43 stone mother determined to become world's fattest woman

[Ree]

If the house is bad enough to be considered neglect then that is one thing, but there is no evidence of that.
<snip>

You want CPS to be called in based only on the fact that the mother wants to be fat. You know nothing about how her home is or how she takes care of her children.

Well, since we don't know this woman personally, and all we have to go on is the news article and a few pictures, we certainly can't say for certain what condition her house is in. We can speculate, however, and use common sense and rational thinking to make an educated guess that it probably isn't in the best condition, since it's not the easiest for a woman who weighs 600 pounds or more to move around properly in order to sweep and clean, and with children in the house, it's a full time task keeping ahead of mess and clutter.

As for no evidence of that, are you looking at the same pictures I am? That kitchen floor and the legs of the table look pretty dirty, as does that couch she's sitting on. I've looked closely at the bottom left corner of the picture of her on the couch, and I swear that looks like garbage and crap shoved in under the bottom and side of the chair.

Even if I am completely wrong and you are 100% right about all of this, and you are not just taking the negative side to be contrary and stir debate as you have been known to do, what is wrong with having CPS take a look to assess the situation?
That is their job after all.

They come in, talk to the mother and get a feel for where her head is and assess whether there are mental health issues involved.
Take a look at the home and see if she is able to properly tend to her children.
Talk to her children and see what kind of toll this situation takes on them.

Then, if no findings can be made, and it's determined her excessive weight and goal to reach over 1,000 lbs is not affecting the children's welfare in any way, then they can go on their way.

I just fail to see why there is such objection to having an agency do the job for which it was created.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Well, since we don't know this woman personally, and all we have to go on is the news article and a few pictures, we certainly can't say for certain what condition her house is in. We can speculate, however, and use common sense and rational thinking to make an educated guess that it probably isn't in the best condition, since it's not the easiest for a woman who weighs 600 pounds or more to move around properly in order to sweep and clean, and with children in the house, it's a full time task keeping ahead of mess and clutter.

While the house doesn't appear to be the cleanest and the couch looks a bit threadbare, that doesn't necessarily indicate that the kids aren't taken care of. The little girl in the pictures looks to be clean and healthy. Though you never know. I don't know if the article specifies, but she has a long-term boyfriend (is he the girl's father? Being that the girl is 3 and they are long-term partners, I would assume he is); I would imagine it's likely that he also lives there so she may not be the only adult available to care for the kid.

What this woman's "life ambition" might do to her child's psychological development...who knows.

Doing the math, her older child has to be about 14-15 (says she was 27 when she got pregnant). I'm guessing he didn't want to be associated with this whole spectacle....

Can't say what DYFS (Division of Youth and Family Services - New Jersey's 'CPS') would or wouldn't do, never having had reason to deal with them myself. I can certainly see all this media coverage potentially attracting their attention, if they didn't know of the family already.

[elsporko]

Well, since we don't know this woman personally, and all we have to go on is the news article and a few pictures, we certainly can't say for certain what condition her house is in. We can speculate, however, and use common sense and rational thinking to make an educated guess that it probably isn't in the best condition, since it's not the easiest for a woman who weighs 600 pounds or more to move around properly in order to sweep and clean, and with children in the house, it's a full time task keeping ahead of mess and clutter.

That house looks fine. Its not the cleanest but I've seen worse and I don't even work in a position where I'm inspecting homes. If CPS had to inspect every home that had some crap on the floor then there wouldn't be any parents that would be spared.

Even if I am completely wrong and you are 100% right about all of this, and you are not just taking the negative side to be contrary and stir debate as you have been known to do, what is wrong with having CPS take a look to assess the situation?
That is their job after all.

Would you like the police to come to your house, tear it apart, question you, and ask your friend's and neighbors about you for no reason other then maybe you committed a crime, even though they have no evidence or reason to suspect you? A CPS investigation has a huge negative stigma, is very intrusive, and takes up alot of time. Time the CPS worker should be spending investigating cases where there is evidence of wrong doing that goes beyond "the parent is fat"

So many children fall through the cracks because the system is underfunded and workers overworked. We don't need to compound this by going after people because of their lifestyle. If theres no evidence of abuse then theres no reason to investigate.

[Ree]

Would you like the police to come to your house, tear it apart, question you, and ask your friend's and neighbors about you for no reason other then maybe you committed a crime, even though they have no evidence or reason to suspect you?

You seem to think I am advocating that they go in with guns blazing and tear the children from her arms because she's not fit to be a mother "because she's fat".
What a ridiculous interpretation of what I have been saying.

I guess it helps further the debate, though, to keep harping on that point.

I only have the Children's Aid Society in my area to go on.
Obviously the one that you seem to be employed with works quite differently than ours.

