‘An Issue of Liberty’: Judge Allows Mother of Obese Child to Move States…For Now
- Posted on June 29, 2012 at 1:59pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
The Ohio mother of an obese 9-year-old who was controversially taken away by the state for a couple months and recently returned to her decided earlier this month to move to Georgia. It was soon called into question whether the mother had the right to do so.
(Related: Should 200 lb child have been taken away from mother for ‘medical neglect’?)
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the court-appointed guardian for the boy who was 218 pounds when he was taken away from his mother last fall said the mother had stopped using medical services, including weigh-ins for the boy, when she regained custody of him. During the custody hearing, she had alluded to the fact that she would use these voluntary and free services offered to her to help with the boy’s health. The boy was down to 166 pounds by the time he left his uncle’s house where he was sent to live in December.
(Related: Ohio boy returned to parents after 50 pound weight loss)
In court, Attorney John Lawson said that the mother had promised to attend family counseling, use their free YMCA membership and maintain contact with a county worker. After not doing some of these things, the boy in his last weigh-in had gained more than nine pounds.
The ACLU attorney representing the mother, James Hardiman, said that after the last court date in May that the case was closed and the mother should have the right to move with her child where ever she pleased.
Reuters reports Hardiman saying the case “is an issue of liberty.”
“We continue to take issue with the county removing a well adjusted child from his home solely on the basis of his weight,” he said.
Judge John Hoffman Jr. in the juvenile court said that he believes as well that the court’s jurisdiction ended in May. Ultimately though, the Plain Dealer reports Judge Hoffman saying he will issue an official ruling after visiting judge David Stucki — the judge who heard earlier hearings involving the case — weighs in. If Judge Stucki finds that the mother misrepresented her intentions to use a 90-day voluntary monitoring program to help her maintain her son’s weight-loss, then the case could be reopened.
The Department of Children and Family Services told the Plain Dealer they had not been alerted of the move but that they would forward the case to the appropriate children services in Atlanta so they were aware.
Featured image via Shutterstock.
Comments (24)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 682 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 645 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 164 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 201 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 164 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
MRMANN
Posted on June 30, 2012 at 10:20amLet her keep her kid, fatten him up, maybe introducing him to some other life-shortening habits in addition to food addiction–there’re plenty of addictions out there (albeit many illegal), so if she‘s going to compromise her kid’s health with gross quantities of food, what’s to stop her from bringing in some other lethal addictions as well?
BTW how much does the mother weigh?
Report Post »9111315
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 6:35pmCancel their food stamps. I bet they loose weight then.
. . . It is not the mother who is a harm to the child . . . . it is the government who gives them money for Oreos and Pizza.
Report Post »nocommie
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 4:08pmI would strongly recommend that everyone move out of Ohio. Now that’s socialism.
Report Post »drbage
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 6:10pmWhere will you move to once Obamacare is fully implemented?
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:58pmWhat right do you have to move without permission of the supreme authorities? You are a tax payer. You are part of their revenue stream. Your job is to work as many hours as they deem necessary to fund their pensions and their salaries. You can’t just up and take your tax payment to another state.
Report Post »Tax Revolt
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:44pmWhat if she were to up and move without any notice at all? What right does the State/Government to tell her where she can and can’t live? None that is what right. These tyrannical bureaucrats are restricting her right to free movement yet she has not committed any crimes.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:16pmIf she is divorced .. they can and do .. while my ex-husband (who did not have custody) was free to move and did … and used that move to not pay any child support (and even though I “found” him they said they could not use that until he notified them where he was — insane!) .. I would have had to go to the court and ask for the same right.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:23pmmoved “out of our state”
Report Post »Ramv36
Posted on June 30, 2012 at 3:44pmCATB, something similar happened to my brother-in-law. Before him and my sister married, he was married twice before, and has two children from a previous marriage. His last ex has dual US-UK citizenship (he met her when he was stationed in the UK in the Air Force). When they divorced, they agreed upon split custody, 50/50…so she, for lack of a better tern, kidnapped their two boys and moved to England. He was told there is nothing to be done, as for purposes of child custody England has no extradition or prosecutorial treaties or agreements with England. And had he gone to get them, he could have been prosecuted in the UK for kidnapping. It’s ridiculous. He didn’t see them once from about 7/8 years old, until they were both 18 and could visit the US on their own. And of course she was getting all the English welfare state goodies being a single mother and all. It’s ludicrous.
