[El Pilchinator]

http://www.cnn.com/v...esity.crime.cnn

edit: non-video articles

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30877017/
http://www.wyff4.com...636/detail.html

Quote

"There have been some opportunities that have come along for him to participate in some treatment programs and things such as that, and it's my understanding, that for whatever reason, he's not allowed to take part in those treatment programs," said Greenville County Lt. Shea Smith.

At the hearing, Draper was ordered into the custody of the state due to medical neglect and Gray's failure to appear in court.

When officers went to take the boy from the home, they found that he and his mother had left the home on Goodwin Bridge Road in Travelers Rest.

"The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that he wasn't being provided for by his mother," said Matthew Armstrong, of the Greenville County Sheriff's Office.

the reason, as the video discusses, is that a facility in North Carolina where the boy was taken was not properly equipped to handle such a large person and had to turn him away.

tl;dr 14 year old boy weighs 555lbs. mother worked multiple shifts for jobs and has little time to cook. the state of South Carolina has charged her with being criminally negligent of the child's health and not adequately helping his situation.

the obvious question: should a parent be held criminally responsible for the health of their child, be it in cases of anorexia, bulimia, or obesity? does the state have a right to charge a parent with negligence if their child is considered unhealthy?

This post has been edited by El Pilchinator: 22 July 2009 - 09:53 AM

[Ecthelion]

In this case, I'd have to say so.

But then again, I don't know her situation..

But then again...again (I just woke up, shut up...) you don't exactly 'catch' 555 pounds, you don't just wake up one day and go "holy crap, I'm a beast!". The kid is 14, and should be able to atleast think, nto to mention make his/her own food..

[El Pilchinator]

Ecthelion, on Jul 22 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

In this case, I'd have to say so.

But then again, I don't know her situation..

But then again...again (I just woke up, shut up...) you don't exactly 'catch' 555 pounds, you don't just wake up one day and go "holy crap, I'm a beast!". The kid is 14, and should be able to atleast think, nto to mention make his/her own food..

the video discusses the woman being in a situation where she works multiple jobs or job shifts and had little time. she 'admitted' to buying fast food, but doesn't see how that alone could have gotten her child to this size.

and in this case, i'd agree with you. there's no evidence at this point that suggests the mother was being malicious, and stuffing the boy's face a-la Hansel and Gretel.

[Delta1212]

Well, it's not like their reasoning was just "she let him get fat." It seems his weight was causing health problems that the mother failed to address. That seems like an appropriate situation to invesigate whether there is criminal negligence going on.

[Relic]

El Pilchinator, on Jul 22 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

the video discusses the woman being in a situation where she works multiple jobs or job shifts and had little time. she 'admitted' to buying fast food, but doesn't see how that alone could have gotten her child to this size.

and in this case, i'd agree with you. there's no evidence at this point that suggests the mother was being malicious, and stuffing the boy's face a-la Hansel and Gretel.

I would have to say yes as well. 400 pounds doesn't just fall upon anybody, he had to ingest a massive amount of calories over a long period of time.

It also says that for whatever reason, the treatment was refused in the article.

[SoxNation]

El Pilchinator, on Jul 22 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

the video discusses the woman being in a situation where she works multiple jobs or job shifts and had little time. she 'admitted' to buying fast food, but doesn't see how that alone could have gotten her child to this size.

and in this case, i'd agree with you. there's no evidence at this point that suggests the mother was being malicious, and stuffing the boy's face a-la Hansel and Gretel.

most neglect cases aren't malicious, thats not the criteria.

While the kid was old enough to do for himself, I bet you this kid was a pretty fat 8 year old, 6 year old etc... when he knew no better and depends on his mother for the right example.

It's as neglectful as not feeding your kid enough in my mind.

[Decomposition]

I would agree that the mother is responsible for the health of her child in this case.
Bulimia is a different kettle of fish since people suffering from bulimia are often extremely adept at hiding it - something that is obviously not possible with anorexia.

[Emperor Stranger]

Working multiple jobs to support her child who is fat sounds more like over-loving than negligence.

[NewPoseidon]

Bravo. 555 pounds=criminal neglect.

[President Nevik]

Emperor Stranger, on Jul 22 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

Working multiple jobs to support her child who is fat sounds more like over-loving than negligence.

She was working multiple jobs because she was poor, because of this she lacked the time to prepare a proper meal for her child so she would bring home fast food instead. She was also unable to monitor what her child was eating because she was working so often, and, as a result, he became obese. In my opinion the state should address the problems of poverty and ensure children get good, healthy meals at school instead of punishing this woman for being poor.

[edikroma]

I for one, support this action. Any and all parents of obese children should be charged with criminal negligence. If your kid smokes, drinks, gets pregnant, same thing. And if your kid doesn't do well in school, parents should be fined as well. That'll teach parents to think twice before letting their kid out into public.

