http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/10188126/children-to-be-removed-from-parents

A mother and father in the UK are on the brink of losing four of their children because they failed to bring their weight under control.

Their three daughters, aged 11, seven and one, and five-year-old son, are set to be either "fostered without contact" or adopted.

In the first case of its kind, the obese children will only be able to see their parents again if they track them down when they become adults.

According to The Mail on Sunday, the couple were given an ultimatum three years ago to get their children to lose weight.

The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised.

Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight.

Now a decision has been made to remove the children from their parents, a move which critics call "a disgraceful breach of human rights".

In an interview, the 42-year-old mother said: "We might not be the perfect parents, but we love our children with all our hearts. To face a future where we will never see them again is unbearable.

"They picked on us because of our size to start with and they just haven’t let go, despite the fact we’ve done everything to lose weight and meet their demands. We’re going to fight this to the bitter end. It feels like even prisoners have more human rights than we do."

The couple, who have been married for 20 years, also have three older children.

They're all distraught about the ruling, their 15-year-old daughter said: "The social workers should hang their heads in shame. A person’s weight is their own business and only we can do anything about it, not them. My parents are good people and they love us all. The four little ones don’t know what is about to happen to them."

Social workers originally became aware of the family in 2008 when one of the sons accused his father of hitting him.

Although he later admitted he'd actually fallen and hit his head against a radiator, social workers started investigating the weight of the children.

A council report at the time said: "With the exception of [one of the names], the children are all overweight. Advice has been given regarding diet but there has been no improvement. Appointments with the dietician have been missed."

At the time, then 12-year-old son weighed 102kg; his 11-year-old sister weighed 76kg; and his three-year-old sister weighed 25kg. It is not known how much the four younger children weigh now.

The family were then given a series of ultimatums, including enrolling the children in activities like dance and football lessons and were placed in foster homes.

The father, aged 56, said: "We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; we’ve cut out snacks and only ever allowed the kids sweets on a Saturday. But nothing we’ve done has ever been enough."

According to their solicitor Joe Myles, the couple haven't committed any crime and aren't accused of deliberate cruelty or abuse. He said there was "nothing sinister lurking in the background.

"The parents were constantly being accused of bad parenting and made to live under a microscope."

Although the weight was a major factor, social workers said they were also concerned about other aspects in the family home.

Dundee City Council said: "The council always acts in the best interests of children, with their welfare and safety in mind."

This is where human rights are abused - not by the law but by the parents

Obese parents belong in politics?..
Thats a new one  :D

adelcrow wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

Obese parents belong in politics?.. Thats a new one  :D

No more than gay marriages adel

The point I am making is the fine line of legislating to stop the minority and it's potential impact on the majority

We see the Greens and social apologist lobby for ban on junk food on TV - yet what do they do in cases like this?

Quote:

The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised. Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight.

What gets me, is the food was monitored and they were supervised.



Quote:

My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes;

and fruit and other veg ? if this is all that was being cooked then it is not healthy. Yes okay for one or two meals, but not daily without other vegies.

why punish the children???.. take kids away from a loving mum and dad will do them untold harm...get a dietician in the house and teach them to cook and eat properly.. they are telling the kids they are fat and their mum and dad are no good... good one.

all psychologically damaging.

Jsamie Oliver has tried to teach everyone how to feed kids.. yet most ignore him..some of the worst food served up is in schools..

One would have thought, that they would have got a dietician into the house while they were supervising and monitoring. Pretty poor really. Talk about half assed.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

One would have thought, that they would have got a dietician into the house while they were supervising and monitoring. Pretty poor really. Talk about half assed.

how do you feel about them taking the children out of their home???

in most cases they go by feed back from schools..

I am not saying the parents are not to be accountable.. but some have no idea do they??..look at that stupid mother who puts her 4 year old in these contests and she wears false boobs and bum...where do you start?

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm: One would have thought, that they would have got a dietician into the house while they were supervising and monitoring. Pretty poor really. Talk about half assed. how do you feel about them taking the children out of their home??? in most cases they go by feed back from schools.. I am not saying the parents are not to be accountable.. but some have no idea do they??..look at that stupid mother who puts her 4 year old in these contests and she wears false boobs and bum...where do you start?

