A couple have been given three months to get three of their six overweight kids slimmer - or have ALL of them taken into care.The warning centres on their fattest children - a 12-year-old son who is 16 stone, his 12st sister, 11, and a girl who weighs four stone aged just three.
And social workers have threatened that unless the tough weight loss ultimatum is met through diet and the children taking football and dance lessons, they will seize them and their three siblings to safeguard their welfare.
So, the best way to get kids to lose weight is to traumatize them by taking them away from their parents? Is it abuse, do you think, to enable children to get morbidly obese? It's not like they get to do the shopping, so the kids are dependent upon the parents to feed them nutrional foods and ensure they exercise... Hmmm. Kate's post poses some questions, and I agree, but it's not as black and white as it first appears, is it?
5 comments:
I've gotta say, I found Shakesville to be a little over the top for my taste after you directed me over there.
The couple "asked for help" from Social Services in taking care of their kids. So they were ok with taking assistance with their kids as long as no one told them they had to do something they didn't want to do?
The malnourished argument is not completely off base but the larger issue is where does the state draw the line between getting involved and letting people endanger themselves and their kids? Part of the apparently over reactive response we see in cases like this is a result of the fact that the government orgs responsible for things like child welfare are so affraid of the "you didn't do anything" charge when something goes wrong. How many times have you heard of child protective agents getting halled through the ringer because they didn't follow up well enough on an abuse claim and a kid died?
Threatening to take the kids away in this instance is not the brightest idea however. As regards childhood obesity a more sensible pro-active response on the governments part has been to mandate food nutritional requirements for schools. At least that starts to limit the ability of parents to claim "I can't control what my kid eats when I'm not around" without threatening to break up families.
I like Shakes 'cos they post lots and lots, they like the same shows I do (except the stupid "reality" stuff), and they're feminists. And they support gay rights. I don't agree with everything, but folks are mostly civil in the comments, which is rare anymore.
Kate made some good points about terrorizing the little girl into being anorexic, but there's got to be a way to help the kids, as you say. And you could control what the kids eat when you're not around if you don't fill the pantry will starches and sugar. Still, my daughter was thin as a rail until puberty, and now she's in danger of become obese, despite piles of exercise and eating right. She's got her birth-mother's physique and she did swimming and track, and that barely kept her from ballooning. Poor thing, too, because she's got a schedule that doesn't allow for really picky eating, tho I cook good stuffs most of the time. I'd feel happy if I could take away her sodas - there's a whole lotta danger in a Coke! I hate 'em, too. I always have sugar free juices around, but that's the thing - I don't want the Splenda stuff in all my food, but the only other choice is food loaded with corn syrup and sugar. And prices for organic and fish are through the roof. Fookin' can't win!
What next? "I'll be around next Tuesday for a cholesterol level?"
What a horrific hornet's nest.
How slimmer? One stone is 14pds. 16 stone=224pds, 12st=168pds, 4st=56pds.
Comparatively - my 3 yo is now over the 42" height limit for amusement park rides at 41 months and is 40pds. It took her half-brother until age 6 before he was over 42".
See, girls are always ahead o' boys, idio!
Post a Comment