Likely nothing, but his parents do, and he can always yell at them or thank them later on...again, if he is actually happy with his life, why should taxpayers intervene? Because we feel he *shouldn't* be happy? (and so, damn it, we are going to make him miserable for his own good?) Again, as I said above, if he's in emotional distress that is one thing, but I don't know if that is the case. Being fat is unsafe, but so are many other things--are we now suspending parental rights when they offend our personal preferences? As I suggested, I think the reason we feel justified is that fat people are ugly, and we feel our emotional repulsion justifies intervention. Suppose they took their child hunting at age 8? Let him play outside in thunderstorms? Suppose they took him mountain-climbing every weekend? Or allowed him to smoke cigarettes? All of these things are dangerous, yet I doubt people would feel the same level of compulsion to be such busybodies. How many girls are anorexic or are "cutters"? Are we sending in child services to remove them from their parents?