We have here, the story of an 8 year old child who can only be described as morbidly obese.

AN eight-year-old British boy who weighs 89kg, more than three times the average for his age, may be taken into care if his mother fails to improve his diet.

Connor McCreaddie, from Wallsend, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne, has broken four beds and five bicycles. The family claims to have a history of dietary intolerance to fruit or vegetables.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21287385-2,00.html)


The family's excuse is that he has a "dietary intolerance to fruit or vegetables". One has to wonder, is it all fruit and vegetables? How can that be? Even starchy vegetables, such as the potato? I would be willing to bet that this boy can probably eat vegetables if they are deep fried and served with nice lashings of salt and tomato sauce. Or some vegetables sliced up and served on pizza's under a thick layer of melted cheese.

But 89kg's? At first I thought maybe he has a genetic condition. But then I saw the "dietary intolerance to fruit and vegetables" and I thought hmmmm.. I attempted to put his weight into perspective by comparing myself to this child. I am one week being 8 months pregnant and this child still weighs a hell of a lot more than I do. And that's scary because at the moment I am huge and I am probably a lot taller than he is.

Now the State has attempted to help this child in the past, but the mother and grandmother have just fobbed it all off.

A National Health Service source said: "We have attempted many times to arrange for Connor to have appointments with community and pediatric nutritionists, public health experts, school nurses and social workers to weigh and measure him and to address his diet, but the appointments have been missed.
One would think that a parent would want to help their child. So why would they miss the appointments that could end up saving their child? The situation appears to have gotten so drastic that they could end up classifying the mother as some form of child abuser in what appears to be a first in the UK.

Connor could be placed on the child protection register, along with victims of physical and sexual abuse, or on the less serious children-in-need register.

The intervention of social services is a landmark in the fight against childhood obesity.
Will this help though?

He could also be taken into care if the family still refuse to actively help this child.

His mother and grandmother will attend a child protection conference this week to decide his future, which could lead to proceedings to take him into care.
I have to wonder, at what point did the family just stop noticing? Could the mother not see that her child was not just chubby but becoming morbidly obese? Even if this child has an intolerance to fruit and vegetables, is it all fruit and vegetables? As I said before, I would be willing to bet that he simply does not like eating anything that is not deep fried so the family just let him have what he wants.. what my husband refers to as the 'little king syndrome'.. where the parents just pander to their child's every whim. Our child tries to be the 'little king' but it simply does not work with us. Some parents however will do anything to make their child happy, even if it means that the child could suffer serious health risks or possibly worse later on. This family has taken the whole notion of the occasional treat and have made it into a daily routine.

Now the mother's reaction to this?

The boy's mother, Nicola McKeown, said: "If Connor gets taken into care, that is the worst scenario there could be.

"Hopefully, we will be able to work through it and come up with a good plan, and he will just be put on the at-risk register or some other register."
Hmmmm..

Does she not realise that her child could actually die or suffer life long diseases such as diabetes because of his obesity? I think the best thing might be to take him into care, because what has happened to him up to this point could be classified as parental neglect.

How free do we want our citizens to be, Bells? And that's really and actually at issue, ain't it?

As a society, can we actually take control of the kid from the parents for this? And if we say, yes, what kind of can o' worms does it open up for the courts?
Perhaps for watching too much tv?
Perhaps for not studying their lessons enough to pass tests in school?
Perhaps because the kids are overly shy and don't interact well with their peers?
Perhaps because they're little bullies and don't want to reform?

Where does it end, Bells? I have a neighbor who lets his shitty little dog bark (make that yelp shrilly!) until about midnight or so ....and the cops can't do a fuckin' thing about it. They suggest that I take him to civil court!

I don't know, Bells. I know you're all for this kid, but think of the bigger picture and put things into a bit of a better perspective. Like ...maybe let the kid die of overeating?

Baron Max

How free do we want our citizens to be, Bells? And that's really and actually at issue, ain't it?


You tell me Baron.

Do you think people should be free to neglect their children?

How about abusing them?

Do you think this child needs help? Do you think that after trying to help the parents help the child, if the parent ignores all avenues offered to them, that someone else should just take over to help this child have a chance?

As a society, can we actually take control of the kid from the parents for this? And if we say, yes, what kind of can o' worms does it open up for the courts?
Actually as a society we can and do take control of children away from the parents if the parents are seen to have abused or neglected their children, resulting in the child being placed at risk. It does not open a can of worms. This 8 year old child weighs 89 kilograms. That is huge.

Now childhood obesity costs the public and society as a whole huge amounts of money due to the cost of medical care they end up needing later on in life. Don't you think society should somehow have a say in stopping a child getting sick if it can? Shouldn't society care for the young (or the elderly or anyone else for that matter?)? And in this instance it can. The mother has refused to attend every single session with doctors and health care workers to help this child.

Perhaps for watching too much tv?
Perhaps for not studying their lessons enough to pass tests in school?
Perhaps because the kids are overly shy and don't interact well with their peers?
Perhaps because they're little bullies and don't want to reform?
Do any of your little scenarios lead to possible death and diseases such as diabetes, high cholesterol, potential heart attacks and strokes?

