14 year old weights 555 pounds. mother arrested for neglect.

[gone 4 ever 6]

I have thought about this a lot since my last post. Taking the child and putting him in foster care, arresting the mother. This is just screwing the boy up even more. I don't care if this is for good intentions. Instead they needed to bring the help into the home. (IMHO). Not break apart the home. It isn't like the mother is a criminal, drug addict etc....

[ALuv82 0]

He's 14. In most places I know that pretty much means he's unemployed and entire dependent on at least one adult for support, even if that support comes ultimately from the state. She -- practically guaranteed -- controls what money ends up in his wallet for food. She -- again, practically guaranteed -- controls what food goes into the pantry. If her son is sneaking food from the pantry, there are locks available. If she's too busy to cook consistently, she also is in the ultimate position for placing orders at restaurants. Did she even exercise the lowest level of parental control about his eating behaviors?

I comlpetely disagree. Yes, the mother controls what money she gives the child and what food she buys and brings into the house, but there are plenty of other ways a 14 year old can get food. Saying that the aprent can control what her child eats 100% is a ludicrous as saying that a parent can control if her teen smokes or does drugs or drinks. There are very few parents who supply their children with those addictive substances, and yet there are children all over who use and become addicted to tthem. While a parent can influence the choices their child makes, and severly limit the availability of such substance, if the child winds up becoming an addict, they will find a way to satisfy that addiction. Food is no different. The kid coujld easily get food from friends at school. He could steal money out of his mother or someone elses purse. He could take things at home and sell them for money. These ideas may seem ludicrous, but it happens. If the kid is 55# there is clearly an addiction at play. I don't think the mother is completely blameless, but that does not mean she has not made efforts to control her son's weight.

[keithf 2]

I comlpetely disagree. Yes, the mother controls what money she gives the child and what food she buys and brings into the house, but there are plenty of other ways a 14 year old can get food. Saying that the aprent can control what her child eats 100% is a ludicrous as saying that a parent can control if her teen smokes or does drugs or drinks. There are very few parents who supply their children with those addictive substances, and yet there are children all over who use and become addicted to tthem. While a parent can influence the choices their child makes, and severly limit the availability of such substance, if the child winds up becoming an addict, they will find a way to satisfy that addiction. Food is no different. The kid coujld easily get food from friends at school. He could steal money out of his mother or someone elses purse. He could take things at home and sell them for money. These ideas may seem ludicrous, but it happens. If the kid is 55# there is clearly an addiction at play. I don't think the mother is completely blameless, but that does not mean she has not made efforts to control her son's weight.

How many 14yo kids are going around saying, "Hey, buddy, can I bum a burger?". There's a big difference between food and smokes at that age when it comes to getting it from friends. I can just see the reaction now: "My god! You look like you're starving! Doesn't your mother feed you?" .. Somehow, given his weight and the attitude of many, I think the "why are you asking me for food?" question is more likely to result, and a request for smokes and drugs more likely to be honored.

I'll grant the embezzlement line -- to a point. In which case the mother also needs to be given a refresher in fiscal awareness. Leaking money is not a good thing, even in better economies than the present.

Part of being a parent means cracking the whip when you have to. This kid's 14: if he's been stealing from her, she has to smack him hard -- if she doesn't, she has to bear blame (in lieu of culpability) for not rearing her child to respect the property of others. If he's simply been eating whatever she's put in front of him, she needs to be smacked for abusing another living creature, even if he has an underlying disorder. After all, who's at fault for serving someone who's obviously got a drinking problem?

As a parent, she should -- is required to -- know better, and her behavior as described in the article smacks of willful disregard rather than trying to do the right thing.

[Jachut 487]

Boy, I'm quite amazed that people who have been unsuccessful in controlling their OWN weight can be so adamant that this mother should be able to control somebody else's!

[keithf 2]

Boy, I'm quite amazed that people who have been unsuccessful in controlling their OWN weight can be so adamant that this mother should be able to control somebody else's!

Reflection on the past can reveal a few truths. Consider, perhaps, that these people are seeing precisely what things contributed to their own problems. For myself, I know what weight I was in high school. I know how I spent my time, and I know what I ate. I know what could have been improved, but I also know full well that it would have been worse had a good half-dozen of my relations not been trying.

Were the boy only 200#, I'd be more understanding. Had the mother not taken the boy and fled, I'd be more understanding. Had the mother's response been something other than "Sorry, I was too busy to focus on the health of one I'm entrusted with", I would -- again -- be more understanding. But none of these are the case.

He is 555# with only 14 years. She fled when people finally decided she had ignored an untenable situation. She claimed that she was too busy to take care of him. The mother has more than enough to answer for. If she is in fact too busy, then obviously someone else has to be appointed his guardian. If she is unwilling or unable to manage her child's health, then someone willing and able to do so must. If she did, honestly, try without fail, actively and in good faith, then perhaps she merely needs assistance. But I'm sick and tired of people claiming that an on-its-face toxic situation -- his mother's alleged care -- is in fact in the best interests of the child. We see what her care has led to.

I'd rather see that child grow up to be a healthy patient of a psychiatrist, working through his resentment at being uprooted, than see that child as an early victim of heart disease. Yes, he may indeed have a significant addiction to food, but who has the responsibility to see him get the help he needs? Who has, seemingly willfully, failed to follow through on that responsibility?

With luck, he'll live long enough to hate social workers.

