Supersized Kids

by Katherine Scardino

According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, a person who is "obese" is “well above one’s normal weight.” A person has traditionally been considered obese if he or she is more than 20% over his or her ideal weight. A morbidly obese person usually weighs twice more than he or she should or 50-500% over the ideal weight.

Morbid obesity is an unfortunate problem that is becoming worse everyday. The alarming aspect of it is that it is affecting people at a much earlier age. Young children are becoming morbidly obese and are experiencing the same health problems as middle-aged adults. This severe state of obesity is something that can be controlled and prevented, but only if parents take an active role in their child’s diet and exercise.

I began thinking about this serious problem today after reading an article in USA Today about a woman in South Carolina whose 14 year old son who weighed 550 pounds. The authorities there arrested and charged her with criminal neglect. There have been many articles written about childhood obesity being on the rise in the United States, but I have never heard of a parent being charged with a crime as a result of their child being obese. The mother in South Carolina was jailed and her son was placed in foster care. The mother insisted that she followed nutritional guidelines, but because she worked two jobs her child was able to get food from other people when she was not around.

The main case on this issue in Texas involved a woman with a child who was four years old and weighed 97 pounds, and then during the process of the case, wound up weighing 136 pounds.(In the Interest of G.C., A Minor Child, 66 SW3d 517). CPS took custody of the child and placed him in foster care, where he immediately started losing weight. After investigating, CPS filed a suit to terminate her parental rights based on medical neglect, and after a trial on this matter, the jury did just that. CPS looks at child obesity as child abuse. The ability to terminate a person’s parental title is a fundamental, constitutional right that belongs exclusively to a parent. To take that away from a citizen of the United States should require strict proof and very strong evidence against a parent.

Parents who are advised by medical doctors to decrease the caloric intake and increase activity level yet choose to disregard that medical advice do nothing but harm their child. The child becomes morbidly obese. Suppose this hypothetical child dies. Who is responsible? The legal system’s answer to this question of responsibility is that the parent is at fault when they consciously ignored the danger their child was in. Fortunately, in the South Carolina case, the State intervened before the child died.

So, why are children gaining weight? The causes for obesity and morbid obesity are identical. The most common causes are genetic factors, lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating habits, or a combination of these factors. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that only one in 100 children eats a balanced diet. Children take in fats and sugar far in excess of recommendations and add to this problem the fact that the growth of video games in the United States has helped to ensure that the average American child now spends four hours a day sitting in front of a television or a computer screen.

All of the above describes the problem that we have in our society. But, what do we do about it? Is arresting the parent responsible for feeding the child the solution? Is that even right? Parents should take action to see that their children do not literally eat themselves to death. Is there a distinction between parents of an anorexic child by the fact that the child refuses to eat anything? That child also has serious health problems.

In the fight against morbid obesity, the courts are getting involved. If parents are found to have neglected their child by consciously disregarding the medical advice provided by a doctor and their child continues to eat to the point of morbid obesity, then there are a variety of options available. Some of these options include mandated enrollment in nutrition education programs, removal of the child and placement in a temporary foster home or health facility, or in severe cases, criminal prosecution.

How would this work? First, the courts must find the parents neglectful. The Family Code outlines the rights and duties of a parent and mandates that parents see to a child’s medical needs. If a parent fails to comply with this parental duty, the CPS and the court will step in and do something - and the most severe is a termination of parental rights.

So, what are solutions? What can we do to stop this rise of childhood obesity? It is generally believed that education for children and parents of all weights and ages is necessary, but there is an imminent need to educate morbidly obese children and their parents. A health clinic located at Yale University called Bright Bodies has a program to teaches behavior modification to children and parents. In all areas, there are clinics and hospitals with the facilities to educate the parents and the children about their bodies and their health.

What about the psychological effect on the child of removal from his home? Doesn’t a child have an attachment to his parents which forms the basis of who we are as human beings and the continuity of that attachment is essential? A break in this chain between parent and child could cause fear and anxiety, and diminish the child’s sense of stability. Which situation is worse for the child?

As you can see, there is no easy solution. Is the government trying to legislate too much? Is it right to charge a parent with a crime in extreme situations where the child is grossly overweight? Does a parent have a right “as a parent” to make decisions for the child - even bad decisions?

What do you think?