I don't know cods, I do not know enough about the situation.
But to take all visiting rights, now that blows! These children will feel abandoned. If you thought you parents abondoned you, would you look for them? Sounds to me like the council were half assed. But again, we do not know the full story here.

I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well

Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating

So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action

If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse.

Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children

So how do you protect the children?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:

I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children?

so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents???

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:

I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children?

and the fact that they were supervised and monitored Maqqa ?
don;t you think that is a tinsy bit of a stuff up?

you would have to get the parents fixed first.. sounds like they are the dregs.. but never the less..we have been through the stolen generation.. isnt this more of the same..

if the specialists cant get the parents to change then their is something wrong with how they are approaching them..

if thyey are as obese as you say.. then it wouldnt be hard to get someone in the house doing all the meals and shopping..it wouldnt be anywhere near as expensive as putting these kids into foster homes..

maybe a dose of hypnosis..or frontal lobotomy...

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents???

That's the catch 22 and hence the title of the thread - loving children to death

12 years old and already 102kg - how many more years do you think this child has

So do we prolong life and look at the alternative or do we allow this abuse to continue?

Its clear the parents can't help themselves

So do governments legislate to protect children from their own parents when they exceed a certain weight?

I don't know.

What's the difference between this and smoking in a car with children inside or any other abuse?

The only difference is eating is enjoyable - but net result is the same as abuse

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

you would have to get the parents fixed first.. sounds like they are the dregs.. but never the less..we have been through the stolen generation.. isnt this more of the same.. if the specialists cant get the parents to change then their is something wrong with how they are approaching them.. if thyey are as obese as you say.. then it wouldnt be hard to get someone in the house doing all the meals and shopping..it wouldnt be anywhere near as expensive as putting these kids into foster homes.. maybe a dose of hypnosis..or frontal lobotomy...

Don't forget they can snack

So unless you control their money - they will buy heaps of snacks which compound the issue

So does the government quarantine their income? We tried that with the Aborigines and look at the outrage

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? and the fact that they were supervised and monitored Maqqa ? don;t you think that is a tinsy bit of a stuff up?

They are monitored but I doubt there are any restrictions or strict supervision

It gets down to they can't control themselves

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:13pm: you would have to get the parents fixed first.. sounds like they are the dregs.. but never the less..we have been through the stolen generation.. isnt this more of the same.. if the specialists cant get the parents to change then their is something wrong with how they are approaching them.. if thyey are as obese as you say.. then it wouldnt be hard to get someone in the house doing all the meals and shopping..it wouldnt be anywhere near as expensive as putting these kids into foster homes.. maybe a dose of hypnosis..or frontal lobotomy... Don't forget they can snack So unless you control their money - they will buy heaps of snacks which compound the issue So does the government quarantine their income? We tried that with the Aborigines and look at the outrage

actually maqqa, what happened with the aboriginals was a bit more involved than that. It is not as clear cut as you are making it out to be.
But that is another topic.

seems the invervention for these people was a failure. If they were being watched, then why did they allow them to carry on. That is not monotoring and especially supervising.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:17pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:13pm: you would have to get the parents fixed first.. sounds like they are the dregs.. but never the less..we have been through the stolen generation.. isnt this more of the same.. if the specialists cant get the parents to change then their is something wrong with how they are approaching them.. if thyey are as obese as you say.. then it wouldnt be hard to get someone in the house doing all the meals and shopping..it wouldnt be anywhere near as expensive as putting these kids into foster homes.. maybe a dose of hypnosis..or frontal lobotomy... Don't forget they can snack So unless you control their money - they will buy heaps of snacks which compound the issue So does the government quarantine their income? We tried that with the Aborigines and look at the outrage actually maqqa, what happened with the aboriginals was a bit more involved than that. It is not as clear cut as you are making it out to be. But that is another topic. seems the invervention for these people was a failure. If they were being watched, then why did they allow them to carry on. That is not monotoring and especially supervising.

