Judge told a 500 pound man that he is too fat to adopt his nephew

[ecstatic]

Gary Stocklaufer weighs 500 pounds. He said a family court judge ruled this week that he wasn't fit enough to be an adoptive father.

"It's out-and-out discrimination," Stocklaufer said. "We don't have a checkered past. We don't have a rap sheet, like a lot of people do. We don't have any cases of abuse."


...


Meanwhile, several doctors have come forward to offer free gastric bypass surgery to Stocklaufer as a way to help him lose weight.

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/13763346/detail.html

The Judge was concerned that the man could develop diabetes or sleep apnea in the future.


Was the judge right or wrong?

[Horse with no Name]

1. And a skinny person could die from an aneurysm, car accident or other misfortune

This is BS.

[pnwmom]

12. Or from bulimia or smoking cigarettes.

Does this judge exclude smokers and drinkers as possible adoptive parents?

Or just over-eaters?

[cynatnite]

2. I could get hit by a car tomorrow...

that doesn't mean I shouldn't have kids. I could develop any number of diseases.

This is complete bullshit, IMO.

[ulysses]

3. completely wrong.

:grr:

[melody]

4. The Judge is too stupid to live

At that young man's age, he most likely has an easy thirty good years ahead of him.
Even at that, there are plenty of excellent parents who are disabled.

[pitohui]

5. okay that's just whacky

he's a blood relative and was judged competent to adopt another child and to foster many others

i'm not getting this ruling

yeah he's fat, but if he doesn't have sleep apnea at 500 he must be immune, and in any case, i don't see where it is written in any book of fate that parents must be immortal, none of us would have parents if they all had to be greek gods

[electron_blue]

6. Not enough info for me to vote. Something is missing

The same judge let this man adopt a boy 7 years ago, but not now. And he is a foster parent right now anyway. I don't get it. Seems to me if the judge stated he wasn't 'fit' then there are probably guidelines somewhere about what it takes to be 'fit'. I'd have to read those guidelines first. If he had diabetes or sleep apnea now, would that be reason enough to not adopt? I would be more concerned about whether he and his wife can physically take care of the kid right now and not worry about diabetes in the future.

Is it true that you can't adopt if you have diabetes? If so, that surprises me.

[MADem]

8. I think something is missing, too.... nt

[NashVegas]

15. Watch The Accompanying Video

The anchor says two relevant (imo) things:

1. Babies are in high demand
2. The state places no priority on biological family


Assuming the uncle in question is able to provide a loving, non-abusive home, something is, indeed rotten in Kansas.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. It's not Kansas

It's Missouri.

Pesky little facts :)

[NashVegas]

72. Close Enough

:p

[Exultant Democracy]

87. I thought the same thing, looks like there is a lot of info missing. n/t

[Missy Vixen]

7. I have sleep apnea

I don't weigh 500 pounds. When I went for my sleep study, I was very surprised to note that some of the others there were not above normal weight. When a patient with sleep apnea is treated with a CPAP machine and under the care of a sleep specialist, there's great quality of life as well. Perhaps the judge in this case might want to discuss his ideas about sleep apnea with a doctor qualified to address them. I'd be more than happy to provide contact information.

The judge might also want to bear in mind that removing the baby from what appears to be a loving family is more harmful than the diseases he believes the prospective adoptive father may contract in later life.

Julie

[Canuckistanian]

16. I have it as well. And it has little to do with weight

Being overweight doesn't help, but it didn't cause my apnea. Even if I lose weight, I'll still have it.

I also have an aunt in her 70's who has it. She weighs something like 120 lbs.

[silverlib]

37. Sleep apnea

can and does cause weight gain. The company I work with doing medical transcription has an account with a sleep clinic. Once it was felt that obesity and being overweight was a cause for sleep apnea, but it is becoming more obvious that sleep apnea can and does cause weight gain. Of course this is not going to be the case in 100% of the patients, as symptoms seldom are 100% the same in all patients across the board.

There are several articles if you google sleep apnea and weight. Here is one.

http://sleepdisorders.about.com/od/obesity/a/sleepweight.htm

[Canuckistanian]

45. Really? I'd never heard that before

I wonder what the mechanism is? A metabolism change?

Thanks for the link.

[pnwmom]

47. Sleep apnea can disturb sleep hundreds of times a night,

when the person arouses in order to start breathing again.

And disturbed sleeping affects things like hormone levels that can cause weight gain.

[Canuckistanian]

49. I have my CPAP machine

So I guess I have no excuse now for my weight.

Damn!

[pnwmom]

54. My husband only got tested because of MY disturbed sleep.

But after he got used to the machine, he said he was surprised how much more rested he felt. He hadn't known what he was missing.

[peace13]

9. Let's face it, love just doesn't mean anything to these people. n/t

[KatyaR]

10. So it's better for a child to be tossed from foster home to foster home,

instead of being placed in a permanent, loving home with people that WANT him?