Tweet

Failure to Act a Capital Crime?

by Diane Fanning

Guilty by omission. In other words, the defendant is found responsible for another person’s death by not acting quickly enough to save that life.

A fair enough charge. If someone sits by and watches while another person is clearly in medical distress, there should be a penalty.

But capital murder? Capital murder convictions, we’ve been told, are reserved for the worst of the worst—for the crimes that we all find inconceivable and horrendous. In Texas, a capital conviction means the defendant receives the death penalty or life without parole. These ultimate penalties are intended to be used for the most heinous crimes.

But a jury in Corpus Christi found Hannah Overton , the biological mother of five, guilty of capital murder for failing to act quickly enough to get medical attention for an ailing child.

That’s right, according to an in-depth investigative piece written by stellar journalist John MacCormack in the San Antonio Express News, the jury did not believe, as the prosecution alleged, that Hannah intended to harm or kill Andrew—they simply believed she took too long to get him help. The judge’s instructions led the jurors to believe they had no other choice. They did not know that their guilt by omission conviction would result in the ultimate punishment under the law.

Hannah and her husband Larry were fostering Andrew Burd and working toward his adoption. Child Protective Services claimed Andrew was a perfectly healthy child when they placed him in their home. But it simply was not true: Andrew had an unhealthy obsession with food. Not only did he gorge on foods in the refrigerator, he also ate inappropriate items.

If they left a bar of soap in the bathroom, Andrew took a bite out of it. He’d eat any food left behind in the cat’s dish. He ate toothpaste. He once broke a glow-stick and tried to eat it. Hannah and her adoption counselor were seeking help for his condition, known as pica.

The day of Andrew’s death, Hannah made Cajun stew seasoned with Zatarain’s spice. Andrew loved the hot flavoring and his insatiable appetite did not diminish after eating. In order to soothe him, Hannah sprinkled Zatarain’s into water in his sippy cup.

Soon after, Andrew exhibited symptoms of hypernatremia, sometimes caused by salt poisoning. Typically, victims are not recognized as being critically ill for an hour and a half. On the outer edge of that window of time, Hannah and Larry entered the emergency room with Andrew. They drove him in their car because they thought there was not enough time to call 9-1-1 and wait for the arrival of an ambulance.

The jury’s rejection of the prosecution’s belief in intentional poisoning made sense to Dr. Michael Moritz, an expert on salt poisoning. He arrived in Corpus Christi to testify for the defense but he was never called. He told John MacCormack, “There is no evidence of force. No salt on the body. No lacerations to his mouth. No salt crystals in his mouth or nose. . . . If you go into the literature, in every single case of alleged salt poisoning, they were kids just like him… There’s nothing to say he didn’t dump the whole damn thing of Zatarain or the salt shaker into his drink. A normal kid won’t eat it because it’s unpalatable. But this is not a normal kid. He’s having a highly stressful day. He’s a gorger. He’s got pica. And boom. He gorges it and ten minutes later, his brain is starting to shrink.”

So how did Hannah end up in such a mess?

At one point after Hannah’s arrest, Child Protective Services submitted an affidavit with a long list of child abuse allegations in the household. But that could have been a cover-up for their failure to act when Hannah requested a referral for Andrew’s pica problem. Every point was proven to have no basis in fact—all twenty accusations were shown to be false and CPS dropped the case. The employee who wrote the affidavit, no longer works for the agency.

On the forensic front, the autopsy was flawed. Although the pathologist ruled the death a homicide, he admitted on the stand that he could not be certain of his own determination. In addition, he never analyzed the contents of Andrew’s stomach or examined the microscopic sections of key organs that could have shown his underlying condition.

Further, in the trial itself, the prosecutors never called one of the witnesses on their list, including the doctor who treated Andrew, and they never disclosed to the defense the opinions they received from this doctor.

It seems as if law enforcement and the prosecution lost their way in an extreme case of tunnel vision. They could only see one possibility and refused to look at any others. The judge appeared to aid and abet their prosecutorial misconduct by instructing the jury in a way that led to a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a crime that the jury believed was committed without premeditation, without intention to harm or murder, and without malice.

Even the jury’s decision of negligence is considered unrealistic by medical experts. But even if you do agree with the jury, how could any reasonable person believe that a faulty judgment call merits total banishment from society for life?

The case is under appeal at the Texas 13th Court of Appeals—I fervently hope that common sense and justice will prevail.

Tweet