Where does it end, Bells? I have a neighbor who lets his shitty little dog bark (make that yelp shrilly!) until about midnight or so ....and the cops can't do a fuckin' thing about it. They suggest that I take him to civil court!
You, as a citizen, probably have the right to take your neighbour to court. You live in the US after all.

I don't know, Bells. I know you're all for this kid, but think of the bigger picture and put things into a bit of a better perspective. Like ...maybe let the kid die of overeating?
And then what? Have you accuse society of "not caring" for letting this child die? That's the thing with you isn't it Baron. You'd rather nothing be done because you just can't be bothered to care or you just like playing devil's advocate.

Luckily for this child, people do care and are willing to do everything they can to help him. Now you might think it is acceptable that society leave children to die of neglect, but that's just you. Thankfully the majority disagree with you.

Has the mother neglected her child? I think the fact he weighs 89 kilograms and is only 8 years old tends indicate that she has. She has to date refused all offers of help by simply not turning up to appointments made to help her son. Should the state step in? Well it has already, as they tend to do in cases of child neglect.

You know, sometimes freedom is like that. I would rather have the freedom.

You know, sometimes freedom is like that. I would rather have the freedom.

You do have the freedom.

However once you decide to act on it and neglect your child, resulting in harm to said child, that child can be taken from you.

We permit parents to twist and warp their children in all manner of ways that burden human progress. It's just more acceptable to pick on the dude at the Android's Dungeon than the Flanders kids. Easier, too. Obesity is not enumerated in the Constitution, and I've never tried to construct the argument.

Nor shall I. Not my part in this.

I raise my daughter with deliberate disregard for general convention; I'm in no position to judge on this.

You do have the freedom.

However once you decide to act on it and neglect your child, resulting in harm to said child, that child can be taken from you.

Perhaps I should just have you looking over my shoulder every minute.

How free do we want our citizens to be, Bells? And that's really and actually at issue, ain't it?

As a society, can we actually take control of the kid from the parents for this? And if we say, yes, what kind of can o' worms does it open up for the courts?
Perhaps for watching too much tv?
Perhaps for not studying their lessons enough to pass tests in school?
Perhaps because the kids are overly shy and don't interact well with their peers?
Perhaps because they're little bullies and don't want to reform?

Where does it end, Bells? I have a neighbor who lets his shitty little dog bark (make that yelp shrilly!) until about midnight or so ....and the cops can't do a fuckin' thing about it. They suggest that I take him to civil court!

I don't know, Bells. I know you're all for this kid, but think of the bigger picture and put things into a bit of a better perspective. Like ...maybe let the kid die of overeating?

Baron Max

logical fallacy : slippery slope

Perhaps I should just have you looking over my shoulder every minute.
Why would I want to?

Here is something that is difficult to grasp for many.

Parents do have a responsibility to their children. Parents cannot harm their children. Now do you think the mother in this instance has neglected her child resulting in harm? Lets see, he weighs 89 kilo's and he is 8 years old. Something is obviously a bit 'iffy' there don't you think? Don't you think this child should be helped?

More importantly, should the mother's freedom come before the health and safety of this child? After all, she is not being jailed. Her child can be removed from her care and helped if she refuses to act to save her child. The choice is entirely hers. She can either help save her son or refuse and have said son taken from her care.

Sure it's a great idea, Montel, Sally, Riki lake, all of them would agree....

I wonder how easy it would be to trace all of mankind's problems and ills to the simple ideal of .....mind your own fuckin' business?

Trying to tell others how to act, what to do, and trying to force ones ideals onto others, has probably caused my pain and suffering and death than all of the neglect in all of history.

Some 10,000 children die of starvation and easily-cured diseases every single day of the year. In the bigger picture, is one child's death somehow more tragic than another child's death?

I wonder how the world would really be if we all just minded our own fuckin' business? Dealt with ONLY those things that directly affected us?

Baron Max

I wonder how easy it would be to trace all of mankind's problems and ills to the simple ideal of .....mind your own fuckin' business?

Trying to tell others how to act, what to do, and trying to force ones ideals onto others, has probably caused my pain and suffering and death than all of the neglect in all of history.

So you don't think there should be any laws that might dictate to others how to act? For example, a law that says parents must not neglect or abuse their children would not exist. We might as well abolish drink driving laws, murder laws, rape laws.

If we all minded our own business to such an extent, then we could find ourselves in a state of anarchy. You are told how to act when you are told to not drink and then get behind the wheel. Parents are told how to act when they are told that it is unlawful to neglect or abuse their children.

Some 10,000 children die of starvation and easily-cured diseases every single day of the year. In the bigger picture, is one child's death somehow more tragic than another child's death?

I have a hypothetical for you Baron. Lets just say you are standing by a busy road and you see a child wandering towards that road into the path of a truck. Would you walk the few steps and pull that child back before he stepped in front of that truck? Or would you think to yourself 'maybe I should mind my own "fucking business" and let this one kid die since what's one's kid's death when so many are dying of starvation and easily-cured diseases' and let the child walk in front of the truck and die?

