Turned down for adoption on basis of BMI

I honestly think it depends. I know that when we looked at adoption we were warned that if they thought my BMI was too high then I would have to meet with a doctor to discuss eating plans and exercise regimes and my BMI was 40 at the time. I was happy enough with that though as I have a medical condition and I also eat very healthily and exercise. I've since lost a stone and a half though, so it may well not be an issue any more for me.

I don't think it should just be a blanket ban on people who are obese, it should be taken on a case by case basis. I know that they have now banned people who smoke from adopting under 5's, so I think the next thing will be banning people who smoke from adopting. There are many criteria though that you can be denied on, for example, some councils only seem to accept people who have their own home. We were told that if we wanted to adopt an under 5, then one of us would either have to give up work, or go part time, but we would have to take the full year off. So I don't think BMI is the only thing they look at.

Actually though, it's not always true that there are too many adopters for children. When we were going through it, we were told that there are a lot of people who wanted to adopt under 5's, but very few want to adopt older children and sibling groups, so they were desperate for those who would.

I'd hope the point the adoption people are trying to get across is that they are concerned about the would-be adopter's health and any adverse impact it would have on the child. I totally disagree with him when he says that he is "healthy but overweight". Overweight is not healthy.

It is different from people producing children naturally - I think adoption agencies have a duty to place children in the best possible long-term environment. And is placing a child with a parent who will have chronic health problems because of his weight really in the child's best interest? It's got nothing to do with their parenting abilities.

Simply loosing some weight isnt always as easy as you have seem to have suggested. I am very over weight and have been trying to loose weight for 3 years, its just not happening, I have been sticking (mostly) to a diet and even started excercising (although damaged my knee and havent got re started yet). I have other medical issues that mean loosing weight is very very difficult. I accept that not everyone would be in this situation but I think that a blanket ban on adoption for BMI reasons is pathetic, its not that a larger person cant have a baby naturally if they are able so why should they not be able to adopt.

I can see why in some cases it wouldnt be ideal, and think it should be on a case by case basis (but then adoption generally is anyway)

So taking that to a conclusion from what you are saying, would you ban fat people having kids naturally? Because its along the same line IMO

No - I distinctly said it's different from people producing children naturally. You can't stop people having children naturally for whatever reasons, nor am I suggesting that you should, but in the case of adoption the agencies absolutely must find the best solution possible.

For IVF and other assisted conception methods, there are frequently BMI limits, based on the lower success rates with obese and overweight parents. To be brutally honest, would you consider placing a child with a parent who is statistically likely to have serious health complications and to die younger than an alternative parent, all other things being equal?

I think it's utterly ridiculous. My BMI is circa 28.9 which puts me at the upper end of the 'overweight' category bordering on 'obese' yet I am still capable of completing the BA's BFT within norms.....

But feck figures, they're not the point. It's a ridiculous criteria.

But then if we are talking about possible long term health problems, surely that could include any number of conditions? Should we ban people who have had cancer, or who have diabetes from adopting, or more controversially, people who smoke and may long term wind up with something life threatening? All of these people could arguably have potential long term health problems that could affect a child.

Perhaps, instead of putting this man's application on hold, they could request that he sees a dietician and then he can provide proof that he is trying to lose weight? My understanding (from what I have read) about them turning down obese people was more the idea that they child could then become obese because of diet and exercise issues rather than the chance of long term health problems, as my council were very wary about being accused of discrimination against those with genuine health issues.

But there isnt any guarentee that a less overweight or normal weighted person will have no serious health problems in the future. I dont think that its a reason that someone shoudnt adopt. There are loads of children in care that no one is adopting surely a best thing for them is to at least have a chance at a family even if they are fat?

Seraphina - there are BMI limits on the NHS, but from my experience, if you go private, they don't care about your BMI. As I said, I had a BMI of 40, but there were plenty of people there with BMI's of 43+ and my consultant was very open about that. The NHS refuse to treat people with high BMI's as it makes treatment less likely to work, not because they wouldn't be good parents, or would have long term health problems (well, also because they have to have limits somewhere for funding reasons)

I do see what you are saying, but then it does come down to all things being equal really. You will never find two families with exactly the same in all boxes. My experience is if you want to adopt an older child or a sibling group, they don't care as much about criteria. But, what if there is a couple where one person is obese, but they are also financially secure, one of them could stay at home full time with the child and they own their own home. The other couple is renting, one partner could only go part time and take six months leave, but both are in peak health. In my experience, the first couple would be more their ideal adopters.

I could place on the table that certain ethnic groups have markedly shorter life expectancies than others.

Would it be acceptable to deny (say) Travellers (85% die before 65) the right to adopt?

