43 stone mother determined to become world's fattest woman

[BookstoreEscapee]

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.

I can't help but notice that her older child is only mentioned in passing. I only saw one article that even mentioned his first name (I'm guessing he has a different last name, being that he was from her first marriage). At 14 or so (doing the math), I would imagine he didn't want his name or picture associated with any of the articles on his mom. Heck, it doesn't even say if he lives with her; if he has a choice, he may very well live with his dad. I know I would if it were up to me.

[elsporko]

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

And at what point is the cut off. I don't think CPS needs to decide if 399 pounds is okay but 400 pounds is investigation time. Or maybe one pack of cigarettes every two days is okay but one pack a day warrants a search. Unless we hike up taxes so each county can hire a couple dozen more workers its unfeasible to do this many investigations.

1: Mom might fall on kid. Instant death.

That can happen between a fit parent and small child.

2: Mom is focus on food. Not kids.

Is this that much different then a mom focusing on a career?

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).

Lots of people have health issues. Health issues, even those that are preventable like smoking or working a dangerous job do not warrant an investigation.

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 haven't got any because your mom eats it all! It will be nonstop.

All families that do something that might get a kid teased need to be investigated? I don't even think you thought this point through.

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?

She funds her food eating through a website. She at least is breaking even on the endeavor.

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.

We have no idea how much work the kids do. As far as we know the boyfriend does all of that or a maid.

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.

If there was any proof of wrong doing then CPS should say hi but from the articles there isn't. At the very most we have a self centered mom who wants attention. I'm saying if we investigate her because she wants to be fat then we either have to investigate everybody in a similar situation (parents who are fat, might pay more attention to something other then their kids, and have health problems) or we have to admit she is being inspected only because she is very fat which is discrimination.


I say show some hard facts that the kids are being neglected or abused. Not a guess or inference from the circumstances. Hard fact, even a statement from a kid saying he or she is unhappy. Until then there is no reason for an investigation.

[crazylegs]

And at what point is the cut off. I don't think CPS needs to decide if 399 pounds is okay but 400 pounds is investigation time. Or maybe one pack of cigarettes every two days is okay but one pack a day warrants a search. Unless we hike up taxes so each county can hire a couple dozen more workers its unfeasible to do this many investigations.

And where exactly have I said that the number of lbs is what should be looking at? If you're going to debate with me at least have the conviction to actully debate what I'm saying - not what you think I'm debating.

In case you missed it the first time -

It is not the fact that the woman is already super morbidly obese - but the fact that she is intentionally doing harm to herself; not that she is storing long term health issues, but putting herself in immediate danger where her life is imminently at risk with no safety features built in.

Is this that much different then a mom focusing on a career

Are you honestly saying that a woman who endeavours to earn as much money in her chosen profession is as dangerous as a woman whos sole aim is to become bed ridden through her own bodily mass? A career woman does not damage their childrens relationship with food, does not selfishlly endanger herself to the extent that her condition is unequivically associated with death.

Lots of people have health issues. Health issues, even those that are preventable like smoking or working a dangerous job do not warrant an investigation

Indeed they do not. I have a dangerous job - but the job has safety features built in - and the vast overwhelming majority of people who do it go home to their family each night. Yes, some do not - but by doing my job I am not placing my family in immediate risk; this woman is placing her family in direct risk through her misguided activity.

[elsporko]

It is not the fact that the woman is already super morbidly obese - but the fact that she is intentionally doing harm to herself; not that she is storing long term health issues, but putting herself in immediate danger where her life is imminently at risk with no safety features built in.

And I keep saying that there are a million different activities that are dangerous and put health at risk none of which require children's services to investigate. OGM!!1!! you can fall off a motorcycle and die, investigate all motocycle owners for abusing their childrens!!!!11111!!!!

Are you honestly saying that a woman who endeavours to earn as much money in her chosen profession is as dangerous as a woman whos sole aim is to become bed ridden through her own bodily mass? A career woman does not damage their childrens relationship with food, does not selfishlly endanger herself to the extent that her condition is unequivically associated with death.

A career woman can easily ignore her kids, leaving them to be raised by a rotating group of nannies which can damage their ability to form emotional attachments, and endanger her health by unneedingly causing herself stress which can lead to digestive problems or even a heart attack.

Indeed they do not. I have a dangerous job - but the job has safety features built in - and the vast overwhelming majority of people who do it go home to their family each night. Yes, some do not - but by doing my job I am not placing my family in immediate risk; this woman is placing her family in direct risk through her misguided activity.