[Relic]

President Nevik, on Jul 22 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

She was working multiple jobs because she was poor, because of this she lacked the time to prepare a proper meal for her child so she would bring home fast food instead. She was also unable to monitor what her child was eating because she was working so often, and, as a result, he became obese. In my opinion the state should address the problems of poverty and ensure children get good, healthy meals at school instead of punishing this woman for being poor.

I'm going to go out on a line and say that even eating 3 fast food meals a day there is still something seriously wrong with a child being 550 pounds (Five Hundred and Fifty pounds). The child's body is now in serious distress, his obesity will harm haunt him for the rest of his life (which albeit I don't expect to be very long). Yes, the issue of poverty needs to be addressed, yes, the child should receive a healthy meal at school, but remember, that is only one meal (Lunch) and the parent needs to be responsible for the over two (and the general welfare of the child).

[Rebel Virginia]

I don't like this. Health Nazis are taking over. As soon as you know even if your kid is slightly unhealthy, say maybe a few pounds overweight, the government will take him away to be raised by the state. Feed him anything other than "health foods".....neglect! State takes the kid. And then we got armies of health nuts and its fascism all over again in this country. But of course, that's what you liberals wanted all along, because Obama can do no wrong. Right? Bah. I won't stand for this.

[Relic]

Rebel Virginia, on Jul 22 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

I don't like this. Health Nazis are taking over. As soon as you know even if your kid is slightly unhealthy, say maybe a few pounds overweight, the government will take him away to be raised by the state. Feed him anything other than "health foods".....neglect! State takes the kid. And then we got armies of health nuts and its fascism all over again in this country. But of course, that's what you liberals wanted all along, because Obama can do no wrong. Right? Bah. I won't stand for this.

Are you being sarcastic? Or are you failing to realize the difference between 4 ounces overweight and 400 pounds overweight?

Do you understand how much stress that 400 pounds would put on the heart? Can you fathom the damage to his joints and back?

[President Nevik]

Relic, on Jul 22 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

Yes, the issue of poverty needs to be addressed, yes, the child should receive a healthy meal at school, but remember, that is only one meal (Lunch) and the parent needs to be responsible for the over two (and the general welfare of the child).

I'm not sure of the situation in their school district, but I know there are some schools that provide breakfast as well as lunch where I live. Yes, the mother is responsible for the general welfare of the child, but it is hard to monitor what your child is doing when you are working several shifts a day to keep a roof over your heads.

And, RV, I fail to see what President Obama has to do with a decision of the State of South Carolina.

[Sunake]

I don't like this, but the kid was in an unhealthy environment.

[SoxNation]

Rebel Virginia, on Jul 22 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

I don't like this. Health Nazis are taking over. As soon as you know even if your kid is slightly unhealthy, say maybe a few pounds overweight, the government will take him away to be raised by the state. Feed him anything other than "health foods".....neglect! State takes the kid. And then we got armies of health nuts and its fascism all over again in this country. But of course, that's what you liberals wanted all along, because Obama can do no wrong. Right? Bah. I won't stand for this.

is it a health nazi if a parent is not feeding their child and letting them starve? Or be emaciated? Over feeding is just as dangerous.

I don't like government interfering in kids lives, but parents need to be held responsible. not holding them responsible is eliminating personal responsibility, something I believe you and I are for.

[Sunake]

SoxNation, on Jul 22 2009, 05:49 PM, said:

is it a health nazi if a parent is not feeding their child and letting them starve? Or be emaciated? Over feeding is just as dangerous.

I don't like government interfering in kids lives, but parents need to be held responsible. not holding them responsible is eliminating personal responsibility, something I believe you and I are for.

The woman was poor. She had to work several jobs to be able to stay in their home, let alone buy quality food. And with all the time spend on the job, she didn't have the time to fix a quality meal. While there certainly are more healthy choices at fast food restaurants, they too are a bit more expensive than the more unhealthy items.

[Emperor Stranger]

President Nevik, on Jul 22 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

She was working multiple jobs because she was poor, because of this she lacked the time to prepare a proper meal for her child so she would bring home fast food instead. She was also unable to monitor what her child was eating because she was working so often, and, as a result, he became obese. In my opinion the state should address the problems of poverty and ensure children get good, healthy meals at school instead of punishing this woman for being poor.

We are blaming this on poverty now. Should we arrest anyone with children who are considered poor? They might not be able to take proper care of them, after all. And by 14, you should be able to decide to, you know, go outside and get some exercise once a year.

The average teen needs about 3,500 calories a day. Assuming he was on a 4,000 calories diet, he could still find the time to get outside and burn most of the calories off. My suggestion is that we delve into his schedule and see if it was more because he was lazy as hell, or if it was his mom's inability to cook a home-cooked meal.

[SoxNation]

Sunake, on Jul 22 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

The woman was poor. She had to work several jobs to be able to stay in their home, let alone buy quality food. And with all the time spend on the job, she didn't have the time to fix a quality meal. While there certainly are more healthy choices at fast food restaurants, they too are a bit more expensive than the more unhealthy items.

there isn't much healthy at a fast food restaurant period. Actually fast food is typically more expensive than healthier alternatives at home. A child of this age can't be taught to make some salad?