You can't really stop them from eating other than to restrict what's in the pantry

Even then you need the basics like flour, sugar and salt - even that you can slam down alot of calories by making bread

and for the precious few with the limited IQ that enables them to support this, what do you say when the standard for removing children is no more than being 'overweight' but say 20% of the norm?  And why stop there? why no remove kids from families that dont enforce good sleeping hours or whos grades are low?  WHERE DOES IT STOP??

and thats the problem. it doesnt stop. it always exapnds. do we really want to live in a society that presumes to take our kids for a failure to live up to what is an arbitrary standard?

that said... clearly the parents have no idea of dieting. met and potatoes and pasta are very nice but hardly the stuff of diets!

and maqqa... you should be ashamed of yourself supporting this crap. when they come for your kids or your grandkids for teaching them things at home that the state doesnt approve of remember this. The nazi concentration camps happened because no one stood up and said it was wrong 10 years before when the discrimination began.

you do agree though, longie that something needs to be done.?

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:32pm:

you do agree though, longie that something needs to be done.?

of course. but taking the kids - FOR LIFE - isnt a solution nor should it ever be.

yeah they're fat kids, but apparently very loved kids. so let's put them in the foster system where love is rare, abuse is common and the weight can be beaten off.

wonderful.

But what do you think of the PRINCIPLE of the state taking children awy from parents FOR LIFE (want to emphasises that) over something like weight? you dont see a human rights violation issue somewhere there?

Obviously, we don't have a full picture of this family's history - but it seems a fairly safe bet that a genetic predisposition to severe obesity is at the core of the problem!

There is no mention in the article that suggests the family has been receiving proper medical testing and attention - just the draconian provision of imposed dietetics!

There are a range of medical conditions that predispose people to extreme obesity - and many of those are genetic in origin...

Some people simply do not have a biological cut-off switch to tell them that they have consumed sufficient food and some have a mechanism which creates a constant sense of hunger - and this is compounded by severe withdrawal symptoms...

There was a program on the ABC very recently, in which a medical expert on obesity indicated that genetics predetermines about 60% of a person's BMI - and that this relates back to evolutionary socio-economic constructs whereby survival of physical workers depended upon the capacity to store fat...

Apparently, some people simply cannot taste fat - but they crave food!

Either way, it seems absurd that the authorities have intervened in the ways they have - and that even more that they may not have assisted the family to access those things that would have led to better overall outcomes...

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

and for the precious few with the limited IQ that enables them to support this, what do you say when the standard for removing children is no more than being 'overweight' but say 20% of the norm?  And why stop there? why no remove kids from families that dont enforce good sleeping hours or whos grades are low?  WHERE DOES IT STOP?? and thats the problem. it doesnt stop. it always exapnds. do we really want to live in a society that presumes to take our kids for a failure to live up to what is an arbitrary standard? that said... clearly the parents have no idea of dieting. met and potatoes and pasta are very nice but hardly the stuff of diets! and maqqa... you should be ashamed of yourself supporting this crap. when they come for your kids or your grandkids for teaching them things at home that the state doesnt approve of remember this. The nazi concentration camps happened because no one stood up and said it was wrong 10 years before when the discrimination began.

longie

Never said I support it either way

I actually stated this to cods earlier in the thread - it's a catch 22

Its a real dilemma and where do you stop with it in the name of "protecting the children"

I also mentioned that this is in the Political section because the other point I want to make is legislation is created to stop the minority but impacts greatly on the majority who do the right thing.

It's sad that these parent can't control themselves and passing it onto the next generation

We can extend this argument to ferals breeding ferals ie do we allow 2 feral redneck parents breed to produce more feral children to go onto the unemployed queue?

