Should Parents Lose Custody of Extremely Obese Kids...

   Casey...

“Dogs are better than human beings because they know but do not tell.”

Recently I was contacted by our local paper. They asked me to give a statement, reason, explanation about the worsening state of childhood obesity. The phone call ended with the reporter saying they wouldn't need my services, and off the record "you must not have children."

Apparently this incredibly biased reporter was a Mother and very offended when I said, "feeding kids shit is the same as beating them". When she asked what diet changes I would suggest I said, "nothing with food at first, start with taking the kids away from parents who don't care enough about themselves to set a good example". This is about where she checked out.

For about ten minutes I wondered If I was too harsh. I soul searched and realized I really want what's best for those kids, and any kid being hurt through fist or food is still unacceptable. Interestingly, our "Saturday Stolen Post" was emailed to me not one week later. Apparently, I'm not the only fighting for kids rights.

From ABC News

Parents, in some cases, should lose custody of their severely obese children, argued Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children's Hospital Boston, in an opinion piece that ran in the Journal of the American Medical Association Wednesday.

"State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors," Ludwig said in the editorial, which he co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.

"In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems," the authors wrote

The editorial has, unsurprisingly, set off an explosive debate, but it took care to point out that removal from the home was not necessarily the solution for all obese children and should be considered only as a last option in the most extreme of cases.

As an example, the authors cited the case of a 90-pound, 3-year-old girl who came to Ludwig's clinic several years ago. By age 12, she weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea.

Ludwig and Murtagh wrote that state intervention may have been an appropriate response here.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 17 percent, or 12.5 million, children and teens are obese. Since 1980, these obesity rates have tripled.

"State intervention would clearly not be desirable or practical, and probably not be legally justifiable, for most of the approximately 2 million children in the United States with a BMI at or beyond the 99th percentile," Ludwig and Murtagh state.

But for kids like Ludwig's 400-pound, 12-year-old patient, or those who have developed life-threatening conditions such as type 2 diabetes, and breathing and liver problems that could kill before the age of 30, temporary foster care may be an appropriate solution, said the authors.

"Initially reading media reports, this sounds like a horror story, where the government would be kicking down doors and taking kids from their homes, but that's not what he's saying," said James Zervios, communications director at the Obesity Action Coalition.

"When a child is being put in harm's way, he may benefit from some type of intervention to teach the child and parents how to exercise and eat healthy," said Zervios. "There's no blanket approach to this situation."

Therapy and education programs should be a first line of offense in treating obese children, Zervios said. But when a parent repeatedly ignores advice and guidance for the child's well-being, government intervention may be an appropriate next step.

"If we give government the option of removing obese children from the home, we know from our experience with child abuse and neglect cases that many child protective service agencies will be too quick to place overweight children in foster care," said Dr. David Orentlicher, co-director of Hall Center for Law and Health at Indiana University of School Law, who disagreed with the idea of state intervention.

"Sometimes it is easier to take a child out of the home than take the time and resources to provide the right solution to the problem."

While Dr. David Katz, founder of the Yale Prevention Center, praised Ludwig as a physician, and found the editorial to be balanced and reasonable, he said there was not enough evidence that the state would do a better job of feeding children than their parents.

"There is no doubt that, whereas starving a child Is an obvious example of abuse, in an age of epidemic childhood obesity, it may be time to look at willful overfeeding in a similar light," said Katz.

But without having evidence that foster care would benefit a morbidly obese child more than his original caregivers and without knowing cost and benefit tradeoffs when the state takes children from their parents, it's too early to say whether this is an appropriate response, said Katz.

"I do believe that severe obesity in a child is a serious problem," Katz said. "The best approach to it is to prevent it rather than fix it. But when we need to fix it, for now, the state should identify the problem and offer solutions, but not impose them."

Comments

[terra kennett]

I have to say that as a personal trainer as well, of course I want kids to be healthy and I want parents to set examples for their children. That said however, first off, we must be very careful when we start inviting the government into our lives to make decisions like this....once we do, where does it stop. I believe the emphasize is that it most certainly is a last resort IF the child's health is in imminent danger. The important thing to remember is that there is no guarantee that a child is going to be better in a potentially unloving foster environment. I am a mother and let me tell ya, there ain't nobody going to love my kids more than I do...period. Removing the kids before it is an extreme, life/death situation, in my opinion is opening the door for a lot more issues than just obesity. I could probably go on and on about this issue, but I will refrain and simply state that this sounds to me like very dangerous grounds.....

[Nikki j]

I'm working with multiple commities- in efforts to create more active, healthy communities & reverse the childhood obesity academic. I blindly did not realize how extreme this issue was until I went to a conference in DC this winter. I know there are some within the schools that find me extreme- but I continue to try to encourage change. I love that there are many in our community that do the same. We will keep making progress as long as we continue to be diligent!!
In some respects I agree with the article- there should be laws. Morbid childhood obesity could be viewed as neglect & inappropriate medical care. However- sadly taking kids away & putting them in foster care is another complicated matter- that isn't always a better situation.
If we all continue working to educate & include others in healthy eating and activity- we can hopefully continue progress and save lives.
Sorry for the rant.... So passionate about this!!

[terra kennett]

One thing I need to add that I posted on facebook is, honestly inactivity is the problem...that is what has changed. People going after McDonalds etc, kids have always eaten McDonal's, what is moste certainly different is kids are typically inside on computers and gaming. They are not outside playing like they (we) used to. Gym class is being taken away and even if there is gym class, kids aren't to be made to sweat or get sore....what ! Ridiculous...anyway, ofcourse we should eat healthy, but in my opinion the problem is more inactivity for both adults and children. Maybe we should take the computers and gaming away? I would vote we try that before yanking kids away from their parents...

[John and Carine Bray]

I completely agree that the issue should be addressed from the point of view of neglect. Physical and emotional abuse of a child (or any person) has always been considered morally wrong and actionable. I consider the effects of obesity in children both physical and emotional abuse.
I also agree that caution should be applied when we encourage the government to intervene in a family situation. So much of the foster system is flawed and has harmed children as a result.
Education and peer pressure are the way to go. Treating this as an addiction or potential addiction issue, providing the ability to get help like drug/alcohol addicts get, making a huge government education push in the schools (with presumably the correct information) are all ways to go.
That said. If my grandchild was in a situation like this I would take all efforts to remove the child and take it into my home.

[Dan]

So you're saying the kids should be taken control of by the fat government officials who created the food pyramid and consider ketchup a vegetable? I'm confused...