Fat kids in care

Hammer has raised an interesting issue over on his web site: in his blog post ‘Weighty Issue’ (and I can’t come up with a better pun than that), he discusses the case of a morbidly obese eight year-old boy in England who was the subject of a child protection intervention because he was not eating a healthy diet and not undertaking a reasonable program of exercise. Connor McKeown, who weighted approximately 98.8kg when he was only eight, was the subject of a child protection conference with health authorities because he refuses to eat fruit, vegetables, and will only eat processed fast foods, would become so out-of-breath he would vomit after only ten minutes of exercise, and was not receiving much in the way of support from his mother, who seems resigned to the fact that her son is the way he is. According to the BBC news article, there was talk of removing Connor from his mother’s care due to these health issues.

Initially, the idea of child protection authorities removing a kid for being too fat is laughable. Obesity is, of course, a health problem which creates risks of diabetes, heart problems, and so on – but if children were removed solely for being too fat, then the care system would be bursting at the seams. This is clearly a unique case, as young Connor’s size is affecting his ability to maintain personal hygiene, his attendance at school, and his self-esteem…but still, I just feel somewhat uncomfortable with call ing this ‘neglect’, especially since Connor does have a part to play in his own diet and it seems that the only reason he hasn’t taken on a more nutritious regime is a personal taste for junk food (and lots of it).

Maybe we should be clear on what neglect means, though. The NSW statutory child protection agency defines neglect as:

...the continued failure by a parent or caregiver to provide a child with the basic things needed for his or her proper growth and development, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical and dental care and adequate supervision. (www.community.nsw.gov.au)

Further, in NSW, neglect is incorporated into the Children & Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 in Section 23, which defines what constitutes ‘risk of harm’ to a child or young person. Under s23, children or young people who are not having their physical or psychological needs met, or are at risk of those needs not being met, are considered to be at risk of harm and could potentially be considered to be in need of care and protection (which would warrant an intensive child protection intervention). Neglect is a nebulous concept which is difficult for workers to incorporate into coherent portraits of risk-of-harm, because the range of behaviours, types of harm, and risk factors can be so broad and varied – but, technically, Connor would fall into this category, and would be considered to be at risk of harm.

However, while it may be fair to have grave concerns that this boy is eating himself to death, I find it hard to see why child protection authorities were threatening to remove him from his mother’s care. In the article, Ms McKeown does seem to be somewhat resigned to her son having a weight problem and being fixated on junk food (“I’ve got to give him the food he likes,” she says), which is certainly a concern. But, she also states that she is confident she can get his weight down with some support. To start touting removal – which is, at least, what the BBC article is implying was going on – is a fairly gross misuse of the legislative power to remove children. It would be far better to put in a lot of support for the mother and Connor to increase their likelihood of successfully getting his weight down to a more healthy level. After all, mother-blame (where the child protection authorities burden the mother of a family for problems when there are clearly other parties who share responsibility) should be avoided in this case, where Connor is of an age where he has some input into his diet and (probably) has the intelligence to comprehend the consequences his eating choices have on his physical and psychological well-being.

As Hammer said, the bandying-about of removal was probably more to get Connor’s mother into gear so her son could lose some weight and save his life. It may be effective, but talking seriously about removal should only occur when it’s an actual possibility. I noted on Hammer’s blog comments that I think the social workers would have trouble justifying this to a Children’s Court, and I maintain that would probably be the case. If there was to be court action, it would likely take the form of a registered case plan to provide support to the family, not placing Connor in the foster care system.

I started writing this post as a former fat kid and still-sort-of-fat adult, in response to the idea of fat kids being a child protection concern. Now, I think I am more provoked by the irresponsible talk of removing this kid. What do you think?