If you can prevent one child's death, then it is one child less who will die in the world.

I wonder how the world would really be if we all just minded our own fuckin' business? Dealt with ONLY those things that directly affected us?

You mean if we all acted like a bunch of selfish arseholes? We do already. Why do think so many children are dying around the world Baron? Because we simply can't be bothered to help some children dying in Africa and hide behind the excuse of 'minding our own "fucking" business'. Our Governments do it really well and have gotten away with it for a long time. So do we. And when anyone tries to do something to help, people like you step forward and say "mind your own fucking business" and let them all die.. Why? Because the actions of others are only showing how lazy the majority are and how selfish and uncaring the majority can be.

This boy is in dire need of help. If his parents refuse to help him, then what business is it of yours if others wish to step in to help him? If this child had died, you would have been carrying on about how uncaring society is for having allowed this child to die. And when society tries to step in to help him before he dies, you say we should mind our own business. I find that quite interesting to be honest. The fact that you will always take the opposing view. Now do you actually feel that way? Are you really that selfish and uncaring? Or is this a front to get a rise out of people?

A parent shoul dbe free to raise their children how they wish, but a parent does not own their children.
You can not abuse your children, nit just because it is "wrong" but because the rest of us will pay the price as well.
All our lives are interconnected and we all have a responsibility to one another.

I agree with Baron that many of the world's problem have arisen from this group of people telling that group of people how to live their lives.
On the other hand, there is no more imortant aspect to laws and legislation that protecting those who can not protect themselves - most importantly the suffering innocent.
If a child is being abused, it is our responsibility to step in and end it.

Parents should be allowed to raise their children how they see fit. Children, however, should not be forced to suffer on account of their parents.

It's a difficult balance to maintian, but maintaining that balance is a crucial aspect of having healthy communities.

Connor's case attracted national attention after his mother allowed an ITV News crew to film his day-to-day life over the course of a month.
Link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mum-may-lose-obese-son/2007/02/27/1172338585047.html)


A call for help maybe? If so, why is she trying to avoid all the appointments with nutritionists and specialists who wish to help her son? As the authorities have said, the last resort will be to take the child into care, but if she continues to ignore the help being offered, then they will have to take that final step.

Baron made an interesting point. Why don't we mind our own business. I guess the State would have if she had not brought her son into the limelight by inviting a TV crew into her home for a month to see how her son lived and ate.

"The worst case would be Connor getting taken into care. He is well cared for," the boy's mother, Nicola McKeown, told ITV television.
No, the worst case would be Connor dying. And well cared for?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/27/CONNOR_narrowweb__300x437,0.jpg

This is the 8 year old boy in question. He does not look "well cared for".

Connor's mother said he steals and hides food, frustrating her efforts to help him.

"He has double, treble what a normal boy (of his age) would have, but if I didn't give him enough at teatime then he would just go on at us all night for snacks and stuff," she told ITV.
I saw a bit of the documentary on the TV. The child was plying through what looked like a huge plate of fried chicken. Hmmm.. maybe if she didn't fry the food and if he wanted snacks offer him fruit and vegetables instead? Might help...

It seems the child runs the house and she just gives him whatever he wants. So he nags for "snacks and stuff"? Ermmm maybe someone should remind her that as the mother, she can tell her 8 year old the word 'no'. It could mean saving his life in the long run.

Connor, who lives with his mother and sister, has difficulty dressing and washing himself, misses school regularly because of poor health and is targeted by bullies.
Well cared for indeed.

As parents, we have a responsibility to not harm our children or place them in situations where harm can come to them. The majority of parents take this responsibility seriously. The mother of this child does not. If I let my son eat whatever he wanted, his diet would consist solely of M & M's, something he is given as a very rare and occasional treat (and one he loves) and when he asks for more than the 3 he has been given as that treat, he is told 'no'. He does not like it and tries to insist, but we don't give it to him. We offer him a piece of apple or other fruit instead. Children have to be told the word 'no' sometimes. It appears that this child has not heard it that much in the past.

As a society, can we actually take control of the kid from the parents for this?
yes.
And if we say, yes, what kind of can o' worms does it open up for the courts?


it's called NEGLECT

Baron made an interesting point. Why don't we mind our own business. I guess the State would have if she had not brought her son into the limelight by inviting a TV crew into her home for a month to see how her son lived and ate.

So ...does that mean that you're a news media whore like most of the people in the western world? Whatever the media wants us to worry about, or think about, or feel outrage about, they just put it on the news.

So we all worry and concern ourselves with this one boy eating too much, while tens of thousands of children in the world starve to death every single day of the year. But that's old news, unworthy of our concern or worry? It's better to worry about this one fat kid who likes to eat?

See why I keep saying, and believing in, .....IGNORANCE IS BLISS!

The news media, among others, is leading us by the nose, making us think about whatever they wish ....and we just follow right along with ever thinking of the big picture or trying to put anything into any proper perspective.

If the tv news shows it, it must be important for our lives! :D

Perhaps "I don't give a fuck!" and "Mind your own fuckin' business!" is the best way for us to live even remotely happy lives.