[Jachut 487]

That may be so, but the fact is there IS no help really, for food addiction. Nothing works. That's why we've all turned to weight loss surgery.

That child, in another's care, will continue to be obese. He will probably continue to get worse. The ONLY person who can lose weight is the child himself.

Its not as if he just needs to be educated that burgers are fattening. The mother may well be completely negiligent, and I'm not saying she isnt, but it sure as eggs ISNT a case of she should have done this or she should have done that.

Morally, she should have TRIED to do a lot more than she did but in reality none of it would have worked anyway. We all know that. We've all tried it all ourselves. She could be the worst mother in the world, but the fact is that child was probably always going to be and always will be, fat. You cant hold her 100% responsible for it.

I dont know whether you should take him away from his mother or not, there's many reasons why he would probably be better off. But getting thin isnt one of them, that wont happen.

[keithf 2]

That may be so, but the fact is there IS no help really, for food addiction. Nothing works. That's why we've all turned to weight loss surgery.

So treat this case *as* an addiction case. As a society, we all step in right away if we discover that a parent has been supplying their adolescent with alcohol, nicotene, or narcotics. And rightfully so. We also step in (moreso now than in the past) when we discover parents not seeking appropriate medical interventions for childhood illnesses.

It's an addiction. I'm happy to say that. Let's treat it as such, then, in the same vein as supplying drugs, alcohol and sex to minors who cannot be expected to have the same levels of self control and maturity we expect adults to exercise.

[WaistBand 0]

Keith, do you have kids? I ask, not to pull a snarky, "Well, if you don't, you can't possibly understand"...because you can understand. But what seems to be missing from your responses is the notion that 14-year-olds are fairly autonomous beings. They eat lunch in school cafeterias (and their friends shove the food they don't want toward them). They hang out at pizzerias and mall food courts. They sit in front of X-boxes at buddies' houses, and send little sisters upstairs to get boxes of Ding Dongs and bottles of Coke.

A mother can make her house as health-promoting as possible---but she cannot imprison her kid.

[keithf 2]

Keith, do you have kids? I ask, not to pull a snarky, "Well, if you don't, you can't possibly understand"...because you can understand. But what seems to be missing from your responses is the notion that 14-year-olds are fairly autonomous beings.

*I* ate in school cafeterias. So did my brothers, the older of which is *still* 8 years younger than me, so I'm rather well-versed in having to play ersatz daddy to a teenager (since his wasn't around). We ate Breakfast at the schools, including a fair amount of sugar, fat, and starch. I drank soft drinks, and not the diet ones. Lots of sweets. I even went for seconds. I didn't do sports beyond seasonal marching band (walk, stand for a few minutes, blow a horn -- it didn't do anything to curb weight gain). I ate more even in college, where my Breakfast of choice was a root beer, OJ, and candy bar.

Still, that didn't get me where I am today. Nor do I think it got him there. Nor am I at all persuaded about his friends being feeders. Nobody I have ever known, even from sketchy or over-full households, ever had the level of autonomy at 14 years that you suggest.

Now ask yourself how long it took for the boy to reach his current state -- I doubt it took less than two years to gain 400# (possible, yes, but unlikely). So what was he doing at 11, and what the heck was his mother doing? What sort of parenting did she engage in?

Again, unless this was some sudden onset, the mother would have a large amount of fault there. There is no reasonable path to his condition that doesn't imply significant neglect on his mother's part.

For the record, she would have been entirely in her rights to exercise authority over where the child went and what he did there -- the law would back that up until he reached his majority.

[Jachut 487]

I wanted to ask that too WaistBand but I didnt want to sound rude or snarky or seem like I was picking a fight.

But truly, whilst I agree with the sentiment abut her being negiligent in general, your argument is simply missing the most vital piece of the equation - said 14 year old MUST be on board and willing or you'll get nowhere.

What you are suggesting she should have been able to do would in real life involve tying the kid up and locking him in his bedroom!

However, I do agree, you've got much more control over an obese 6 year old - if he WAS back then, but its highly likely. Kids dont get to 500lb without a bad family diet and example, by and large. But they also dont go from normal weight to 500lb in the blink of an eye and by the time it creeps up enough to be of concern, often the pattern is set, the rot has set in and you cant turn it around.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Jachut

[keithf 2]

However, I do agree, you've got much more control over an obese 6 year old - if he WAS back then, but its highly likely. Kids dont get to 500lb without a bad family diet and example, by and large. But they also dont go from normal weight to 500lb in the blink of an eye and by the time it creeps up enough to be of concern, often the pattern is set, the rot has set in and you cant turn it around.

A temporary restriction in liberties because he's not cooperating with your best medical interests, compared to a lifetime (however brief) of restriction because he cannot function normally? Yeah, even I would accept the former. I remember *begging* for it, and never getting it. In a way, though, I have already by electing to have surgery, which by its nature produces more and keener punishment than close observation would have. If I misbehave, I feel it. If I push it far enough .. we don't want to think of that! If I subvert it, well, fool me but I'll have to face someone who means more to me than my mother (as good as she was) did. It's tough love, redux.

But, as we all know from our own experiences leading up to surgery -- you must show that you've made the effort. Not trying just allows things to get worse.

Once he hit 200#, he could have been turned around, or at least slowed down. For all any of us know, he could have been one of the lucky who *could* manage their weight independently, had he himself been managed. Now we'll never know.

In any event, we're just repeating ourseves now. I'm game for moving on -- I have my first potential fill tomorrow. We'll see what the surgeon says.