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 9:22pm:

Obviously, we don't have a full picture of this family's history - but it seems a fairly safe bet that a genetic predisposition to severe obesity is at the core of the problem! There is no mention in the article that suggests the family has been receiving proper medical testing and attention - just the draconian provision of imposed dietetics! There are a range of medical conditions that predispose people to extreme obesity - and many of those are genetic in origin... Some people simply do not have a biological cut-off switch to tell them that they have consumed sufficient food and some have a mechanism which creates a constant sense of hunger - and this is compounded by severe withdrawal symptoms... There was a program on the ABC very recently, in which a medical expert on obesity indicated that genetics predetermines about 60% of a person's BMI - and that this relates back to evolutionary socio-economic constructs whereby survival of physical workers depended upon the capacity to store fat... Apparently, some people simply cannot taste fat - but they crave food! Either way, it seems absurd that the authorities have intervened in the ways they have - and that even more that they may not have assisted the family to access those things that would have led to better overall outcomes...

Never occurred to you that it could simply be gluttony?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 9:23pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 9:22pm: Obviously, we don't have a full picture of this family's history - but it seems a fairly safe bet that a genetic predisposition to severe obesity is at the core of the problem! There is no mention in the article that suggests the family has been receiving proper medical testing and attention - just the draconian provision of imposed dietetics! There are a range of medical conditions that predispose people to extreme obesity - and many of those are genetic in origin... Some people simply do not have a biological cut-off switch to tell them that they have consumed sufficient food and some have a mechanism which creates a constant sense of hunger - and this is compounded by severe withdrawal symptoms... There was a program on the ABC very recently, in which a medical expert on obesity indicated that genetics predetermines about 60% of a person's BMI - and that this relates back to evolutionary socio-economic constructs whereby survival of physical workers depended upon the capacity to store fat... Apparently, some people simply cannot taste fat - but they crave food! Either way, it seems absurd that the authorities have intervened in the ways they have - and that even more that they may not have assisted the family to access those things that would have led to better overall outcomes... Never occurred to you that it could simply be gluttony?

Never occurred to you that there is actually a so-called 'gluttony gene'!?

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 9:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 9:23pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 9:22pm: Obviously, we don't have a full picture of this family's history - but it seems a fairly safe bet that a genetic predisposition to severe obesity is at the core of the problem! There is no mention in the article that suggests the family has been receiving proper medical testing and attention - just the draconian provision of imposed dietetics! There are a range of medical conditions that predispose people to extreme obesity - and many of those are genetic in origin... Some people simply do not have a biological cut-off switch to tell them that they have consumed sufficient food and some have a mechanism which creates a constant sense of hunger - and this is compounded by severe withdrawal symptoms... There was a program on the ABC very recently, in which a medical expert on obesity indicated that genetics predetermines about 60% of a person's BMI - and that this relates back to evolutionary socio-economic constructs whereby survival of physical workers depended upon the capacity to store fat... Apparently, some people simply cannot taste fat - but they crave food! Either way, it seems absurd that the authorities have intervened in the ways they have - and that even more that they may not have assisted the family to access those things that would have led to better overall outcomes... Never occurred to you that it could simply be gluttony? Never occurred to you that there is actually a so-called 'gluttony gene'!?

and it gets down to personal responsibility

it's very simple - adults require about 2500 calories a day for normal body function. Eat anymore and you'll gain weight. Eat less than this you'll lose weight

1kg = 7000 calories

.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 9:28pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 9:25pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 9:23pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 9:22pm: Obviously, we don't have a full picture of this family's history - but it seems a fairly safe bet that a genetic predisposition to severe obesity is at the core of the problem! There is no mention in the article that suggests the family has been receiving proper medical testing and attention - just the draconian provision of imposed dietetics! There are a range of medical conditions that predispose people to extreme obesity - and many of those are genetic in origin... Some people simply do not have a biological cut-off switch to tell them that they have consumed sufficient food and some have a mechanism which creates a constant sense of hunger - and this is compounded by severe withdrawal symptoms... There was a program on the ABC very recently, in which a medical expert on obesity indicated that genetics predetermines about 60% of a person's BMI - and that this relates back to evolutionary socio-economic constructs whereby survival of physical workers depended upon the capacity to store fat... Apparently, some people simply cannot taste fat - but they crave food! Either way, it seems absurd that the authorities have intervened in the ways they have - and that even more that they may not have assisted the family to access those things that would have led to better overall outcomes... Never occurred to you that it could simply be gluttony? Never occurred to you that there is actually a so-called 'gluttony gene'!? and it gets down to personal responsibility it's very simple - adults require about 2500 calories a day for normal body function. Eat anymore and you'll gain weight. Eat less than this you'll lose weight 1kg = 7000 calories .

none of which has anything to do with the point of the thread. there is a PRINCIPLE involved here. 'principle' seems to be the hardest topic to ever discuss. It makes you wonder if many people on here have the foggiest idea what a principle is!