Baron Max

Well I'd heard a slightly different story, that the parents(in their opinion) hadn't received any good help when they had visited the doctors so they decided it wasn't beneficial enough to continue going.
As much as I don't believe what the parents say; Seeing as if he's being fed three normal size meals a day he wouldn't be that size, they could be telling the truth about lack of help and maybe it needs a few weeks to see if there are changes now they are receiving it.
They also said in that particular article that he refuses to eat anything else, and doesn't like it. So what can they do? Starve him? The problem is that people don't eat what they don't like, and a threat doesn't work on everyone, carried out or not. If he refuses to eat he puts his health at risk anyway and that would get him taken away for sure so maybe they are damned either way.
They also say he steals the food, so are they to lock everything in the kitchen? Search his room and watch over him 24/7? Don't get me wrong the parents share the responsibility but if the kid knows what this will do to him and he seems perfectly happy to continue then what can realistically be done for him when he won't help himself?

Bells - Your kid is obviously a lot better behaved at this stage, I'm not sure this kid hasn't heard the word no but that he ignores it, what if your kid began to steal the M&M's? What if he then takes them from elsewhere if he can't get them at home? I think a lot rests on this kid, he is obviously determined and serious about what he does and doesn't like, and I don't think he'd be forced to eat anything he didn't like. The mark of a good parent(and the help they should have) is to find alternatives that he likes and will willingly eat, and to show him exactly how destructive his habits are.
Parents are always the first people to get the blame, but there is only so much they can do, maybe these ones are lazy and to blame and maybe they aren't so I'm not really defending them but just trying to point a few things out.
I've not forgotten what it's like to be a kid in that situation and the key was compromise, I spent many a night in my room and without pudding or dinner, but the difference was I was given alternatives, good healthy food that I liked and was happy to eat.
So to me educating the kids must be the priority, hopefully people can identify and agree with that.

So ...does that mean that you're a news media whore like most of the people in the western world? Whatever the media wants us to worry about, or think about, or feel outrage about, they just put it on the news.


Media whore? Hardly. This story caught my eye and I decided to share.:)

And I worry about a lot of things that are not deemed popular enough to even appear in the media. This story was interesting in that for the first time, a child's obesity is being deemed as a form of abuse.

So we all worry and concern ourselves with this one boy eating too much, while tens of thousands of children in the world starve to death every single day of the year. But that's old news, unworthy of our concern or worry? It's better to worry about this one fat kid who likes to eat?
Refer to my comments above.

See why I keep saying, and believing in, .....IGNORANCE IS BLISS!
And believe me Baron. It sometimes shows.

The news media, among others, is leading us by the nose, making us think about whatever they wish ....and we just follow right along with ever thinking of the big picture or trying to put anything into any proper perspective.
You are quite correct. Most of us look at the worlds media and comment on it. You look at the media and sit there with your fingers and your ears saying 'I don't care' like a mantra. But you just can't ever shut up about what you supposedly don't care about.

You don't care so much that you end up looking like you care more about the issue or the opposition to the issue more than anyone else.

Perhaps "I don't give a fuck!" and "Mind your own fuckin' business!" is the best way for us to live even remotely happy lives.
For you maybe. Not for all.

Tell me, since you seem to care so much for the millions of dying children in the world (you do bring it up every occasion you can), just what do you do for them Baron? Do you donate money to help feed those starving children? Sponsor a child or two? Because unless you actually do anything, your use of them as any form of argument is not only hypocritical, but down right low.

Well I'd heard a slightly different story, that the parents(in their opinion) hadn't received any good help when they had visited the doctors so they decided it wasn't beneficial enough to continue going.
As much as I don't believe what the parents say; Seeing as if he's being fed three normal size meals a day he wouldn't be that size, they could be telling the truth about lack of help and maybe it needs a few weeks to see if there are changes now they are receiving it.
I read an article yesterday where the mother was saying her son hates fruits and vegetables, something the dietitians are telling her to give him, so she just gives him processed foods because the child has to eat. She does not want him to go or feel hungry, so she gives him what he likes and will eat, which in turn is what has caused the obesity issues to date.

Even his mother admits that he eats 2 to 3 times what children his age normally eat and all of it is either fried or processed food.

They also said in that particular article that he refuses to eat anything else, and doesn't like it. So what can they do? Starve him? The problem is that people don't eat what they don't like, and a threat doesn't work on everyone, carried out or not. If he refuses to eat he puts his health at risk anyway and that would get him taken away for sure so maybe they are damned either way.
They also say he steals the food, so are they to lock everything in the kitchen? Search his room and watch over him 24/7? Don't get me wrong the parents share the responsibility but if the kid knows what this will do to him and he seems perfectly happy to continue then what can realistically be done for him when he won't help himself?
She did comment that he tried a piece of apple and he did not like it. What can she do? Gee, I don't know. He likes chips, like all kids I would imagine? Well instead of frying, she could try baking them. Cut back on his salt. Try and encourage him with rewards to eat some fruits and vegetables. Try him on a wide variety of fruits and vegetables until he finds something that he likes. Puree it into his food. Tell him that if he eats a certain amount of serves of fruits and vegetables a week, he can have one meal of whatever he wants once a week.

