoption as wonderful and win-win-win is not only a lie in and of itself, but it's actually harmful in that it makes us look at the taking of children from one family and giving them to another as a good thing. We see it as a great benefit to the child.

But this is simply not true. It's a painful, very very painful,  event for the child. Even if it happens at infancy. In fact, the older the child is when it happens, the better off they are, because at least then people acknowledge the loss. When it happens at infancy, people mistakenly believe it has no impact on the child.

This false idea, of course, is perpetuated by the adoption industry. If mothers knew that their child would actually be traumatized by their "loving act" of abandonment, they would think twice and not fall for the pressure to relinquish.

That would be catastrophic to that $1.8 billion bottom line.

So don't think that I'm necessarily talking to you here. I heard you when you said that it shouldn't be done based solely upon them being poor and just needing help.

However, there are many others (even in this thread) who express that exact sentiment. Poor people shouldn't be allowed to have, or to keep, kids. They honestly believe that poor people should be punished for being poor by not being allowed families.

This mindset bears addressing, in my opinion.

Poor is often a temporary situation. Losing your child is forever.

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2009, 10:02:10 PM »
Well in that case she had the right to choose to die.  But almost never, even in religious cases, will a parent choose to let their child die.  Wait. . .I have nothing to back that up except for the love I know as a parent so please don't ask for proof. . .I can't give it and actually, if you have proof against it, I want it. . .I love knowledge!  Even if it's just a 1% chance of success if it could help I'd jump on it.

There was a case where a 13 year old boy wanted to use alternative treatments to treat his cancer. His parents supported him, and did not force him to get them.

The state came in and forced him to have chemo, against his and his parents' wishes.

So I suppose a lot of people would say that they weren't "doing their best" for their child. I would personally disagree. But the State illegally exercised a right they didn't actually have, because those parents didn't know their rights.




Maybe it was a girl. Or maybe this is two different cases I'm thinking of.

http://alternativecancer.us/katie.htm
http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com/


Found the boy:

http://www.startribune.com/projects/45440392.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnO7aPnDhPE_BPhQDaUss
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 10:17:32 PM by Phoenix »

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2009, 11:52:16 PM »
Phoenix...he is in imminent danger.  That child is going to die without severe intervention.  This is not a case of a chunky child needing to cut back on hamburgers.  He is in imminent danger..he is in severe danger and his health was neglected.  I'm sorry if you don't feel that this extreme level of obesity is not severe, but I can guarentee you that he is well beyond just being fat.  This child will die unless action is taken to drastically reduce his weight now.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #67 on: July 28, 2009, 12:13:30 AM »
 Pheonix, the only effective treatments for Hodgkin's lymphoma is chemo and radiation therapy. It makes you as sick as a dog, you loose your hair, you look like crap, but the survival rate now is very high. The state was right, in this instance, to enforce the treatment because it is the most effective way, rather than some half baked 'alternative' therapy.

 On the case of the obese child.. That one has been mishandled by both sides. The mother should have tried to stop or get help for her son long ago and the state should be offering help, not yanking the kid away from her.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 12:15:30 AM by Zakharra »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2009, 12:21:31 AM »
Just to give you a benchmark:  Paul Wight (also known as 'The Big Show') is 7 feet tall, and weighs a little under 500 pounds.  The average 13 year old is closer to 5 feet tall, with an expected weight close to 100 pounds.  This kid weighs more than a pro-wrestler, and more than 4 kids his age put together (allowing for some variance.)

Offline RhapsodyTopic starter

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2009, 06:12:35 AM »
But almost never, even in religious cases, will a parent choose to let their child die.  Wait. . .I have nothing to back that up except for the love I know as a parent so please don't ask for proof. .

There've been reports that Victoria Beckham (also known as Posh Spice) refused to join Scientology when her husband did because she was informed that, as a Scientologist, she would be required to take her epileptic son off his anti-seizure meds. 

That the kind of thing you were looking for, SP?

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #70 on: July 28, 2009, 06:32:48 AM »
Phoenix...he is in imminent danger.  That child is going to die without severe intervention.  This is not a case of a chunky child needing to cut back on hamburgers.  He is in imminent danger..he is in severe danger and his health was neglected.  I'm sorry if you don't feel that this extreme level of obesity is not severe, but I can guarentee you that he is well beyond just being fat.  This child will die unless action is taken to drastically reduce his weight now.

No, he's not in imminent danger. Obesity does not kill by itself, it causes secondary problems, which take time to kill.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of imminent. "Likely to occur at any moment."

He's overweight, and he and his mother need help. But he's NOT on the verge of death just because he's grossly overweight.


