Turned down for adoption on basis of BMI

i dont have any strong views one way or the other. i just wanted to use the word "oxymoron" ?

Smoothly done ! ?

I don't really care either, but I do wonder what the council's criteria list is.

I was also amused that the council concerned only gave children to those able to supply the "very best possible lifelong care", so I sincerely hope they haven't been giving children to the poor, stupid or ill-educated - surely that too would be less than the "best possible". ?

P&aP - I would imagine they do look into other aspects of the health of the would-be parents.

I don't believe it's in the best interests of any child to have a parent drop dead while they're still young - this is one area in which one can take steps to reduce the risk of that happening to the child.

I do think, though, that when it comes to adoption there are so many more people wanting to adopt than there are children (older children, sibling groups and the severely disabled/emotionallly disturbed excepted) that the agencies can pretty much put into place whatever criteria they fancy.

Magenta eloquently posted on the last page about the process of going through the medical assessment, which included questions on family history etc. I think severe asthma, epilepsy etc would have to be taken seriously, and a thorough assessment made (how often are they being hospitalised, how often are they fitting etc.)

The other point I don't think anyone has made is that being morbidly obese isn't just a risk factor for premature death, it's affecting his health, activity levels and lifestyle now, and it will affect much more than "just" causing the child to lose a parent at a young age.

The effect that a member of a family having a serious illness has on the rest of the family can be profound and lifelong.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question potential parents about their health - including BMI - as part of a much wider assessment.

Given right to adopt... I agree, see my previous post, this thread.

Why anyone should be 'unwilling' to lose weight? Different story. Jesus FUCKING H. CHRIST........

I cannot believe this thread exists.

I'm (admitedly and without apology) far to the 'right' of the majority of Hitchers, but I (genuinely) cannot believe some of the things I've read on this thread.

*shrug*

I probably shouldn't care, I'm only "overweight" by BMI, so I can probably adopt if I want... Pfffffft!....;.

Oh, come on. He's morbidly obese - is that not a problem afayac?

Soph.... I can see it as being a 'problem' in terms of how the guy has to go about living. I'm not exactly a small guy myself.

I'm concerned, and it's actually odd for me to get concerned about things that don't directly apply to me about some of the things that have been said here.

I can't believe it, really can't.

Fat people can't have children?

It's..... Christ I dunno.

I lived in a community of conflict for what, 30 years? and nobody ever persuade me that I should take a 'side'.

But I could very easily take one in the "no fat people for adoption" debate beacause i think it's intrinsically wrong, it is eugenics (albeit by default). I might me an ultra con, but i detest fascist ideology, in any shape or form and I believe that some of the comments on this thread are purely fascist.

Nobody will recieve an apology from me for opposing them.

No one's saying what?

If the couple had been capable of having children themselves, would it be "acceptable" for 'hitched' to comment on whether or not they should be having unprotected sex because they're a bit beefy?

It's the same fucking thing.

I hope (really) that you and your OH can do the family thing without having to resort to 'help'. And i hope that if you ever do need help in any form with concieving or otherwise "procuring" a child, that nobody will stand in judgement over you with relevance to your physical make up. And I MEAN that.

In'sha'Allah.

youre delusional. suggest you cut down on the jameson, seriously.

But it isn't the same thing.

No-one can do anything, and nor should they, to stock people procreating naturally if they have a larger BMI.

BUT if you are discussing placing an adopted child - possibly already having had a very diffficult start in life, with someone who has a life threatening condition THAT THEY KNOW ABOUT then IMO it isn't the right thing to do. Why would you place the child in that situation - where they potentially may suffer more loss and upheaval.

Grr I typed a long reply and hitched ate it.

Although I dont agree with ONE and his C word comment. I really do find myself agreeing with him in some respects. I can understand that it should be about the child but just cant see how it is right to use a persons weight as a measure of ability to be a parent. Should we be taking away naturally conceived children of fat people because they might die? Perhaps the subject is too close to my own heart as I am obese myself (although am doing what I can to not be and would do what I could to loose as much as possible to be able to adopt)

If I ever want to hear from you Nick I'll let you know.

Otherwise... Hey.

<Trying to ignore the bizarre & offensive over-reaction>

Being morbidly obese is not being 'a bit porky'.

The clue is in the 'morbid' bit. It is a serious, real and dangerous health condition.