I do think it seems to get a bit silly with how fussy some boards/trusts/regions are getting. I understand the logic especially if their are shortages (are there?) but surely BMI is just one of many things indicative of how healthy/unhealthy people are? Also while obviously lots of people with high BMI are overweight and unhealthy I don't think it's fair to generalise and say that they all must be as some may be very muscular for example, or just generally quite fit but larger. What will they do next, a krypton factor stylee assault course for potential parents?

I do hope stuff like this is done on a case by case basis as I'd hate to think that totally healthy, healthy BMI but nobber type people are automatilcally being picked over sensible, caring overweight people.

Fwiw, my parents have adopted and at the time they would have signed up for it they would probably hav ebeen overweight an done of them smoked. Has it done me/my adopted siblings any harm? Not that I've noticed.

Zoe, I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. I would imagine they take all health problems into account, and being morbidly obese is a health problem in my book.

why is that ONE?

and i dont know really - i see what you are saying but it feels different

i think it is fair enough to make that decision regarding this couple - it troubles me that they say they knew going into it that his weight would be an issue - and yet they didnt address it - to me that shows a lack of committment to the process

and it is hardly as though they are asking him to get down to a bmi of 23 and get a six pack

i know that anyone can get pregnant and that is fine (well - actually not that fine but i dont think i want to get into that again ?)

but these children have already had a rough start - they should get the absolute best chance going forward

you cant ignore that there is a risk to their health growing up in an enviroment where there looks to be a pretty unhealthy lifestyle

I don't agree with a blanket ban. Of course obese people can be good parents (well I should bloody well hope so, since I have 2 children and have a BMI lower, but not vastly lower, than this guy). However I do agree with Seraphina in that local authorities have a duty of care to the children in terms of who they place them with for adoption. I don't agree weight should be a criterion for determining whether someone would make a good parent, but as others have said their weight statistically makes them more likely to get a whole host of health problems, that could leave the child either without one of his/her parents, or as a carer themselves. And yes I know these things can happen anyway, and they're not good enough reasons for people not to have children naturally.

Also, if someone has got to that stage of obesity, then chances are they do not have a healthy relationship with food, and therefore the children could easily end up the same way, with the same risk of associated health problems. However perhaps requiring them to attend some sort of healthy eating course/exercise classes to help them lose some weight would be better than a blanket ban.

Same as smokers, I don't agree with a blanket ban there either. God almighty I bet if some of the poor children that end up being put up for adoption had had to worry about was their parents smoking they would feel very lucky (given the reasons many children end up in care). But again it is something that can cause health problems to the parents as well as the child and so cannot be ignored by the authorities, so again something like smoking cessation classes or at the very least ensuring the child is looked after in a smoke free home would seem reasonable measures

Lifestyle. I think something like 20% of all traveller deaths are related to road accidents. Alcohol abuse is also more prominent.... But (unscientific) I just think a 'hard life' plays a part.

First & foremost I think I need to say that I don't believe having children is a 'right', be it by natural means, IVF (or similar) or adoption but equally I'm sceptical, to say the least about issues such as this where, and you can argue this point as much as you like, basically middle class liberals decide which people are 'worthy' and which aren't, based upon their (IMO) narrow view of what constitutes 'quality of life'.

The 'middle class liberal' generalisation is based upon those who are naturally attracted to social work. I'll admit it's being slightly narrow in view, but would be willing to stand upon the fact that the majority of those in a position to make such decisions would meet that stereotype.

Im not saying it isnt a health problem, but you can't know what health problems will occur to overwise healthy people in the future.

This isn't a new thing, I think I remember Dawn French saying she had to slim down before she could be considered for adoption, which she did and once they had a child she was back up to her original size

Personally I think they should be making it easier for people to adopt not putting more barriers in the way

No, but you sure as hell can identify factors that predispose to developing health problems in the future.

That's true, you don't know what health problems people who are currently healthy will have in the future. But you can bet that this guy will have health problems, and that's why this family might not be the best adoptive parents .

And as for people with other, non-weight related chronic health problems. It's one thing dealing with a family where someoe has developed a chronic condition, you deal with it as best you can. But deliberately placing a child with a parent that has known serious long term health problems is not an optimal scenario in my book, no matter how good the potential adoptive parents may be.

What do you think about other conditions though that could lead to chronic health problems in the future, such as smoking, or people who have maybe had a heart attack, cancer, mild stroke etc? Would you also feel the same about them adopting? What about the disabled?

I'm not trying to pick a fight about any of these things, I am honestly just wondering if people feel a bit more about the obesity side of things as it is considered by a lot of people to be self inflicted and the attitude is that people could just lose weight?