This is better, right?

Right?

:wtf:

[pnwmom]

11. No custody because he might develop apnea in the future?????

That's ridiculous. Obviously discriminatory. My husband is thin and he has sleep apnea, which is well-controlled with a breathing machine. You can't exclude healthy people from adoption simply because they MIGHT develop a problem in the future.

[Canuckistanian]

13. And sleep apnea prevents one from being a father - how?

I've had sleep apnea for almost 15 years - and raised a fine boy.

[rucky]

14. Everybody with a kid has a sleep problem.

comes with the territory.

[Canuckistanian]

20. Yup.

When you're not taking care of them, you're worrying about them.

Got that right.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cerridwen]

18. Pssst. From the minute we are born, we are all terminal.

Some will die from disease; some from war; some due to accident; some due to murder; some due to old age.

The only 100% guarantee when it comes to living is that, at some point, it ends.

However, a loving caring home? No 100% guarantee, but wouldn't it be nice to "stack the deck" in favor of a caring family; regardless of some arbitrary "might happen". Too many "might happens" in this world.

[Faygo Kid]

19. No. Flagrant discrimination against a person with a handicap, but a lot of love.

What about somebody paralyzed from the waist down? Can that person bend over to pick up a child?

What about a vet with no arms? Can that person bathe a child, or hug a child with anything other than metal?

What about gay adoption? How about interracial adoption? They might be well intentioned, but don't they also raise problems in the society in which we live?

Apparently doctors have come forward to help this man lose weight. Isn't that enough? And yes, I would place a child with someone who loved that child but has terminal cancer. Because that person has the right to see to that child's welfare, because that person loves that child.

There are no guarantees. Sometimes parents die when a child is young (I know). Even healthy oness with ideal body weight. I'll take a chance on love and commitment every time. We don't live in a perfect world. All you need is love isn't strictly true, but it's a hell of a start.

[WindRavenX]

44. fucking word

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

21. So if a father lost an arm, should he give up his children?

After all, he can't pick them up anymore.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

28. And you make my heart sing.

Five children? You are beautiful, truly.

[Beausoir]

26. And...just how many children have you adopted and bathed????

What, pray tell, do you think happens to these kids?

[book_worm]

27. I have to disagree with you young dem, but I commend you for having the guts to give your view

the rest of the 18% who believe as you do took the cowardly way out and didn't post a reason why they favor this kind of discrimination.

[ecstatic]

33. I agree! I wish the rest would speak up too! Or

were they just trolls? lol

[cynatnite]

31. Hello? Bill Frist...Is that you? n/t

[rocktivity]

34. I didn't see anything in the story about him being terminally ill.

:shrug:
rocknation

[ismnotwasm]

22. Wrong

Strange ruling

[bigwillq]

23. All that matters is love.

I am sure the kid doesn't care what the uncle looks like as long as his basic needs are being met.
Since when does weight play a factor as to how competent someone is to become a guardian? :shrug:

Terrible ruling.

[Ilsa]

24. There are questions about gastric bypass surgery and stomach cancer.

Well, I'm pretty sure it is the gastric bypass and not another method. Anyway, there seems to be an alarming number of people who develop stomach cancer several years down the road. I wonder if anyone here has any more info on that?

I can't imagine why this man wouldn't be considered a fit parent if he loves his nephew that much.

[Fleshdancer]

29. This judge allowed this man to adopt a different kid years ago....

AND this guy is a licensed foster parent with the state. How in the world does it make any sense for him to not be able to adopt a child he already cares for, is a relative of, and has the custody of the child signed over to him by the birth mother?

:wtf:

From where I'm sitting, this isn't an issue of obesity, it's an issue of a judge going senile.

[TahitiNut]

30. 18% of DUers are fat heads.

Who'd da guessed it? :eyes:

[Skittles]

32. it's a fact of life, right TahitiNut?

ignorance is everywhere

[MaraJade]

35. I think that the judge was wrong. . .

However, being seriously overweight adds to the difficulty of raising a child in the very same way that any other
major health problem would cause problems.

This man would be very wise to accept the bypass surgery for his own health's sake and for the sake of being around
for the child.

[LittleClarkie]

36. If the man had health issues NOW I could see the argument

but to disqualify him because he MIGHT come up with issues later is just discrimination.

Anyone MIGHT come up with health issues later. Are smokers allowed to adopt? People who use their cell phones in their cars? People who drink? People who walk around where they MIGHT get hit by a car?

[WindRavenX]

38. how incredibly pathetic

:(

[ecstatic]

39. The judge was WRONG; but there's an elephant in the room

I agree that nobody should be kept from adopting, but a weight of 400+ pounds is an immediate health issue that needs immediate attention. There is no such thing as 400+ lbs and healthy.