They actually did come to my home and investigate my daughter, who is a single mother. Even though I am approved and registered as a foster home and have regular inspections and visits from the agency, they still came to investigate her, based on concerns about her lifestyle. Someone obviously made a report.

Other than the person who must have called them, none of our neighbours nor her friends knew they had come to see my daughter unless my daughter chose to tell them. They didn't interview anyone, and they certainly didn't tear up our home.

They came and talked to my daughter, and observed her with her child. They made followup visits to her for a period of time until they were certain that her daughter was in a safe situation with her mother. They recommended programs to her to help her with parenting skills and even offered a grief counselling program to her because of concerns that she had never properly dealt with the death of her father.

Those were all things my daughter needed. It pissed her off that they came, but she is a lot more aware of her actions as a mother now, and how they affect her baby.

Having CPS intervention is not always a bad thing. Many people just choose to make it seem that way.

You seem to be more focused on that whole aspect of what I was trying to say because you can't seem to fight the obvious fact that a woman who is deliberately putting her life at risk by aiming to weigh over 1,000 lbs, and is currently at over 600 lbs, is obviously not a mentally stable person making rational and sane choices.

You can't fix that particular crack in the logic, so you're kicking dirt over it to divert attention away.

As for children in much more serious situations falling through the cracks because of an overworked system, that is true, but I am of the firm belief that, while you can't get to them all, even having one child that receives intervention and support to improve their environment is still a good thing.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Despite what shows like Law&Order and whatnot tend to portray, DYFS/CPS/whatever generally want to try to keep kids with their families whenever possible. They don't generally go into a home aiming to rip the kids away, unless they have proof that the kids are actually in imminent danger.

[elsporko]

You seem to think I am advocating that they go in with guns blazing and tear the children from her arms because she's not fit to be a mother "because she's fat".
What a ridiculous interpretation of what I have been saying.

I guess I'm making that ridicuslous interpretation based on the fact that the only think you know about this lady is that she is fat and you want children's services to inspect you. I should have guessed you want them to go in for the many reasons I don't know about but you apparently do but won't tell us.

You seem to be more focused on that whole aspect of what I was trying to say because you can't seem to fight the obvious fact that a woman who is deliberately putting her life at risk by aiming to weigh over 1,000 lbs, and is currently at over 600 lbs, is obviously not a mentally stable person making rational and sane choices.

Is she less sane then a person who puts their life at risk by bungee jumping or trying to climb Mount Everest? What about people who hunt dangerous game or journey to the north pole? Because she chooses a lifestyle that is different it doesn't make her mentally unstable or a bad parent.

Plus I would like you to tell me what the magical weight that makes somebody a good parent? 300 pounds? 200 pounds? A woman at 200 pounds might get tired easily and have a bad heart, lets inspect her. Who knows how much stuff she might have under her couch.

[Rapscallion]

Out of interest, does she say what she's going to do when she gets to 1000 pounds?

Lose it all? Go for 2000?

Rapscallion

[Ree]

I guess I'm making that ridicuslous interpretation based on the fact that the only think you know about this lady is that she is fat and you want children's services to inspect you.

I guess I'm basing my opinion on personal experience, having grown up in a home with a morbidly obese mother.

She wasn't as heavy as that woman, yet her extreme weight caused a great deal of problems that actually did have long term effects on me.

Our home was a mess because our mother's health suffered due to her obesity.
As children, we were forced to do cleaning if it was to get done. I wasn't even 12 years old, and I recall scrubbing floors on my hands and knees because my mother wasn't physically able to do it. I also recall burning my arm on an iron because I had to iron my own clothes since my mother wasn't able to stand for long periods due to her weight.

Her blood pressure was never fully regulated, and she was at risk of stroke numerous times, requiring hospitalization until it was under control.
Every time she was hospitalized, my siblings and I were split up and sent to various relatives' homes until she was released.

I was always in fear that my mother was never coming home from the hospital because I was sure she was going to die, and as I got older and started to learn more in school about how the body works and the effects of fat on the heart, my fears intensified.

I grew up with unhealthy attitudes about food and have fought my own battle with weight all my life.

Yeah, I realize my situation is not that woman's situation, and she doesn't appear to have the same health issues as my mother, but I believe, based on my own personal experience, that I am entitled to have those concerns for the children in this home.

While I probably wouldn't have understood Children's Aid intervention at that time, in looking back, I do believe there may have been a lot of things that would have been quite different and much better for me in the long run if there had been some kind of intervention to help us out.

Things were much different back then, and the children's services program and the laws surrounding it have improved quite a bit.
Back then, your claims about ripping the children from the home might have occurred, but now, the goal is always to keep the children in the home and make the environment there safer through education and support programs.