How is the family in immediate risk? Are they going to catch her fatness? Is she in danger of exploding?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, if this woman was a heroin addict rather than a food addict, that would warrant immediate investigation. Or an alcoholic. Why is it allowed for food addiction?

[Ree]

And I keep saying that there are a million different activities that are dangerous and put health at risk none of which require children's services to investigate.

I know you are being deliberately obtuse and contrary on this just to stir the debate.

You still continue to ignore that this is an extreme situation.

This is not some person choosing dangerous and risky activities just for entertainment and fun.

This is a woman with obvious mental health issues who is eating herself to death for fame and possible sexual gratification. In your quest to keep debate going, however, you aren't even acknowledging that at all.

You keep tossing out all these, "Well people get sick every day. let's call CPS on them."
"People ride motorcycles and bungee jump and do other risky stuff. Some put themselves in harm's way everyday through their jobs. Let's call CPS on them."
"A lot of people have twisted sexual fetishes. Let's call CPS on them."
"A lot of people are overweight and eat too much junk. Let's call CPS on them."
"A lot of people use nannies. Let's call CPS."
"A lot of people have messy homes or hire maids. Let's call CPS."

It's almost laughable, really.

You still fail to admit that there is an extreme situation here, and you refuse to admit that this woman is allowing her child to see her mother kill herself slowly with food. She is passing on warped and harmful views about food to her child. This woman is deliberately causing herself to become incapacitated from carrying around excess weight. She is deliberately crippling herself to the point that she probably won't even be able to pick up her child or give even the basic care.
This isn't just a simple everyday situation, no matter how much sand you want to kick over the cracks in your logic.

In the beginning, based on some of the comments you made, I thought you might work for CPS, but after seeing all those arguments you are tossing out here, it's obvious you don't work for them, or you would understand why CPS even exists, and would not be so adamant about having them called in to check out the situation just to make sure the children are not at risk.

Again...we don't know. Things may be just fine in that house.
Then again, they may not be.
When it comes to children, I would rather err on the side of caution and ensure things are fine than just sit back and assume. Instead of poking fun and laughing at the freakishly fat circus lady, I would rather see her and her family get support instead of finding out after the fact that her children suffered horribly and are emotionally scarred from the lifestyle their mother chose to live.

If that means I am overreacting, then so be it.

I make no apologies for it.

[elsporko]

I understand that it is an extreme situation, but an extreme situation by itself does not warrant an investigation. If there was proof aside from guesses then I would say go ahead. Thats why I asked for proof. A quote from a kid saying he or she is unhappy, Evidence that the mother is eating their food. Proof that the home is in disrepair (aside from the floor not being swept) Allegations from neighbors or family members or abuse or neglect.

The only evidence is that the woman is weird and people disagree with her. I disagree with people who don't believe in vaccines, believe prayer is the only acceptable method of healing, or live in isolated cabins without electricity, phones, or running water. These people certainly choose a lifestyle that has dangers for children and will affect how they think. Does that lifestyle automatically mean CPS should be involved with their lives without any other evidence of abuse or neglect?

[Ree]

You can bet, now that this has become such a public story, lots of people, especially teachers, will be watching out for signs that the child is not being cared for. They will be looking to see if the child is clean, and they will be looking at her lunches.

Since I don't know the woman personally, and don't really feel like travelling all the way to New Jersey to strike up a friendship and check it out myself, and since the newspaper obviously didn't interview the child and ask, "How does Mommy being so fat make you feel?" I don't personally have proof.

I would think having that very public story out there would be enough to make a CPS worker take notice and go looking for proof, however.
Whether it will happen or not, I don't know.

Personally, as I said, I would like to see it happen, and I still make no apologies for that, whether you feel it's a violation of her rights or not.

As I said before, just because a file gets opened and CPS makes an investigation, that doesn't mean the file stays open, nor that the person has any kind of permanent record, as long as there is nothing to show the children are at risk. (We certainly didn't when it happened to us.)

I would feel a whole lot better for that beautiful little child if someone intervened and got her mother the mental help she needs before it's too late.

[BookstoreEscapee]

At the risk of fanning the flames, here...

I would think having that very public story out there

Looks like it might get even more public...


According to the dietician quoted in the article, her BMI is 103.9. "Morbidly obese" is 40.
Also, at 12,000 calories a day, she'll reach her goal in a year.

Oh, and she has a manager.