Another Fat Person Denied Adoption Rights

I saw this on CNN the other day and I was struck by the fact that CNN actually handled it well. I know the situation is horrible, but for once, they didn't scream about the zombie fat. The family seems like a very loving one and perfect for the child, why wouldn't they let him adopt!! I am so sick of this!!

This is absolutely horrifying. This is why we must advocate size/weight being included as protected categories in anti-discrimination laws.

Couldn't possibly let a fat person adopt, the child might 'catch' that horrible contagious obesity disease

I too am thoroughly sick of this, especially when you consider that in the UK being just a couple of points above the 'acceptable' cutoff of the BMI scale (25) is enough to see you judged unfit and deemed an unsuitable parent.

I so wish there was legal recourse in these cases but of course the judges and magistrates have all been as brainwashed by the cultural fatphobia as the medical profession and social workers, so we have no allies there either.

Ultimately it frightens me where this trend will eventually take us - today people are being denied adoption rights, soon we'll be having our own children removed by Social Services even if they're not themselves fat - and what then, compulsory sterilisation... or WLS?

As well as being steaming mad about yet another case of OMG TEH FAT!!!! crushing common sense, I also find the idea that just because you might have a health problem sometime in the future you're not fit to be a parent really, really insulting, patronising, and just plain wrong. There are already millions of people out there in the world who have diabetes of either type, sleep apnea, etc, who are parents. People with all kinds of disabilities and health conditions, permanent or temporary, are parents. But that doesn't necessarily mean their parenting skills are diminished because they have to inject insulin or use a walking cane or whatever. Should a doctor have to report to Social Services every time they diagnose a parent with a medical condition? Because that's the line of reasoning here.

I can understand the idea to give adopted children parents who have reasonable life expectancy so they're not orphaned again, but there are no guarantees - and even the CDC's own data shows that "normal" weight people have a lowered life expectancy compared to "overweight", and "obese" people have the same as "normal".

Also, sleep apnea, if treated, is extremely unlikely to have any impact on your parenting abilities. How does wearing a CPAP mask or mandibular splint (AKA a mouthguard!) when you sleep have any effect on your children? Does this guy think you have to wear one all the time or something?? A little girl I knew whose dad wore a CPAP mask thought it was pretty cool that her dad got to be Darth Vader when he went to bed!

So a fat man can't adopt his nephew, but priests can still hang out with alter boys. COME ON! What the hell is going on in the court systems? What's next? Are they going to say fat people can't have babys? I feel like this is becoming more like a hate issue where they're making it legal to deny fat people any and all rights. It scares the crap out of me.

I don’t understand this logic. Fat equals bad parent? I mean with all the kids who are abandoned and neglected why would anyone deny them the right to be taken in by a caring loving adult. If my sister had some unfortunate accident and we get her children, the court can deny them the right to live with their loving aunt and uncle because we are fat? The quality of the care given to the child is all that should matter. I agree with Creeloo, even an unhealthy parent can be a good one. I have diabetes but that still means I can be a great parent to my child for at least another 20 years. Any child could lose their parent in an instant. No one can predict the future. It is what we do with the moments we do have that make the difference.
Am I do understand that the government can deny people the joys of being a parent jus because they are unhealthy, have a different sexual orientation, race, religion or worse don't meet some aesthetic standard? NO we should deny someone's right to be a parent when they abuse, neglect, or harm a child and for no other reasons. The sad thing is the court can't even do this, so why are they wasting time with loving caring people.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am really getting scared by the society we are living in.

I'm from KC. The only Stocklaufer listed in the KC phone book is a "P. Stocklaufer," with no address information provided. This person has changed his or her number, or for some other reason the number is no longer in service.

This is on the KMBC News website:

A fund has been set up to help the Stocklaufer family with legal fees. Donations can be sent to:

Gary Stocklaufer Fund
Commerce Bank
17601 E. Highway 24
Independence, MO 64056

I plan to send a donation along with a card letting the Stocklaufers know that this discussion is happening, and suggesting that they get in touch with Paul.

Oh, a line in the KMBC article that is cause for alarm:

"Meanwhile, several doctors have come forward to offer free gastric bypass surgery to Stocklaufer as a way to help him lose weight."

Ack.

I don’t understand this logic. Fat equals bad parent?

I don't even think it's that straightforward. I mean, it would appear that he's already demonstrated that by ANY measure he's an exemplary parent, the frightening thing is that clearly the courts couldn't care less about any of that. The issue I think is that in the minds of those who matter, fat equals bad EXAMPLE - and that feeds into all the usual negative assumptions about lifestyle habits, blame, morality etc etc.