That is all.

But for most people that are they arent just going to drop dead next week. They might die at an earlier age, but usually not while a child is still young and living at home.

Clearly anecdotal, but friends of my parents went through the adoption process some years ago. They were rejected for being overweight (the father) being smokers, and having dogs. I’m sure no one of these things would have put them on the reject list, but put together it does seem as if they weren’t really willing to make the lifestyle changes required to enter into such a serious commitment. Anyway despite all that the woman fell pregnant whilst they were waiting on the result. After 17 years of trying they went on to have 2 children in 5 years.

I agree with Jess- its about giving a vulnerable child the best placement, not making people parents. You can’t turn a blind eye to something glaringly obvious.

But I think that is a very real issue. He is MORBIDLY obese - meaning the danger is real. I'm not sure whether a child should be subjected to the pain of getting a "new" family but one that has the potential to lose one of the parents.

I was hoping you would come along Magenta.

As I stated, I think it's fine to take someone's BMI into account along with all other factors such as financial stability, ability to cope with stress (as Magenta said) and so on. If BMI is a concern, suggest that they approach some kind of health professional for advice on healthy eating etc and monitor their progress while going through home study - which takes rather a long time normally. From my experience, it is not usally a problem with the adoption panel, it's more social workers along the way who think it will be.

We were apparently ideal adopters, me trained in counselling, H in psychology, financially stable, owned own home, right age, me able to give up work completely, didn't smoke, didn't drink, had a car, near to parks etc, willing to adopt a sibling group. I did ask my social worker about BMI at the time and she said that she would be really shocked if we were turned down on that basis as we ticked so many other boxes* Mind you, she did ask me if it was high due to a medical condition, which it was. She told me that if along the way I could lose even a little bit of weight before we got to panel, then it would help, but BMI is looked at along with a lot of other factors.

Unfortunately, we had to drop out of the process as my H really wanted to have one more shot at having our own biological child and I didn't want to push him into it if he wasn't ready. But if this doesn't work out and even if it does, I may well go back to adoption again.

The other thing that I forgot to mention previously is that in that article it says that they don't know if there were other factors that led to them being turned down. For all we know BMI could have been one factor in a list of other things. Him refusing to even consider losing weight probably didn't help either.

*obviously providing we got through all of the home study without any issues arising

Zoe, I beg to differ.

Short term effects of obesity (pretty much directly proportional to weight):

arthritis

limited mobility

sleep apnoea

Mid term effects of obesity:

Diabetes

PCOS

infertility

DVT/PE

Heart attacks/angina

Strokes

Long term effects:

Pretty much all cancers

Dementia

etc

etc

WRT the risk of death, the reason that the 'healthy' BMI ranges are where they are is that is the weight at which you are statistically likely to live longest

Yes, many take years to develop, but all those 'mid term' diseases are very common in early middle age - I've seen type 2 diabetics in their teens even.

Just wanted to add: I'm trying as hard as I can to look at this objectively and medically rather than socially/morally. I am trying to look at it as I would an other serious health condition. So sorry if this comes across as unnecessarily shouty and offensive to anyone. I most certainly know and understand what it's like to have a weight problem (as those regulars on WL will know...).

Greatest Briton of the last century, arguably, Winston Churchill.

Check his BMI.

I still can't believe this shit.

Who the fuck decides what's 'porky' and what's 'morbidly obese'?

Here, tell you what, no kids for half of you 'cos I don't think you're fit?

Please.

This debate is disgusting.

Anyone thinking of producing babies in the immediate future please provide your BMI and that of your partner to Hitched so they can decide whether or not you're entitled to 'breed'.

Thank you.

ONickE you are massively over reacting and were incredibly rude to MrsJess, you owe her an apology. I often think you get an unecessary hard time on here but I can't believe you brought NI troubles into the discussion and frankly think you're wrong on this topic.

Anyhow, rant over. At the risk of repeating Magenta, we're in the midst of the adoption approval process (Panel date in a couple of months). The medical appraisal reviews your health as a whole. MrPod has a high BMI, not because he is overweight but he is a big man so will always be overweight in BMI terms. Given his frame and healthy lifestyle his BMI has never ever been an issue. He was however born with a heart complaint which was fixed when he was small. Despite only needing tri-annual checkups their medical officer still wants to review his notes. Their concern about an old complaint is similar to their concerns about that man's weight.