Quote:

Loving children to death Today at 6:52pm

Is this a thread about Abbott's Roman Catholic background???  :o :o :o

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents???

The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids....

A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs...

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:32pm: you do agree though, longie that something needs to be done.? of course. but taking the kids - FOR LIFE - isnt a solution nor should it ever be. yeah they're fat kids, but apparently very loved kids. so let's put them in the foster system where love is rare, abuse is common and the weight can be beaten off. wonderful. But what do you think of the PRINCIPLE of the state taking children awy from parents FOR LIFE (want to emphasises that) over something like weight? you dont see a human rights violation issue somewhere there?

Could not agree more.
Education must be an important step.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:13pm: you would have to get the parents fixed first.. sounds like they are the dregs.. but never the less..we have been through the stolen generation.. isnt this more of the same.. if the specialists cant get the parents to change then their is something wrong with how they are approaching them.. if thyey are as obese as you say.. then it wouldnt be hard to get someone in the house doing all the meals and shopping..it wouldnt be anywhere near as expensive as putting these kids into foster homes.. maybe a dose of hypnosis..or frontal lobotomy... Don't forget they can snack So unless you control their money - they will buy heaps of snacks which compound the issue So does the government quarantine their income? We tried that with the Aborigines and look at the outrage

this is ONE family not a whole tribe although it is on the increase..

its an addiction isnt it.. and sadly they have trained their kids into the same addiction..look go into a chemist these days and you are confronted by food..nowhere is safe..for the kids I hope they can fix it.. without taking them away from their home..that doesnt seem right to me..

cods wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:17pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:13pm: you would have to get the parents fixed first.. sounds like they are the dregs.. but never the less..we have been through the stolen generation.. isnt this more of the same.. if the specialists cant get the parents to change then their is something wrong with how they are approaching them.. if thyey are as obese as you say.. then it wouldnt be hard to get someone in the house doing all the meals and shopping..it wouldnt be anywhere near as expensive as putting these kids into foster homes.. maybe a dose of hypnosis..or frontal lobotomy... Don't forget they can snack So unless you control their money - they will buy heaps of snacks which compound the issue So does the government quarantine their income? We tried that with the Aborigines and look at the outrage this is ONE family not a whole tribe although it is on the increase.. its an addiction isnt it.. and sadly they have trained their kids into the same addiction..look go into a chemist these days and you are confronted by food..nowhere is safe..for the kids I hope they can fix it.. without taking them away from their home..that doesnt seem right to me..

hence my comments initially that if government intervene and legislate - it would have more of an impact on families that are doing the right thing

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs...

thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed?

How soon we forget....

anyone remember the Stolen Generation????

this is NO DIFFERENT.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed?

so what do we do as a society

I oppose removal of these children - but what is the alternative?

education?

do we force them to be better? - the civil libertarians will have a field day

Maqqa wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 7:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed? so what do we do as a society I oppose removal of these children - but what is the alternative? education? do we force them to be better? - the civil libertarians will have a field day

there are a variety of alternatives but this thread is about REMOVAL of the children. this kind of behaviour must be opposed strongly otherwise it wil end up being a standard method used by an incompetent state to enforce its own ridiculous standards. This kind of thing MUST be opposed by everyone.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 7:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed? so what do we do as a society I oppose removal of these children - but what is the alternative? education? do we force them to be better? - the civil libertarians will have a field day

why do we HAVE to do anything?? you would think they are the first fat kids ever! it is the attitude of 'we have to do something' that ends up with taking the kids from them FOR LIFE.

can we assume these kids go to school! so at some satge they are in the care of someone else..as you say longy if the parents are feral they dont remove the kids.. its only when they are abused... but how many kinds of abuse are there??