And if he is stealing food? Yes, lock the food away. Get rid of every single item of junk food in the house. Simply do not buy it. The parents are pandering to this child in a way that astounds me. The child is 8 years old and will do whatever he can to get what he wants. He's a child, that's what kids do. The parents are the ones in control here, not him.

Bells - Your kid is obviously a lot better behaved at this stage, I'm not sure this kid hasn't heard the word no but that he ignores it, what if your kid began to steal the M&M's? What if he then takes them from elsewhere if he can't get them at home? I think a lot rests on this kid, he is obviously determined and serious about what he does and doesn't like, and I don't think he'd be forced to eat anything he didn't like. The mark of a good parent(and the help they should have) is to find alternatives that he likes and will willingly eat, and to show him exactly how destructive his habits are.
If my child started stealing food or eating massive amounts of junk foods on the sly? I would get rid of every item that would appeal to him to steal and he simply would not have the pocket money to buy it outside of the house. This child weighs 89 kilo's. You can't tell me the mother never once noticed something was not right? He did not get like this over night.

They need to find alternatives, yes you are correct. For example, try baking the stuff he likes instead of dipping it in batter and frying it. Stop buying all forms of junk food or take aways. Have him participate in preparing the meals and make it fun. They show them with a house and yard. Grow a vegetable patch and have him participate in growing the vegetables. Find what vegetables he does like and give him that, same with fruit. Get him exercising as much as he can. If he will only drink soft drinks, give him diet soft drinks or use soda water with natural fruit juice. There are a lot of alternatives for children who are picky. They should have started a hell of a lot earlier than let it get to this stage. I mean this kid is 8 and he weighs more than most adults. That is insane and deadly.

Parents are always the first people to get the blame, but there is only so much they can do, maybe these ones are lazy and to blame and maybe they aren't so I'm not really defending them but just trying to point a few things out.
I understand what you mean. This kid is every parent's worst nightmare. But they should have acted earlier. This did not happen over a short period of time. A child does not reach that weight in a short time.

I've not forgotten what it's like to be a kid in that situation and the key was compromise, I spent many a night in my room and without pudding or dinner, but the difference was I was given alternatives, good healthy food that I liked and was happy to eat.
So to me educating the kids must be the priority, hopefully people can identify and agree with that.
I totally agree with you. Children don't hate all fruits and vegetables. Especially young children and toddlers. I have a relative who only gave her daughter the jarred baby food. She never once made anything for her. Her daughter grew up only eating processed foods and refused to eat any vegetables because she was never given proper vegetables as a child. Thankfully she also played a lot of sports and as she reached her teens and saw other kids eating fruits and vegetables, she started to venture into that food range. But in the end, its the parents who teach their children how to eat right from the start.

My son does not have 'puddings' or desert as such. We don't give him cakes and ice cream for snacks or desert. He gets fresh fruit. His meals always consist of at least 5 different vegetables and we have found that if we give him the vegetables on their own, he won't eat it. He likes foods that have herbs and spices in it, so he basically eats softer versions of what we have. We know the fruits and vegetables he loves and we encourage him to eat those and always ensure he gets those and we try him on different versions of the one's he's not a big fan of. He does not like ice cream and is not a huge fan of cakes. We give him things like cakes and chocolate as really really rare treats. We are trying to teach him to eat the right foods and so far he's doing really well. His little cousin's on the other hand refuse to eat anything other than sweets because their parents have gotten them used to it from when they first started eating. Our son was never given sweet foods at the start, unless it was mashed fruits. So he loves his fruits and berries and we never restrict him from eating those. In short, you mold your child's eating habits from the start and it is the parents job to ensure it continues through their childhood. If a child hates one thing, as a parent you find an alternative instead of just giving in and giving them hot chips and fried junk foods every meal.

This story brings up a situation that is rapidly becoming a battle-line, at least in the U.S., but I'm sure it wont stop here. The woeful lack of nutrition education is becoming a health crisis that rivals cancer and heart disease, and certainly kills more people than AIDS. Obesity is at epidemic levels, and the costs associated with treating the symptoms are ranging into the hundreds of Billions each year. It shocks me to see the attitude that so many carry toward this problem. When I've made mention of it on another forum, and compared it to alcoholism, I was blasted for even making that comparison. Apparently more than a few people are hyper-sensitive to the notion that food can also be used to self-medicate. The belief is that because most foods are not chemically addictive, like heroine or alcohol, they can never be compared to drugs and alcohol as a self-destructive vehicle. I would disagree, at least from what I've seen around here.

Parents are using food as an emotional connect to their children, and the kids are paying the ultimate price in being burdened with a lifetime of bad habits that ultimately lead to deadly health consequences. Ask your kid, after he's had his legs amputated at 35 due to diabetes, if it was worth it to have those cookies everyday after school when he was bummed out. Sugar kills. Just like salt. You can't screw around with food, anymore than you can with drugs.