I can't comment on the situation in the US, but over here it's common knowledge that there are hundreds of children and teenagers being effectively left to rot in failing, dehumanising local authority 'care' due to a chronic shortage of adoptive parents. According to a recent BBC investigation most (about 70%) are literally thrown out onto the streets at 16 immensely damaged and traumatised with no qualifications and few prospects beyond a life of prison, alcohol / drug abuse and homelessness. I would just love to know on what freaking planet this scandalous situation is considered a better outcome than placing them with a loving parent who for whatever reason happens not to conform to society's dumb weight limits. And it's my understanding that if anything British social services operate even stricter BMI limits that their US counterparts.

And this weird 'logic' that people who are 'unhealthy' ie have diabetes etc are not fit to be parents throws up a whole load of questions. The 'FAQ' pages of various adoption agencies claim that a long-term illness or disability would not necessarily rule one out of adopting, and yet there seem to be few exceptions to the weight standards. I can only wonder whether a thin person with diabetes would be so harshly judged as a fat one who is no doubt held responsible for their condition - once again out come the wagging fingers and lazy stereotypes.

With this growing health fascism and obsession with 'healthy' lifestyles I can see a time when the dystopia portrayed by the film Gattaca, (where any condition regardless of how minor is judged to be a potential risk disqualifying one from jobs, insurance and basically being a full member of society) doesn't appear so far-fetched.

This has nothing to do with child welfare, it's all about hate and another perfectly legal attack on the rights of bigger people, which is why cases like this always leave me seething.

I am definetely giving some money for this cause and encouraging others to do so. We have to fight this right off.

I can see the anti-obesity slogan, "If you're kid is fat, you're not fit. If you're fat, you're not fit."

Here's my take on this: The judge's decision is so thinly supported ("this man... may develop diabetes or sleep apnea") as to seem downright stupid--even to CNN. The whole thing seems fishy to me, and my instinct tells me that this judge is just another classist (like a racist, but hates working/lower/poor classes) who's fishing around for a rationale for his prejudice. Paul Campos, in The Obesity Myth, talks at length about the connection between fat hatred and racism and classism. (There are more overweight people among darker skinned populations and poorer populations, proportionately, than among white and middle and upper class populations. Stereotypes of fat people often depict "poor white trash" or people of color who eat mountains of greasy food and don't know anything about nutrition. And, of course, modern people who are wealthy show off the fact that they can afford to starve themselves.) Does this make sense to anyone else?

They recently awarded full custody of a 5 year-old girl here in CT to the father . It didn't matter that he has a rap sheet a mile long. Just last weekend, he and a pal robbed, tortured and killed three members of a local family while still on parole. But I guess the judicial system thinks it's all right for an ex-con out on parole for the umpteenth time to raise an impressionable young child than it is for a fat person.

I wonder how many miles Gary Stocklaufer drives every year, and how that translates to his risk of being injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Shouldn't we start denying adoptions to people on the grounds that they may be in a car accident? I mean, people do live, even with severe injury, after car accidents, much as millions of people live every day -- live for many years, in fact, happily and productively and, gasp, healthily! -- with diabetes and sleep apnea.

We should definitely deny adoptions to people who willingly work dangerous jobs. Police officer? Firefighter? Cab driver? Miner? Anyone in the extreme ends of the occupational safety ratings should never be entrusted with a child.

Much like the activists in Washington State who tried to get a measure on the ballot to dissolve marriages that did not produce children within 3 years (to counter the state supreme court's contention that marriage is about children which was used as a basis to deny marriage equality to LGBT people) I think that we need to get activist about this. No more adoptions by anyone who may, in any quantifiable way, become ill, become incapacitated or die because of their "lifestyle" choices. If fat is dangerous, than so is chasing criminals or driving a delivery truck.

Make the adoption agencies and government paper pushers and idiot judges put their money where their mouths are.

That's outright bigotry. I have to wonder, are they now going to start intrusive dna testing for all adoptive parents, just in case they may develop something in the future? What about women like me whose mothers had breast cancer and died from it? Or just the fat ones?

I think it's absolutely horrible the kind of bigotry that is going on.

I think it's time for us to go look up the word "eugenics" and remember its lessons. In their time, the eugenicists weren't the mean, hate-filled, racist bigots we remember them as - they were just concerned (and scholarly!) people looking out for society's best interest through forced sterilizations, segregation, and the acceptance of the idea that some people were - well, let's just say it: Some people were just a bit less human than others, and thus not worthy of / in need of basic human rights and necessities.

pjrichardson, I totally agree with you!

Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect maybe this judge has some mental issues going on here? Maybe split personality. One personality, not a bigot, approved an adoption for the guy. The other personality didn't.