I have a family semi related that are very feral..4 children father only works at night stealing..eldest son stole a car crashed it and his passenger [girl] lost a leg.. he was 15..the son goes on stealing nights with dad..all smoke dope..these have been reported over and over again... but still the kids remain there..

maybe we should sterilise these people befor they have 4 kids..

wish I knew!

I might add this is the fathers second family.. he has 7 others by first wife..lucky for me I dont know too much about them

C'mon Macca et al

Given that, when identical twins are raised separately, their body fat and shape remains uncannily similar throughout their lifespan, it seems ludicrous to give undue weight to nurture factors over genetic nature!

As I have mentioned previously, I have an older half-sister who was adopted out from birth and had no contact with her birth parents for the first 45 years of her life - and her mannerisms and speech patterns are uncannily similar to my father and other members of our extended family. This can be no coincidence!

Similarly, I have a friend who recently found his birth parents after about 40 years - and he made similar observations about himself and his parents and 3 full-siblings. The word he used to me, to describe his observations of the familial characteristics, was also "uncanny"!

Moreover, his extra-large body shape matches that of the members of his birth family - and not that of the 3 other slim members of the household in which he was raised from infancy! As it happens, his brother from this household was also adopted.

He says that he never really felt a part of his strict, authoritarian and wealthy adoptive family - but he blends right into his easy-going working class birth family! Both of which are Jewish!

BTW, unlike me, he's religious and a staunch Liberal voter - yet we have remained friends since high school!

BTW, unlike me, he's religious and a staunch Liberal voter - yet we have remained friends since high school!



did he mention anything about have a thick skin....lol...to be a liberal friend with you he would need one.... having a joke nem

cods wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

BTW, unlike me, he's religious and a staunch Liberal voter - yet we have remained friends since high school! did he mention anything about have a thick skin....lol...to be a liberal friend with you he would need one.... having a joke nem

LOL, Cods - like most right whingers, he's got such thick skin that he's reptilian! Uncharacteristically, however, he has a good sense of humour...

Suffice to say that we can only take each other in small doses!

;)

Maqqa wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 7:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed? so what do we do as a society I oppose removal of these children - but what is the alternative? education? do we force them to be better? - the civil libertarians will have a field day

Reintroduce phys ed in schools.  IT's been on the decline for years to make way for more useless touchy feely crap.
A bit of phys ed and peer pressure might go a long way to reining in the fatties...but of course being mocked for their weight would violate their 'human rights' so the do-gooders wouldn't have a bar of that, ensuring that they stay fat burdens for life.

I agree with maqqa, civil libertarians have been given too much power. A bit or a lot rather like unions.

sigh... this thread has zero to do with childrens weight. it is EVERYTHING to do with the state removing children form a loving family on the basis of weight.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:52am:

sigh... this thread has zero to do with childrens weight. it is EVERYTHING to do with the state removing children form a loving family on the basis of weight.

---

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:52am:

sigh... this thread has zero to do with childrens weight. it is EVERYTHING to do with the state removing children form a loving family on the basis of weight.

It was already stated what they should have done. Now if they are not going to take the kids, what should they do now?
If nothing is done longie, these children will only get bigger.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed?

Actually it IS the point...Parents setting bad examples like drinking swearing etc is not a guarantee that the children will follow the example...a 12 yr old weighing twice what he should is a physical and fixable problem, the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 7:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed? Actually it IS the point...Parents setting bad examples like drinking swearing etc is not a guarantee that the children will follow the example...a 12 yr old weighing twice what he should is a physical and fixable problem, the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't...

so we just take kids if they are too fat, or too lazy or dont get good sleep...???

and who is going to take them? some foster parents in it for the money?