As for the government getting involved, I'm not a big fan, but then again, if the kid was being given alcohol by the parents, there would be no debate. Ultimately, they are tacitly approving of his behavior by refusing to step up and be the adult. That is irresponsible parenting, and can not be supported on any level. Does that mean they should lose custody? I couldn't say at this point, but I certainly know that it hits all of us in our wallet to stand idly by and watch the next generation setting itself up for a lifetime of prescription drugs, joint replacements, and early deaths due to the health problems associated with being morbidly obese.

I'm cautious about taking away parental rights. I draw an uneasy line at public health issues: give your damn kid a damn polio shot so we don't have another damn polio epidemic, or take your asses back to Lower Slobbovia. At some point we have to be willing to let Americans see the consequences of stupidity because Americans are risk-takers and you can't convince them not to do stupid crap any other way. So we have to let a few kids serve as bad examples; I suppose that's just another way of looking at public health.

But there's no harm in making pariahs out of these parents as long as we don't curtail their constitutional rights. These days we all live in a fishbowl. We let parents raise children believing in racism and fairy tale religions, believing that no matter how angry they make somebody he will never hit them, and believing that they will grow up to be investment bankers even though they can't make change for a dollar without a POS terminal. Is raising them to be morbidly obese significantly worse?

I feel the same way about these 800-pound adults who can't get out of bed. Who the hell is providing them with all that food? Can't they just say, "You can eat as much as you want when you can walk to the store and buy it"?

Fraggle,
The kid is British, not American (but I can understand jumping to that conclusion).

I feel the same way about these 800-pound adults who can't get out of bed. Who the hell is providing them with all that food? Can't they just say, "You can eat as much as you want when you can walk to the store and buy it"?

Hmm delivery food?:D

Media whore? Hardly. This story caught my eye and I decided to share.

I think that's exactly the definition of "media whore", ain't it? :D

And I worry about a lot of things that are not deemed popular enough to even appear in the media. This story was interesting in that for the first time, a child's obesity is being deemed as a form of abuse.

And bringing a child into the world without the means to feed it, so that it dies of starvation, is NOT a form of child abuse?

Which is worse, Bells, 10,000 kids dying of starvation or one British kid who eats to much and is obese?

You look at the media and sit there with your fingers and your ears saying 'I don't care' like a mantra. But you just can't ever shut up about what you supposedly don't care about.

No, I try to put things into perspective. All the hoopla you raised about this one kid overeating, when 10,000 kids die every day in Africa, is a sure sign that you don't have a good perspective on reality. I was attempting to show you, and all the others, that when viewed in a more realistic perspective, the whole issue of the obese kid pales in comparison. Yet you don't' seem to get that even when I explain it to you. Why? How?

Tell me, since you seem to care so much for the millions of dying children in the world ....?

I don't care, that's your first mistake! But neither do I claim to care. You, however, and many like you, CLAIM to care, yet you post bullshit pieces like this one, ONE, little boy .....as if he's so much more important than those 10,000 kids starving in Africa. See? Perspective. You ain't got none!

Baron Max

I think that's exactly the definition of "media whore", ain't it? :D

So says he, the forum whore. I am currently nearing the end of a nasty arse pregnancy and am in a really really bad mood Baron. Any sense of politeness I may have had has gone flying out the window.

And bringing a child into the world without the means to feed it, so that it dies of starvation, is NOT a form of child abuse?

Which is worse, Bells, 10,000 kids dying of starvation or one British kid who eats to much and is obese?
Yes well maybe if the religious nutters around the world stopped preventing contraceptive methods from reaching those poor and starving souls, it might help alleviate the situation. Also, if the West stopped trying to squeeze debt repayments out of poverty stricken countries, it might also help, don't you think?

I will reiterate something you seem to keep missing again and again Baron. Any child dying of preventable and treatable diseases and situations is a travesty. And for your information, more than 10,000 children die of starvation every day. However if we cannot save one child (such as this one in England) and if we cannot bring ourselves to care about saving one child, then helping those millions who are dying around the world of preventable and treatable diseases becomes an impossibility. Do you understand the whole concept Baron?

No, I try to put things into perspective. All the hoopla you raised about this one kid overeating, when 10,000 kids die every day in Africa, is a sure sign that you don't have a good perspective on reality. I was attempting to show you, and all the others, that when viewed in a more realistic perspective, the whole issue of the obese kid pales in comparison. Yet you don't' seem to get that even when I explain it to you. Why? How?

"Hoopla"? What "hoopla"? I posted an article I found for discussion. Maybe before you attempt to accuse others of being unable to keep things in perspective, you should also take your own advice.

What you cannot understand is one child dying like this child in England is bad. If we can't bring ourselves to care about that one child, then how can we honestly bring ourselves to care about those dying in Africa? Why is that so hard for YOU to understand Baron?

I mean I know you simply don't give a squat about shit, but that's just YOU. Others care. Now if it bothers you that others care, that's your problem. If others caring only brings to light your laziness and your uncaring attitude, then only you can rectify that.

And for someone who does not care as much as you do, you sure do spout a hell of a lot of crap about the issue.