There are several different issues here:

1) Are you assessing someone's fitness to be a parent now, or their risk or dying early?

2) If the second, then a full medical assessment would also include family history, cholesterol, blood pressure, and ongoing medical problems etc. It would then be a statistical game, much like buying your car insurance. (As a man living in the North of England who used to smoke and is overweight, your premium is.... uhoh, you don't get a baby)

However, the difference between BMI and, say, ethnicity is that it is modifiable. To what extent, how and over what time scale isdebatable, but it is not a fixed factor over which you have no control.

It may be the impetus needed for some people to change their lifestyle, in the way that being turned down for IVF often is.

It does feel wrong though.

I really feel strongly that health shouldnt be a predominant reason for not allowing someone to adopt. If they arent suitable parents then fine, but I would imagine most children would rather have had some parents than have lived in care all their lives. If there are people interested that are a better choice then fine, but often especially with older children there arent.

Smoking - I think there already "rules" about placing an adoptive child with a smoker. But yes, I probably would like to see someone quit smoking before starting the adoption process. Is it really that much to ask? Like someone else said, it does demonstrate a committment to the process

Other health problems eg stroke, heart attack: Honestly, my gut feeling is that yes, these issues seriously need to be considered. Given that people who are looking at adoption tend to be in there 30's/40's (I assume?) then health problems such as those at a compartively young age would worry me.

I'm not saying that people in the above situations should be blanket-excluded from adoption, but it needs to be looked at very seriously.

Which is why it is vital to have guidelines - preferbaly national - to prevent one person - liberal or otherwise - having the power and using their own prejudices and judgements to make that life changing decision.

Thanks Seraphina.

Actually, I am pretty sure that the medical would cover things like this anyway, not just BMI and any concerns would be flagged to the panel.

This chap isn't just overweight, he is morbidly obese. His condition is life-threatening and he could die in the near future. The need to protect the child comes above the wishes of the adoptive parents. Children waiting for adoption often have suffered major traumas, may have lost one or both parents and frequently have difficulty forming attachments as they have normally been moved around from pillar to post. IMO it would be wrong of them to place a child with any family knowing full well that one parent may well drop dead at any moment. That kind of further trauma could have a devasting effect on the adopted child - could well be the last straw for them, bearing in mind they will have already suffered greatly in their young life.

Clarry-Love

interesting discussion.

I am an adoptive parent and I am overweight. Yes BMI is covered in a full medical but it is considered by the medical advisor alongside your other health history, the notes supplied by your GP and the answers you give to various health questions that are asked as part of the 'Home Study' process. Panel should have quite a raft of information about you and your health both past and present and predicted future (eg genetic pre-disposition) not just your BMI.

I would doubt that you could fail to be approved at panel solely for a high BMI. I would assume that you could be, if your other health info showed problems and/or you made no effort to show that you were willing to lose weight/change poor habits. They also may not have convinced their sw that they led a healthy lifestyle or they may have admitted to drinking more that recommended amounts, the GP may have stated that she he had not taken weight loss meds prescribed nor attended a clinic advised, they may have said that they didnt do exersise - who knows.

I did lose weight whilst I went through the adoption process (although not substansial amounts) but by the point I was having my medical my BMI had reduced sufficiently. As far as I can tell (my own opinion) BMI is a good indicator of a healthy lifestye and that is what an approval panel is looking for - someone who is generally fit and healthy and able to deal with the everyday physical tasks of being a parent (particularly to a child with attachment issues/attachment disorder who may be very energetic/manic and may require daily physical exercise to help them release stress).

However, it is only one criterion used to assess the suitability of a person (or persons) for adoption. Our panel seemed far more concerned about our ability to deal with stress and how we could adapt our expectations to meet the needs of a child with learning difficulties or behaviour problems.

Magenta x

but thats an oxymoron. if someone is unhealthy, then surely that makes them unsuitable parents right now, or if not right now, a high chance of them being unsuitable int he future. as mrsjess said, this is about the child, not the parents.

Indeed, only blonde haired, blue eyed people of fine physique should be allowed to adopt, or have IVF. And we shouldn't be too quick to allow non aryan conforming individuals to breed on thier own either.

Oh please. You know, when you try to be ironic you just come across as a total twat.

I'm not trying to be ironic.

I believe denying people the right to adopt based upon their body mass is post-natal eugenics.

Anyone for eugenics ?

I wonder where you draw the line. Asthma ? Epilepsy ? Previous episodes of depression ? Family history of breast cancer ?

These things are just as likely to cause you to die prematurely as obesity, I wonder if they are on the banned list.

I also wonder if obesity is simply easier to spot and some thing of a disorder "du jour" ?