it is an all-round shocking example of state intrusion on families.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 7:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:28pm: cods wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 8:05pm: I would not be surprised the parents are also large mammals as well Dieticians are great - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it stop eating So in this case - education is useless if they won't take action If the 12 years old is 102kg - I find that to be child abuse. Parents seems to have no will power to say NO to their own food intact and no will power to say no to their children So how do you protect the children? so what do you call taking kids away form loving parents??? The parents may be 'loving' but they're potentially killing the kids.... A 12 year old who weighs 102kg???........A grown man, 178cm (5 foot 8 inch) man should only weigh 78 kgs... thats not the point. bogan parents that set bad examples for their kids by drinking fighting swearing, working only occasionally  etc do much of the same thing. should their kids be removed? Actually it IS the point...Parents setting bad examples like drinking swearing etc is not a guarantee that the children will follow the example...a 12 yr old weighing twice what he should is a physical and fixable problem, the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't... so we just take kids if they are too fat, or too lazy or dont get good sleep...??? and who is going to take them? some foster parents in it for the money? it is an all-round shocking example of state intrusion on families.

No, it seems to be on a case by case basis......There has to be a point when the state needs to intervene..

rape dungeon

Quote:

the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't...

actually gizmo, it sounds like they were not given assistance. Spied on yes, assisted, um no. #1 should have been a dietician. It does not look like that happened.

I don't see why the state should intervene.

If they want to spend all their money on pies, that's their choice.

If they want to make themselves so physically repulsive that noone could bear the thought of reproducing with them, that's their choice.

If they want to tempt strangers to point and laugh at them on the street, that's their choice.

If they want their whole lives to revolve around food, it's their choice.

They are the ones who will bear the consequences, not the state.  Let them lie in the bed they make for themselves.

... wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

I don't see why the state should intervene. If they want to spend all their money on pies, that's their choice. If they want to make themselves so physically repulsive that noone could bear the thought of reproducing with them, that's their choice. If they want to tempt strangers to point and laugh at them on the street, that's their choice.

Because it could be seen as a form of abuse.
Shall the state ignore abuse on children ?

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

... wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:09pm: I don't see why the state should intervene. If they want to spend all their money on pies, that's their choice. If they want to make themselves so physically repulsive that noone could bear the thought of reproducing with them, that's their choice. If they want to tempt strangers to point and laugh at them on the street, that's their choice. Because it could be seen as a form of abuse. Shall the state ignore abuse on children ?

It's not abuse.

... wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:11pm: ... wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:09pm: I don't see why the state should intervene. If they want to spend all their money on pies, that's their choice. If they want to make themselves so physically repulsive that noone could bear the thought of reproducing with them, that's their choice. If they want to tempt strangers to point and laugh at them on the street, that's their choice. Because it could be seen as a form of abuse. Shall the state ignore abuse on children ? It's not abuse.

in your eyes it is not abuse, in mine, I have not made up my mind yet, but in the eyes of others, it would be clearly considered abuse.

... wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

I don't see why the state should intervene. If they want to spend all their money on pies, that's their choice. If they want to make themselves so physically repulsive that noone could bear the thought of reproducing with them, that's their choice. If they want to tempt strangers to point and laugh at them on the street, that's their choice. If they want their whole lives to revolve around food, it's their choice. They are the ones who will bear the consequences, not the state.  Let them lie in the bed they make for themselves.

Unfortunately it's the children who will bear the consequences

Then society has to bear the medical costs

Not to mention the children may live long enough to breed the next generation of the same

15 and weighs in at 190kgs

The mother is thin - but why is he so large?

Lets look at the father - so the father is the problem!

They couldn't say no to him

He keeps eating and eating and eating

One freaking excuse after another

Keeps telling us how bad he feels - but not what he will do tomorrow to lose weight

http://www.theage.com.au/tv/show/the-200kg-kid/the-200kg-kid-20110826-1jdsl.html

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:13pm:

... wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:12pm: Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:11pm: ... wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:09pm: I don't see why the state should intervene. If they want to spend all their money on pies, that's their choice. If they want to make themselves so physically repulsive that noone could bear the thought of reproducing with them, that's their choice. If they want to tempt strangers to point and laugh at them on the street, that's their choice. Because it could be seen as a form of abuse. Shall the state ignore abuse on children ? It's not abuse. in your eyes it is not abuse, in mine, I have not made up my mind yet, but in the eyes of others, it would be clearly considered abuse.