I don't care, that's your first mistake! But neither do I claim to care. You, however, and many like you, CLAIM to care, yet you post bullshit pieces like this one, ONE, little boy .....as if he's so much more important than those 10,000 kids starving in Africa. See? Perspective. You ain't got none!

Yeah..

Is this a bullshit piece? If so, why are you still participating in this thread? I mean are you that desperate for attention? If you don't care about this little boy or the millions dying of starvation and diseases that are easily treatable around the world, why in the hell do you harp on and on in threads dealing with such issues?

Oh wait that's right. You are only trying to tell us how much you don't care and trying to get others to be just like you. Does it make you uncomfortable that others care about what goes on around the world Baron? Does it make you feel like a selfish old man?

*Sneer*..

Bells, a lot of the flack that you are catching here is because a lot of people are sick of "authority" stepping in whenever it sees something that excuses it. There have been many stories of truly lame excuses for taking a child away, and it gets old and sick after a while. Your intentions may be good and your ethics may be good, but there are huge systemic problems with the child protective services. I know that I perceive you as someone who waves that fact away and doesn't deal with it.

Bells, a lot of the flack that you are catching here is because a lot of people are sick of "authority" stepping in whenever it sees something that excuses it. There have been many stories of truly lame excuses for taking a child away, and it gets old and sick after a while. Your intentions may be good and your ethics may be good, but there are huge systemic problems with the child protective services. I know that I perceive you as someone who waves that fact away and doesn't deal with it.

And I understand exactly what you mean.

Child Protective Services fail on so many occasions and simply get it wrong on others that children are either taken away unnecessarily or left to die of either abuse or neglect. It is time things changed.

Had this child been left as he was and no one made a move to help him, and he died, the health department and child protective services would have copped so much flack for having failed yet again. However in this instance the mother had been given many chances. This has been going on for several months. She did not bother to turn up to any meetings or appointments with doctors and nutritionists who wanted to help her because she felt that their diet options were bad since her son did not like eating fruit and vegetables. That was her excuse. She has plainly said that she can't let him go without and will give him whatever he will eat, which unfortunately for this kid, is processed food and fried food. She did not want to inconvenience her child, even if her actions put him at risk of death. It is neglect that allowed this child to get to where he is now. And it is sad that it was allowed to continue for so long so that it has reached this point.

As of now, she can keep her son and has been ordered to work with nutritionists and health professionals to help find other alternatives for her son. And that is brilliant and hopefully she will stick to it.

I have seen how badly child protection services fail on so many instances. In Australia of late, there have been reports of their simply not having done their job to such an extent that children have died or suffered horrendous injuries. That needs to stop. Proper guidelines need to be put in place and they basically need to get their heads out of their backsides and do their job. We can't get sick and tired of it because once we do, once we stop being outraged at their failures, more children are left to be abused, to die of said abuse or neglect in their homes. And that is inexcusable.

Sometimes the authorities have to step in and I think in this instance, it was warranted. The mother brought the media into her own home to highlight her and her son's plight. When the help arrived, she cannot then say well 'no.. he doesn't like fruit and vegetables so forget it'.. and then keep on complaining that she is not getting help. Parents have to be responsible for their actions in how they raise their children. We have a duty towards our children and if we fail, then we cannot simply expect society and the law to do nothing because they are our children and people should just "mind their own business". If you neglect an animal, you break the law. The same should also apply to one's children.

That's just my opinion.

Well, if you want people to trust authority, authority is going to have to exercise the diligence that it takes to make itself worthy of trust.

Did anyone else notice that this kid is also growing quite a bit taller and has a really large bone structure for his age? He is obese but he is also going through an abnormal growth spurt. I just saw him on TV and he is quite tall for an 8 year old and his weight looks a bit much, but not nearly as debilitating as you might think because he is tall and has a broad build.

I hope that his mother gets her story told the way that she wants it told. I understand very well how she could be sick of being messed with. Anyone who deals with them knows that all of those so-called experts can easily be quacks, idiots, and even just plain malicious, so a reasonable person can have perfectly good reasons not to give it over to them.

I mean I know you simply don't give a squat about shit, but that's just YOU. Others care.

Others care???? Bells, if "others" actually cared as much as you and they claim to care, we wouldn't have all of the starvation and dying.

No, Bells, people don't care, they just SAY that they care! ...while tens of thousands starve every-fuckin'-day!

Now if it bothers you that others care, that's your problem. ...... Does it make you uncomfortable that others care about what goes on around the world Baron?

No, Bells, it bothers me that they CLAIM to care ....yet they don't do shit to help the problems. Just making the claim of compassion and caring ain't enough ....they make that claim, yet the starving goes on and on.

And then, worse, they pick up some sensationalist news spot like this one boy in Britian and make a big issue of it ................while tens of thousands die of starvation all over the world!

Hippo-fuckin'-critters!

Baron Max

I read an article yesterday where the mother was saying her son hates fruits and vegetables, something the dietitians are telling her to give him, so she just gives him processed foods because the child has to eat. She does not want him to go or feel hungry, so she gives him what he likes and will eat, which in turn is what has caused the obesity issues to date.