You are still focusing solely on the debate about whether child services need to be involved in this situation, however, and still choosing to ignore the fact that the woman is deliberately seeking a self destructive path that is jeopardizing her health and will probably result in an early death from complications.

This woman is not just "fat" or "overweight". She is seriously obese and choosing to become even more so.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that fact, though.

My reasons for feeling that there needs to be some type of intervention is purely because of the fact that the woman is actually killing herself with food.

What if she was killing herself with an alcohol or drug addiction?

Why is it more acceptable to you that her addiction of choice is food?

[crazylegs]

[Point 1]I guess I'm making that ridicuslous interpretation based on the fact that the only think you know about this lady is that she is fat and you want children's services to inspect you.
<snip>
[Point 2)Is she less sane then a person who puts their life at risk by bungee jumping or trying to climb Mount Everest? What about people who hunt dangerous game or journey to the north pole? Because she chooses a lifestyle that is different it doesn't make her mentally unstable or a bad parent.

[Point 3]Plus I would like you to tell me what the magical weight that makes somebody a good parent? 300 pounds? 200 pounds? A woman at 200 pounds might get tired easily and have a bad heart, lets inspect her. Who knows how much stuff she might have under her couch.

Point 1

What Ree is trying to say is that the woman should be spoken to by CPS - it is not the mere fact that the lady is already super morbidly obese, but her attitude towards food and her mental wellbeing (and therefore that of the child).

Point 2
Those examples are temporary, and while inherently unsafe have safety gear built into them. Furthermore they do not expose the child to unnecessary risk while in the home environment. Yes they are dangerous, but so is having a job such as EOD, diving instructors or police - but none of these jobs expose the child to danger. Having a mother who weighs 1000lb will expose the child to danger

The danger that the child will see food not as sustenance but as a sexual object.
The danger that the Mother is putting her wants before the needs of the child.
The inherent danger that is having any 1000lb animal in the house.

Point 3
There is no magical weight to be a parent - as long as you can parent; how can a woman who will be immobile by their own choice be an effective mother to such a young child?

[elsporko]

If the mother loves her children, and cares for them (lady in question has an income) then why does it matter if she is able to scrub floors, or gets somebody else to do it.

As children, we were forced to do cleaning if it was to get done. I wasn't even 12 years old, and I recall scrubbing floors on my hands and knees because my mother wasn't physically able to do it. I also recall burning my arm on an iron because I had to iron my own clothes since my mother wasn't able to stand for long periods due to her weight.

I did stuff like that as a kid as well. Its called having chores.

Her blood pressure was never fully regulated, and she was at risk of stroke numerous times, requiring hospitalization until it was under control.
Every time she was hospitalized, my siblings and I were split up and sent to various relatives' homes until she was released.

I guess parents who have regular illnesses also should be visited by children's services. They must be unfit parents if the kids have to visit relatives homes when they get sick.

You are still focusing solely on the debate about whether child services need to be involved in this situation, however, and still choosing to ignore the fact that the woman is deliberately seeking a self destructive path that is jeopardizing her health and will probably result in an early death from complications.

Just like people who smoke, don't excesise or work in certain jobs. I guess everybody who doesn't work out four times a week, eat right, and adhere to the lifestyle deemed acceptable shouldn't have children.

[BookstoreEscapee]

If the mother loves her children, and cares for them (lady in question has an income) then why does it matter if she is able to scrub floors, or gets somebody else to do it.

From the numbers cited in the article (this one or another, I'm not sure), it appears that most if not all of her website income goes to support her grocery bill addiction.

[Ree]

I did stuff like that as a kid as well. Its called having chores.

My life was not just "chores". You didn't live my life, however, so are ignorant of the circumstances that I lived that cause me concern for those children, so I will let that go.

I realize you will never be convinced that my concerns may have some merit, and the brick wall is giving me a bit of a headache, so why bother?

I guess parents who have regular illnesses also should be visited by children's services. They must be unfit parents if the kids have to visit relatives homes when they get sick.

Oooh...there's that sand kicking that you do so well.

Actually, yes, if a parent is very ill and requires constant hospitalization, having child services monitor things in the home is probably a very good idea. There is a lot of stress involved for the people in the home when a parent is chronically ill, let alone when the illness is self induced due to destructive behaviour.

Again, a few years ago, I was hospitalized for surgery for a couple of weeks and when I came home, was not able to resume my normal activities, especially with looking after my child. She was being cared for by babysitters on a daily basis until my husband got home from work to help.

Someone noticed a bruise on my daughter's back, and it was in a place that caused suspicion, so Children's Aid paid a visit.
Their concern was that the stress our family was under could have caused one of us to lash out at our child, or it could have occurred while she was under the care of a babysitter.