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:42pmThe whole world seems to have lost common sense. They use to call it horse sense, and it’s what keeps a horse from walking off a cliff. SCOTUS seems to have a lack of it…
Report Post »TEIN
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:40pmYou have to have something in common with these goons to have common-sense…
Report Post »Depressed_American
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:34pmPresident Michelle Obama’s law. Our freedoms are getting taken away every day, but American’s sit on their Behinds and allow it…….
Report Post »fancynancy
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:47pmHard to fight it when those nanny-staters in congress don’t do anything and/or think it’s good for we lowly stupid citizens. The biased media reporting does not help either . Right with you though – fight them in any way we can. Keep fighting.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:17pmNovember 6th … we take back America!
MSM will be fit to be tied ;-)
Report Post »RedheadTexan
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:25pmI wish there were more specifics on this case. In all the cases I have read where they claimed the child was taken solely on the basis of weight, it was actually because of dangerous medical complications resulting from their weight and the parents refusal to take steps to save their child’s life. If a parent refuses to treat a child’s type 1 diabetes, putting them at risk of death the public demands the child be saved. If it is obeisity related type 2 do we turn a blind eye? Most of these actions are initated by doctors treating children in hospitals. If she was starving her child would it be OK for her to move to excape the supervision of the court?
Report Post »FEMALL
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:31pmYou may find this of interest:
Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions.The following is from 2 cases in 2011:
“State Attorney’s Offices – which usually prosecute crime – have intervened for minors in these cases since 1993, when the Florida Supreme Court ruled it was a conflict for hospitals to directly petition judges.
“The way I look at it, at least it creates a forum for the issues to be heard,” said Maureen Hackett, a prosecutor who handles these cases for the Palm Beach County state attorney’s office
The legal threshold for a child’s court-ordered transfusion over parental objection: “Reasonable medical certainty of imminent death.”
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-27/news/fl-transfusions-mayocol-b082811-20110827_1_transfusions-on-religious-grounds-parents-judges
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:43amfemall,
Do you know why Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to take in a blood transfusion?
There are valid medical reasons not to, and even you should not accept blood.
But that is your choice, and no one should force you to reject a blood transfusion if you want to accept one.
Learn about it. The more you know of the consequences of blood, the more you will be inclined to reject it. – Acts 15:19-20, 28-29, 21:25
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:06amThe primary reason to reject blood is not medical but is to respect and obey God’s command not to eat or drink or take in blood. This is the first and main reason why we do not accept blood transfusions.
Report Post »Leviticus 17:11-14, Deuteronomy 12:23, Genesis 9:4
AJAYW
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:11pmHells Bells didn’t I see lard a** CBC and lard A** white democrats walk out of congress yesterday. We need someone to monitor them and get their weight down. During their walk out who was the lard a** holding Nancy hand her new stud?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:08pmYou only have a little liberty left …
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:14pmnot much pretty soon they will try to monitor our daily activity 24 hours a day. big brother is watching and his name is Obama.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 2:33pmNot anymore CatB, under the now freed reigns of Obama, there will be nothing left; I have to wonder what he will unleash in quiet over the weekend now.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:19pmUnless .. they don’t let us vote November 6th .. it will be our last and I know it is our best hope.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on June 29, 2012 at 3:22pmIf not November 6th .. then 1776 II (2) .. remember King George underestimated those original rabble rousers also … LIBERTY
Report Post »