Even his mother admits that he eats 2 to 3 times what children his age normally eat and all of it is either fried or processed food.
I can understand her feelings, she should be cutting down the total ammount of food he eats, if she does that first at least he won't gain anymore, and should lose weight, even if he is still unhealthy(weight and health sometimes being uncorrelated).
I'm a lot more interested in the truth about the help she receives or doesn't, I'm fully aware sometimes the NHS is quite frankly useless.
She did comment that he tried a piece of apple and he did not like it. What can she do? Gee, I don't know. He likes chips, like all kids I would imagine? Well instead of frying, she could try baking them. Cut back on his salt. Try and encourage him with rewards to eat some fruits and vegetables. Try him on a wide variety of fruits and vegetables until he finds something that he likes. Puree it into his food. Tell him that if he eats a certain amount of serves of fruits and vegetables a week, he can have one meal of whatever he wants once a week.
I agree it's the best idea, rewards and mixing sadly doesn't always work however, and he could end up going hungry, exactly a situation that's trying to be avoided. I remember my mum mixing cabbage with my mash, which sadly only resulted in me leaving both when I'd normally eat the mash! Needless to say she stopped doing it.
And if he is stealing food? Yes, lock the food away. Get rid of every single item of junk food in the house. Simply do not buy it. The parents are pandering to this child in a way that astounds me. The child is 8 years old and will do whatever he can to get what he wants. He's a child, that's what kids do. The parents are the ones in control here, not him.
Kids can easily go off the rails too, it may start with something small (how many kids steal sweets from shops when parents refuse to buy them?), obviously this kid is far too fat to be able to run off with a chocolate bar but I'm convinced he'd at least try it. The other problem is if there is no food in the house he eats, he will go hungry, there is a misconception that if people get hungry enough they'll eat anything, in a situation where no other food is available that is true(desert island), but this isn't the case, he could leave home, get food from friends, steal from shops, short of locking him indoors (which again wouldn't help his health) it's simply available to him elsewhere. Also there is a risk to his health of this kind of enforced crash dieting, such as collapsing and it in itself being unhealthy etc.
You're definately along the right lines with your ideas and something must be done, but too harsh and things will still go wrong.
If my child started stealing food or eating massive amounts of junk foods on the sly? I would get rid of every item that would appeal to him to steal and he simply would not have the pocket money to buy it outside of the house. This child weighs 89 kilo's. You can't tell me the mother never once noticed something was not right? He did not get like this over night.
Obviously this has taken months(and will take that long to solve), but according to them they've seeked help and found little success with what has been given, so I'm mostly interested in the truth of those statements by the parents.
They need to find alternatives, yes you are correct. For example, try baking the stuff he likes instead of dipping it in batter and frying it. Stop buying all forms of junk food or take aways. Have him participate in preparing the meals and make it fun. They show them with a house and yard. Grow a vegetable patch and have him participate in growing the vegetables. Find what vegetables he does like and give him that, same with fruit. Get him exercising as much as he can. If he will only drink soft drinks, give him diet soft drinks or use soda water with natural fruit juice. There are a lot of alternatives for children who are picky. They should have started a hell of a lot earlier than let it get to this stage. I mean this kid is 8 and he weighs more than most adults. That is insane and deadly.
Agreed, if he likes the food he should like it prepared differently, and he might not like peas or carrots or whatever but I'm sure there are some vedge he likes! Only thing would be if they are tropical/expensive and maybe then they should receive help to get them. Excercise shouldn't be a problem, although in fairness he should join a sports club so it's fun otherwise he won't stick to it and presuming they live in a large town that shouldn't be a problem. As I said, maybe it did start earlier but hasn't been helped enough? Perhaps the parents really are just stupid?

I understand what you mean. This kid is every parent's worst nightmare. But they should have acted earlier. This did not happen over a short period of time. A child does not reach that weight in a short time.
Agreed, and they probably are just ignorant, but good parenting comes with experience, wisdom, and help, not all have those and it's hard to tell how many they were lacking in.

I totally agree with you. Children don't hate all fruits and vegetables. Especially young children and toddlers. I have a relative who only gave her daughter the jarred baby food. She never once made anything for her. Her daughter grew up only eating processed foods and refused to eat any vegetables because she was never given proper vegetables as a child. Thankfully she also played a lot of sports and as she reached her teens and saw other kids eating fruits and vegetables, she started to venture into that food range. But in the end, its the parents who teach their children how to eat right from the start.
Agreed, although not all people learn, I'm not aware if you live in Britain or not but there's been a series of programmes about adults who eat only chips or only cheese etc. Takes being picky to a whole new level.
In short, you mold your child's eating habits from the start and it is the parents job to ensure it continues through their childhood. If a child hates one thing, as a parent you find an alternative instead of just giving in and giving them hot chips and fried junk foods every meal.
I agree, there is a multitude of variety in the foods we can eat. However tastes change, we all have different likes and dislikes and only the principle of healthy eating can be molded, it's then sadly up to the individual to ignore it.:(