I am with you there deb...adult are responsible for children.. if we starve them we abuse them.. if we overfeed them on junk then we also abuse them..

its hard to knwo what to do though it isnt an overniht thing.. this is a few years thing..its the same everywhere go to the supermarkets and you will see the biggest people with their trollies full of junk

What quals do you need to be one of the kiddy removers? How much does it pay.

I reckon it would be a really cool job. The uniform, the boots, the whip, the Alsatian called Rex.

Dragging the little chubs out of the house, setting Rex on the parents to keep them back, the occasional crack of the whip.... a few yells of "Raus! Raus!".

Awesome. Where do I sign up?

The more I watch this the more I get angry at the father and frustrated at the mother

Both are tertiary educated but they are so stupid

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

Quote: the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't... actually gizmo, it sounds like they were not given assistance. Spied on yes, assisted, um no. #1 should have been a dietician. It does not look like that happened.

"The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised.

Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight."

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:03pm: Quote: the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't... actually gizmo, it sounds like they were not given assistance. Spied on yes, assisted, um no. #1 should have been a dietician. It does not look like that happened. "The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised. Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight."

so despite constant supervision by OTHERS their weight didnt improve? doesnt this implicity  declare that the weight ISNT the fault of the parents (other than genetics?)

non matter who is to blame, you DONT take kids from loving families because they are overweight

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:03pm: Quote: the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't... actually gizmo, it sounds like they were not given assistance. Spied on yes, assisted, um no. #1 should have been a dietician. It does not look like that happened. "The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised. Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight."

Like i said, spied on. #1 should have been a dietician, not just a social worker!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2011 at 9:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7th, 2011 at 8:06am: Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:03pm: Quote: the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't... actually gizmo, it sounds like they were not given assistance. Spied on yes, assisted, um no. #1 should have been a dietician. It does not look like that happened. "The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised. Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight." so despite constant supervision by OTHERS their weight didnt improve? doesnt this implicity  declare that the weight ISNT the fault of the parents (other than genetics?) non matter who is to blame, you DONT take kids from loving families because they are overweight

How effect was the supervision if there are no restrictions?

I agree with you kids should not be removed - but how do you save them from themselves?

And we are not talking about simply being "overweight"

We are talking about morbidly obese ie obese leading to death

Maqqa wrote on Sep 7^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2011 at 9:10am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7th, 2011 at 8:06am: Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:03pm: Quote: the parents were given the assistance and chance to change the situation, and didn't... actually gizmo, it sounds like they were not given assistance. Spied on yes, assisted, um no. #1 should have been a dietician. It does not look like that happened. "The family lived in a 'Big Brother' style house in Dundee, Scotland, where their food was monitored and they were constantly supervised. Despite this, social workers didn't place rules on what the children could eat and there was little improvement in their weight." so despite constant supervision by OTHERS their weight didnt improve? doesnt this implicity  declare that the weight ISNT the fault of the parents (other than genetics?) non matter who is to blame, you DONT take kids from loving families because they are overweight How effect was the supervision if there are no restrictions? I agree with you kids should not be removed - but how do you save them from themselves? And we are not talking about simply being "overweight" We are talking about morbidly obese ie obese leading to death

As I have been at pains to point out, the thread is about taking children not weight. it is THAT issue which needs to be addressed and is far more important than their weight.

Think about it, folks: what would happen to the self-esteem of the child/ren if removed from the loving care of their parents - and thrown into a strange foster environment which is overly-focused on the child's physical well-being weight loss!?

In addition to being uprooted from their familiar home, the child/ren will also probably suffer a change of schools - and most likely find themselves ostracised in this new school environment because of their weight...

Does not common sense tell you that: severe anxiety and depression are likely to arise and that the child/ren will either try to eat more to compensate - perhaps even run away or steal to get food - and or be inclined to more dramatic and dangerous self-harm than simply over-eating!?

How can these and other risks be regarded as acceptable!?