Gary Stocklaufer Duped Us
BRB still in effect, I swear.
But you remember Gary Stocklaufer, right? The fat man who was denied adoption rights because of his size? And then had free WLS done to keep the child?
Turns out it wasn't due to his size at all, but because he missed a key meeting.
Instead, [Circuit Judge] O’Malley said, the Stocklaufers were rejected as adoptive parents because they failed to obtain a court order before bringing Max into Missouri for adoption and that an investigation hadn’t been completed, as state law requires. O’Malley even pointed out that, in 2000, the Stocklaufers were allowed to adopt their current child when Gary Stocklaufer’s weight was substantially the same.
As we pointed out, and as most places pointed out, which helped us question just what was going on.
Shame on Stocklaufer. For shame. Incidents like this are speed bumps that weaken our cause because there actually are children being removed from their homes because of their size, and people are being denied adoption rights because they're fat.
On the plus side, Judge O'Malley ruling stated, “Missouri courts base decisions on the weight of the evidence, not the weight of the litigants." That's a huge, positive thing to come out of this.
[Thanks, Wanderer.]
And to think that I almost sent this guy money for his legal battle, and that I didn't only because I was so very short myself. What a terrible thing to fool people about.
Makes me wonder if the hospital and doctors who did the free surgery are going to try and charge him for it now, since he got it under false pretenses. Don't these people realize what kind of criminal charges they're leaving themselves open for when they do this shit? Not to mention how that kind of fraud will look to the judge who is in charge of the adoption hearings. *headdesk*
it's all right to be crazy, just don't let it drive ya nuts!
Has anyone thought that this man risked LOSING HIS CHILD for free bypass surgery?
I did send his "legal defense fund" 25 bucks. Sigh. Didn't even get a thank you note.
I'm not fully convinced. Just because the judge claimed there was no weight bias (after all the negative attention) doesn't mean there wasn't any. Didn't that original story include a quote from the court appointed guardian about his risk for diabetes and sleep apnea? It seems to me that the man's weight did come into the discussion at some point. Of course it wasn't the only thing. It never is. Courts almost ALWAYS find procedural reasons for doing what they do, but that doesn't mean that prejudice didn't affect their response to the procedural violations. Sure, I wish that cases of prejudice and discrimination were neat and tidy and easily proven to be related only to the stigmatizing factor. But there are no perfect victims, and the more a movement looks for perfect victims, the more things will go unnoticed. Was the kid removed just because the man was fat? We will never know. It isn't possible to know. Was weight brought up in discussions as a potential factor in the adoption decision? It seems so. It does not seem to me that the man made that part up.
Gini, I really know what you mean. I don't know if he lied or not (and he may well have; I don't know anything about this case yet) but these prejudices run so deep and often people don't even realize they're doing it. Hell, I'm fat and even though I know better (or at least am learning better) I am still fighting those demons in my own mind (it's not healthy, joint pressure, you're not sick or hurting for any other reason but the fat, willpower and being determined is all you need to be thin, it's really just a moral failing)...how can I expect prejudiced people who loathe fat to overcome them so easily? There are so many times when I know...yes I know...that I've been disrespected and discriminated against and I know why; that doesn't mean people couldn't justify it to themselves for many many other reasons. I have doctors look at me and assume I have health problems. Now, in my case they happen to be right, but almost never do I bother to take the time to explain that the health problems preceded the fat and not the other way around...and when I try I'm generally rushed off and not listened to anyway. I've learned not to apologize or look guilty for eating, but you know what they're thinking sometimes when they look at you that way or your boss brushes you off and assumes that fat = stupid, lazy and worthless, not worth the time or effort to even glance up at when you're speaking. Judges aren't close to immune to these prejudices, and certainly social workers and social service bureaucracies are not (we know this much for an absolute fact.)
I am very sorry that he lied, if he did, because it does not help any of us. So often the discrimination is not something, like a paycheck deduction, that shows up in black and white; but is it there? Hell yes.
To be fair, yes, those comments were made by the court-appointed guardian. Thing is, the guardian has no legal standing in determining what happens; his or her comments receive no additional weight (pardon the expression) just because he's been appointed to take care of the child (which wouldn't have been necessary if Mr. Stocklaufer hadn't violated state adoption policy). It's just one fat-phobic person that the judge is free to ignore. (And did; Mr. Stocklaufer has indeed been granted custody of the new adoptee.)
Which brings us to something else: Mr. Stocklaufer was never in any danger of losing this child. As upset as the judge was by the media-baiting, he couldn't allow it to influence his decision; he could only consider the welfare of the child. Mr. Stocklaufer tried to use fat acceptance to pressure the court into giving in to his desires, then took the free WLS when it was offered.
He's a weasel, in short, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad parent.
Gini, Annie, remember: This same judge had no previous problem granting custody to this same Mr. Stocklaufer in a previous case. I think it's safe to say Mr. Stocklaufer played the media on this one.
And he certainly played the SA community, in doing so potentially damaging our cause. Though I'm encouraged by the judge's comments, I wish that the myriad adoption agencies which disbar potential adoptees on the grounds of BMI alone could be similarly open-minded about what constitutes a 'good' parent.