Pheonix, the only effective treatments for Hodgkin's lymphoma is chemo and radiation therapy. It makes you as sick as a dog, you loose your hair, you look like crap, but the survival rate now is very high. The state was right, in this instance, to enforce the treatment because it is the most effective way, rather than some half baked 'alternative' therapy.

That's just ignorance. There are many alternatives to the dangerous cocktails that the doctors serve as the "only" treatment for cancer.

Although, they are the only "treatments," but there are cures that work. It's a person's RIGHT to try them before they take something that shortens their lifespan and makes them violently ill in the name of "treating" a curable condition.

Look up Jerry Brunetti: Food as medicine for more information if you like.

Quote
On the case of the obese child.. That one has been mishandled by both sides. The mother should have tried to stop or get help for her son long ago and the state should be offering help, not yanking the kid away from her.

Exactly.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2009, 09:17:34 AM »
I understand the word imminent very well.  I also understand the consequences of being that overweight and know what could occur to this child.  You do realize he could easily go to sleep on his back and die from the weight on his chest right?  That his lifestyle and diet could easily be giving him high blood pressure, clogged arteries, poor circulation due to immobility, and any number of other horrible deaths.  I cannot imagine the state of this child’s skin due to chaffing from the folds nor honestly his hygiene issues as I doubt he can effectively clean himself.   I suppose the responsible thing for the government to do would be to wait until his mother calls 911 because the child is blue.  Then EMTs can struggle to get him out of the house, into their ambulance and then figure out how to get him in the hospital.  All while this child is dying.  That sounds like a very responsible choice for the government and the parents. 

This woman failed at her job, simple.  She failed to provide a lifestyle that could even remotely be considered healthy.  For the time being, until something can be determined I think a separation from his mother might be the wisest court.  I do not think that arrangement should be permanent but the child needs another influence in his life at the moment.  The mother should at the very least receive some sort of education on how to properly care for another human being. 

For now though perhaps speaking for the child’s health is something that people should do.  The child needs someone to intervene.  Telling the government to give this woman money without stepping in more fully is impractical. 

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #72 on: July 28, 2009, 10:14:47 AM »
You are ignoring the fact that the mother got arrested trying to get the boy help.

She was taking steps, and thus clearly wanted to do the right thing. Instead of taking him, she should be helped and taught. That's the right thing to do for the boy, for the mother, and for the state's monetary condition.

No one needed to "intervene," because the mother had started seeking help. What someone needed to do, was assist her.

THAT is what would be best for that boy. And for his mother, as well.

Offline Valerian

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #73 on: July 28, 2009, 10:41:40 AM »
She had started seeking help, yes.  Months and years too late, but she had started, so at least she was waking up to the problem.

However, in this case, imminent danger is probably not too strong a term.  What Askie mentioned is called obstructive sleep apnea.  It happens to people that overweight (regardless of age) and can cause slow mental development in children specifically, not to mention heart failure, respiratory failure, and death due to simple lack of oxygen.  People that overweight simply cannot breathe properly, even at rest.

This particular child, based on what I'm seeing about such severe obesity, was almost certainly past the point of being helped at home.  The time to educate and assist the mother was when her child was only obese, not morbidly obese as he is now, which is an entirely different set of problems -- and not ones that can be coped with effectively by most laypeople, I would guess.

Offline Phoenix

Re: Obese Teen, Mom Charged With Criminal Neglect
« Reply #74 on: July 28, 2009, 10:51:47 AM »
Yes, but those things can happen whether he stays with his mother and gets the help he needs, or whether he's at a foster home and getting that help.

Therefor, the imminent danger he is in is NOT related to the mother's actions, unless she refuses to implement the program she is given to help him.  If she is taught what to do, and doesn't do it, nor does she take ANY sort of action to try to help him, THEN it could be argued that he was in imminent danger due to her actions (or lack of).

But because she was late in seeking help in no way changes the fact that she is now seeking that help. Therefor, the imminent danger he may be in from medical complications cannot be linked to her perform violent actions against him.

Thus he is in no imminent danger FROM HER.

To say that someone is in imminent danger, and thus should be removed from the custody of their parents again opens the can of worms. Shall we remove any child that is in ANY sort of imminent danger from their parents? All children can be argued to be perpetually in a state of imminent danger, simply by virtue of being children.

But unless the parent is directly contributing to that imminent danger, the child does NOT need to be removed. A mother who has recognized a problem and started seeking help is NOT an imminent danger to her child.

Foster care, in most cases, however, IS an imminent danger for children. Abuse and assaults happen as a matter of course in the foster care system.

So he was taken from the care of someone who had realized there was a problem and tried to act on that realization, and put into the care of strangers who may or may not help him at all. And into a place where, unless he is the only child there, is statistically in high likelihood of imminent danger of being abused physically and/or psychologically.