Adoption is tough, very very few people voluntarily give up their children now so the likelyhood is any child placed with adoptive parents will have had a rough start to life. To stand the best chance of recovering from that they need consistent parenting and this means a parent that will, a much as anything be guaranteed be there for them for years to come. Checking adoptive parents health is vital for social services to confirm this.

The whole process is about the welfare of the child and trying to redress the difficult start they have had not the prospective parents

Yeah thanks for the graphic reminder of why I will die young

RA - my impression was that PCOS was the reason people became obese. It was in my case seemingly. I was poker thin until I hit puberty and then ballooned and struggled with my weight despite eating well - though the only exercise I had was two hours of PE a week. Now that I am losing weight, my PCOS symptoms are easing up.

POD - I just wanted to say that I'm really pleased that you're going through the adoption side of things now and things are finally moving for you.

Im stepping away as its not going to do me any good to get further upset.

I have to say, i hadn't thought about the dying and disease as much as the fact the child is more likely to be bought up in an unhealthy environment (poor diet, lckof exercise etc..)

Whilst of course people can have children and bring them into this enviroment, I feel with adoption you're really looking for the "perfect" parent.

I am completely up for being corrected as I'm not 100% on that, hence me putting in the 'my impression' bit. ? Reading online just now it does say that no one has been able to prove either way, but all my consultants would agree that having PCOS does make losing weight much more difficult due to the whole insulin issue and also more likely to develop diabetes long term. I'm hoping that as my weight comes down, I will manage to suppress the PCOS, which normally happens anyway.

ONE this debate has obviously really upset you which is a shame, it really is. But being abusive isn't going to help.

No-one is saying people are or are not entitled to breed. What they are saying is they are reluctant to place already vulnerable children with people who have a real and very current health risk. Surely that is understandable?

Zoe, I'm sorry this has upset you.

I was answering your point that obesity only causes premature death, not immediate effects which is not true.

As I have posted, I have struggled/struggle with my weight and I am in no position to be making moral judgements (nor am I trying to), I am trying (fairly crassly, clearly) to provide a 'scientific' viewpoint.

But my point was not that it 'only causes premature death' just that its unlikely they wouold drop dead next week as it where. Anyway I just wanted to make that point but Im not going to carry on with my point of view.

Very interesting question and source of much current research.

Short answer is it seems to be a bit of both.

Fat cells change oestrogen to testosterone so the more fat cells you have the more they will convert (hence spottiness, hairiness etc - not very fun). It's also very similar to diabetes in how it seems to develop.

But while it is still a subject of some debate, there is a statistical correlation that more obese women get PCOS (which is not to say that it is necessairly the cause).

Clear as mud, then ?

Mrs Jess - I didn't take it as being narky at all, but then I'm not easily offended anyway. ?

I probably shouldn't comment on the specific story, as we all know that reporters put a spin on things for a story. But...

According to the link, the man accepts he is overweight. The wife says they have been 'flatly refused', the quotation from the letter (paraphrased) says 'we think it's more appropriate to continue once your BMI is below 40'. (currently 42)

So - they haven't been flatly refused at all, and whilst I'm not going to say losing weight is easy, going from 42 to 40 is possible.

I had to jump through hoops to have this (IVF) pregnancy. I had to sign a form for the HFEA declaring that I wasn't an alcoholic or a paedophile - before my clinic was allowed to start treatment. Nice. Other parents don't have to make a declaration to an authority that they've never abused a child...

In my view - what is the big deal? It's bloody hard to be a parent, and surely it's only harder still to be an adoptive parent. So - why can't this guy jump through a hoop, loose not a large amount of weight that he admits himself is over where he should be anyway - and then carry on with the process? If he can't cop with doing that... Oh no - let's run to the papers instead. (OK - I don't know exactly what they've done - as I say, it's a reporter's angle here)

So I'm not feeling remotely sympathetic to this couple. I didn't like declaring myself not to be an alcoholic - aside from the sheer pointlessness of it, wouldn't you just lie? - but I could see why it was asked. If we were an alcoholic couple who didn't have PCOS and did have good sperm, no-one would stop us. You want the child - jump through the hoop.

It's admirable to stand up to authority on a principle in some cases. This doesn't look like one to me, on the report shown.