A recent story from Cleveland, Ohio has set off a firestorm of “Nanny State” alarms in the hearts and minds of thinking Americans who sincerely believe that government is improperly encroaching into matters best left in the hands of adult parents.
At issue is a Cleveland third-grader who tips the scales at over 200 pounds and, as a result, suffers health problems which accrue to the morbidly obese.
As reported at the Reference, in part:
A Cleveland third grader who weighed more than 200 pounds was taken from his mother after officials reportedly said she did not do enough to help the boy, who suffered from a weight-related health issue, to lose weight.
“They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don’t love my child,” the boy’s mother, who was not identified, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “It’s a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying.”
Officials first became aware of the boy’s weight after his mother took him to the hospital last year while he was having breathing problems, the newspaper reported. The child was diagnosed with sleep apnea and began to be monitored by social workers while he was enrolled in a program called “Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight” at the Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital.
The boy lost a few pounds, but recently began to gain some back, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. At that point, the Department of Children and Family Services asked a juvenile court for custody of the boy, citing his soaring weight as a form of medical neglect, according to the newspaper.
Taking obese children from their families has become a topic of intense debate over the past year after one high-profile pediatric obesity expert made controversial comments in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocating the practice in acute cases.”
Intense debate is certainly called for, given the low-IQ knot heads generally working for government in agencies such as CPS.
However, the issue has broader applications. For instance, should children residing in homes run by extreme liberals be removed from such environments for the safety of children and society as a while?
An innocent child (or grandchild) being raised by, say, Nancy Pelosi could be subjected to illogical and dangerous concepts which could wreak havoc on her/his ability to function normally and live a normal life.
Example: A child raised by Nancy Pelosi might see nothing immoral or illogical about slaughtering 50 million innocent, defenseless, unborn babies, but would quake at the notion of delivering justice to a serial killer via a lethal injunction with an instrument no more painful than a flu shot.
Should any child be forced to live in a home where such idiocy is taught as “Catholic” doctrine?
Another exampler: A young boy raised by a leftist whack-job like Barney Frank could end up loathing girls while loving other little boys. That could ultimately result in extreme anti-social behavior, and unnecessary exposure to all sorts of awkward moments, perhaps even including embarrassing disease.
Why not move the little tyke beyond Barney’s reach and into a home where traditional male-female relationships are respected and exalted?
Another example: A brat raised by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano might grow up with the mistaken notion that “Borders are for sissies!” and other leftist pap typical of Napolitano’s cavalier disregard for the harm and pain inflicted on law-abiding citizens by illegal aliens from south of our borders.
Therefore, a child raised by Big Sis might feel justified in breaking into a neighbor’s home and stealing the biggest, most attractive gifts from under the Christmas tree under the guise of being an Undocumented, Newly-Arrived Refugee from a less wealthy part of town.
What sort of society would we have if 20 million brats acted out on that fantasy come December 24?
My rhetorical questions are obviously meant to lead the reader into concluding that, in each instance cited, the child and society would be better off if the child were removed from the overly-liberal environment.
The only knot in my logic: Just whom should custody be granted to, given the fact that all state-run institutions are corrupt and incompetent hell holes?