They investigated and closed the file. Again, I was upset at the time, but looking back, if it had panned out and our daughter was being abused by a babysitter, I would have been quite relieved and grateful that they had stepped in. (It turned out, when I was in the hospital, she had been climbing on something at my parents' house and had slipped and fallen against a door frame.)

Obviously the incident didn't affect anything since I was allowed to take in foster children by that very same agency about 12 years later.

In my own situation with my mother, however, it was actually while she was hospitalized and I was in the care of others that I was molested.

So, yeah, while that whole argument is all slightly off topic from what should actually be getting discussed, yes, if a parent is regularly hospitalized or ill, I see no problem with having an agency look in from time to time to offer support and counselling to deal with the situation.

Just like people who smoke, don't excesise or work in certain jobs. I guess everybody who doesn't work out four times a week, eat right, and adhere to the lifestyle deemed acceptable shouldn't have children.

There's that sand kicking and water muddying again.

That's not what I am saying at all.

Again, you are still refusing to acknowledge that this is not a simple case of an overweight woman not getting regular exercise and occasionally choosing the wrong foods.
You are refusing to even admit that this is a very extreme situation of a woman who is deliberately eating herself into an early grave all for the possible sexual gratification of a man, and the notoriety of being the heaviest woman in the world.

You are using everyday examples of situations to compare to it and refute any other argument that this woman has a serious problem that could kill her.

[crazylegs]

If the mother loves her children, and cares for them (lady in question has an income) then why does it matter if she is able to scrub floors, or gets somebody else to do it.

Care doesn't just include being able to buy in help. It means being able to go to your child when they fall, being able to cuddle them when they're sad and it most certainly means that you leave the child with a full and normal range of emotional boundaries.

Intentionally stopping yourself from being able to do those things (as opposed to accidentally/unintentionally, which is not the issue at hand here) should be investigated, especially when it is such an unwise choice.

[Amanita]

I've got to side with crazylegs, Ree, and those who say that there is something seriously wrong with this woman. Hell, I am overweight and eat too much junk food. But I can move around easily, do my own cleaning, and generally function as a normal human being should. If I had kids, there would be no need to have CPS investigate to make sure I was physically able to care for them.

But this woman is another animal entirely. People of that level of obesity can't move the way that many of us take for granted. And some mobility is essential for caring for a child. Even somebody in a wheelchair has more mobility than some of the massivly obese people I've heard of.

There are also the issues of feederism which have been brought up- somebody getting morbily obese in the name of sexual gratification is FAR different than eating unhealthy food sometimes.
This is NOT a typical home containing an overweight parent. This is a whole other mess entirely. There is a major difference between having reasonable, age appropriate chores, and a situation where children are forced to do virtually all the work because the parents can't or won't.

[Plaidman]

Elsporko.

What the heck man.

Why is so bad for CPS to check up on her? There are several bad things that can happen.

1: Mom might fall on kid. Instant death.

2: Mom is focus on food. Not kids.

3: People at that weight, has serious health problems. That leads to STRESS to kids. Kids who have to worry about their parents all the time, is not a good thing. Parents are suppose to take care of kids, not kids take care of parents. (At young ages. When kids are adults, then they can take care of parents like I do for my mom).

4: Kids are CRUEL. Pure and simple. You have any idea how these kids neighbors and school mates are going to do? Constant insults about their mom being fat. Or watch out, mom's going to eat you, or hey here some food. I know you havent got any because your mom eats it all! It will be nonstop.

5: All her money is going towards junkfood for herself to make herself as big as possible. What fraction of that money is going towards them? Foodwise? Clothes? Health? Books? Toys?

6: I had chores too growing up. We all did. But when you have to do all the work? All the cleaning? All the cooking? All the laundry? On top of taking care of mom and school? No time for themselves. No breaks for them. No time to be a kid, and they may even grow to resent their mom and hate her for the hell she's likely putting them through.

All we're saying, is that they should check. on. kids. Not take them away.

Hell, CPS did the same to me. Mom was a meth head. Dad was a meth head. A great big chunk of my family were drug addicts. My uncles favorite thing to do when he babysat me was to throw me by my hair across the room because it was too long, and make me and my cousin beat each other up until blood was drawn, teeth knocked out, crying, or knocked out. (At least until my grandpa found out, where he then proceeded to beat him up, and basically told him he better never do that again or else).

But besides my mom and dads faults, I had food. I had care. I had love, (When she wasn't high or passed out). I had toys. The only thing I was worried about was pissing her off. CPS saw that. They didnt know she was a drug addict. Only talked to my neighbor briefly, and that was because he talked to them and told them that he saw me smoking a ciggerette once, where then they told mom, where mom punished me.


Look, we're not saying them to go and take kids away over that she's fat, we're saying check up for any other factors.

So, seriously. Ether agree to disagree, or at least realize, that we might, just might, be right in the fact that CPS should at least say HI.