Childhood Obesity: A Form of Abuse and Neglect While the definitions of child abuse and neglect vary by state, it is generally accepted that child abuse is any non-accidental injury to a child under the age of eighteen by a parent, caretaker, household, or family member. The recent increase in the abuse inflicted upon children by teachers demonstrates that abuse can also occur outside of the home. Abuse may manifest itself in a child both physically and behaviorally as the child may be bruised and seem extremely fearful of their parents. Similarly, neglect is the chronic failure of a parent, caretaker, household, or family member to provide a child or adolescent under the age of eighteen with basic needs of life, such as: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, attention to hygiene, protection, and supervision. Recently, child advocates have widened the scope of these definitions to include childhood obesity. They have vehemently argued that childhood obesity falls within the definition of abuse as the child’s heavy weight is a non-accidental injury. The child’s weight is believed to be non-accidental as the parent is aware of the child’s harmful eating patterns and has failed to curb the child’s eating patterns to prevent further weight gain and failed to decrease their child’s weight. As neglect is the failure to provide, child advocates have proposed that childhood obesity is a form of neglect that occurs as a parent provides too much in terms of food and too little in terms of medical care for the Khattri 2 weight gain that ensues. Child advocates argue that if the parent is enabling their child by allowing them to consume in excess, they are essentially neglecting to provide their child with a reasonable amount of nutrition. Because children are usually removed for nutritional neglect in the form of undernutrition, child advocates argue that morbid obesity is another form of malnutrition. Assuming that childhood obesity is considered both a form of abuse and neglect, child protective services role is to assess the child’s condition and provide services to alleviate the cause or causes of the obesity. With the hope of preserving the family and reducing further maltreatment, child protective services role with the parents is to inform them of the results of the assessment and to integrate them into the services that are being offered to benefit the child. If these services are ineffective and the child’s condition continues to deteriorate, child protective services are able to remove the child from their home. Child protective services usually intervenes in cases where there is a high probability that the removal of the child from their home will benefit the child. Accordingly, child protective services are also called upon to intervene in cases of childhood obesity where it is evident that there is a high probability of serious and imminent harm to child. In these cases, child protective services believes that it is plausible for the child to be removed from their home. However, this approach is problematic because it directly blames the child’s condition solely upon the parents. Scientists and researchers have both found that genetic and environmental factors such as poverty also have a role in fostering obesity. Furthermore, Khattri 3 child protective services may be too quick to intervene and hastily decide to remove the child without considering or exhausting other alternatives. The removal of a child from their home should be the last resort after all other resources have been exhausted. As childhood obesity has become an epidemic, there are a plethora of other resources that can be utilized by the family and the child. To understand the risks of childhood obesity, educating a child’s parents on nutrition and exercise may prove to be extremely beneficial. Secondly, regular home visits from a nutritionist may shed light upon how healthier eating patterns can alleviate the risks associated with childhood obesity and inform the parents on how to decrease their child’s consumption, which would ultimately serve to decrease the child’s weight. Accordingly, the nutritionist may address the environmental factors within the home and school that are contributing to the child’s weight gain. For example, if the child is regularly watching television but not exercising, the nutritionist may create an exercise regimen for the child and advise the parents to set limits on how much television the child can watch everyday. Thus, the nutritionist works with the family and not against the family to correct their practices. Visits from the nutritionist should be weekly or bi-weekly to assess the child’s progress and to ensure that their suggestions are being implemented and followed. Furthermore, in order to conclusively determine that a child’s obesity resulted from unhealthy eating patterns, the child should be medically evaluated and tested to determine whether any other medical conditions are causing the child to increasingly gain weight. The child should also be required to participate in mandatory counseling to identify underlying issues and feelings that may be promoting their unhealthy eating patterns. If the counselor finds that the child is eating to cope with stress, the counselor can help the child deal with their feelings and teach the child how to cope in healthier ways. Intervention is usually “predicated specifically on a neglect, endangerment, or other child protection statute (Davis, Scott, Wadlington, and Whitebread 641-643).” The sanctions or remedies may range from appointing a guardian with limited powers to removing a child from parents temporarily or even permanently. Assuming that childhood obesity is abuse or neglect, parents would argue that it is in the best interests for the child to remain within the home. It is scientifically established that removing children from their home inflicts psychological trauma and irreparable damage upon them. For example, placement instability in foster care has been highlighted as a potentially serious problem for child development (Doyle). Furthermore, removing the child does not eradicate the unhealthy school or home environment that the child may be returning to after being removed. According to the government, it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from their home if the situation is urgent and the child is facing life-threatening obesity or imminent danger. Furthermore, the government believes that removal is necessary when the parent has failed to abide by the terms of resources that were provided. Nonetheless, there is scarce evidence that concludes that the state is more equipped to reduce childhood obesity. Thus, it is in the best interests of the child to remain within the home and to work with medical and other professionals to determine the cause of their obesity and to work towards alleviating the conditions or factors that fostered the development of their obesity. To ensure that these remedies are effective, it is imperative that the child’s Khattri 5 parents be involved with this process in an environment that both the child and parents are comfortable. Khattri 6 Works Cited Davis, Samuel, Elizabeth Scott, Walter Wadlington, and Charles Whitebread. Children in the Legal System: Cases and Materials. 4. New York: Thomson West, 2009. 641-643. Print. Doyle, Joseph. Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care. Diss. MIT: Sloan School of Management, 2007. Print.