[WindRavenX]

40. but, by that logic, that means several other conditions will make you unfit to parent

So...yeah. While 400+ aint healthy no matter how you cut it, when can someone intervene if other conditions occur--terminal cancer, for example.

or smoking

or drinking

or eating lots of fattening cheese...

Who decides this stuff? :shrug:

[ecstatic]

41. True.... That's why the judge is wrong and his ruling discriminatory

and unfair.

[WindRavenX]

43. it kinda tears me up inside to read stories like this, because...

...there are so many children in the world that need adopting.

If they are kind and provide a good environment, what difference does it make, you know?

[Seabiscuit]

82. Who decides this stuff? State legislatures and judges, that's who. Not you.

[WindRavenX]

89. And this judge is wrong.

Period.

[DeSwiss]

42. You have obviously NEVER been to the south....

....and I guess that leaves out Michael Moore's chances of ever adopting.

Geesh. Talk about morans!!!

:mad:

[Pushed To The Left]

46. Yet another group that is targeted by prejudiced people.

I can hear RW talk radio now, spending hours viciously bashing obese people as their brainwashed followers drink the Kool Aid and nod their zombie heads in agreement. Problem is, a lot of talk show hosts are fat themselves, so they may have to leave it to the thin RW hosts.

My nephew is about the same size as the gentleman in question, and he is an incredible father to my niece! I'm very proud of him.

[Seabiscuit]

48. Bear in mind, 500 pounds is not "fat". It's extremely morbidly obese.

This isn't just some case about someone not liking the appearance of someone they personally consider "fat" and doing things to discriminate against such people.

But the idea of a 500 pound man raising a child by himself (if that indeed is the case here) bothers me:

1. If he's irresponsible enough about his own health to allow himself to baloon up to that weight, how responsible will he be caring for the child's healthy nutritional needs?

2. Those few who have balooned up to over 1,000 pounds and gotten to the point that they can't even get out of bed, all began by passing the 300, 400 and 500 pound milestones.

3. How can someone that weight be quick enough to save a child in trouble, or run after a child to keep it from entering a busy parking lot or street, or just have the stamina to play in the park with a child for an hour?

4. I think the judge's concern about sleep apnea may be misplaced, but this 500 pound man is definitely a high-risk case for diabetes.

Not knowing all the facts of the case I should at least think that if this guy loses, say, 200 pounds and keeps it off for a while he should be able to go back to court with his doctors and get approval for adoption.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

50. good points

[Seabiscuit]

51. Thanks.

I was afraid my post was just going to get flamed.

After reading something about the case I realize now the guy is married, so he wouldn't be alone raising the child. But the judge also left the case open as "ongoing" - meaning the guy seeking to adopt can return to court in the future for reconsideration due to changed circumstance - i.e., loss of weight. I also noticed that he adopted another child 7 years ago - although the article doesn't say how long ago he got his license to do foster care - and the article didn't say anything about it, but it's certainly possible that way back then he didn't weigh even close to 500 pounds.

[Bluebear]

52. It says right in the article it is he and his wife that wish to adopt

'Stocklaufer said Max's biological mother had signed over parental rights to them in April. He said he and his wife wanted to formally adopt Max, so they went to family court and expected quick approval.'

[Seabiscuit]

65. Yes, I noted that I caught that in my post entitled "Thanks" above.

[Truth2Tell]

53. So how do you respond

to the fact that your point #3 about mobility could also apply to a handicapped and/or wheelchair bound person? Should they also be limited from parenting?

or to the fact that your point #1 about responsibility could apply to smokers or fast drivers, or lord knows who. Should they also be limited from parenting?

or to the fact that that your points #2 and #4 are absurdly premised on things that have not yet actually happened. You too could reach 1000 lbs - after all, I'm pretty sure every 1000 lb person passed through whatever weight you weigh as well. Should you also be limited from parenting?

[Seabiscuit]

63. Here ya go:

point #3 - yes, I think a wheelchair-bound person should be limited from adopting (especially infants) unless there is at least one able adult there constantly as the primary care giver for the wheel-chair bound person and another able adult there as the primary care giver for the child.

point #1 - the irresponsibility in this case severely handicaps the person's daily activities and health which have a direct impact on a child's health, safety, and welfare. The smoking comparison is ridiculous. The "fast driver" comparison needs expansion - if the driver is reckless while driving with a child in the car, and convictions for speeding/reckless driving, no doubt any adoption petition would be denied. If he has a history of drunk driving convictions (a form of irresponsibility/recklessness) that certainly is also a factor a judge would consider in denying an adoption petition.

points #2 & #4 - morbid obesity is a condition known to continue to worsen once it reaches levels such as 500 pounds, and the extremely high risk of diabetes (which can be disabling/crippling) at that weight is a medical fact of life. Nothing "absurd" about either point.

I stand by my original post.

[Seabiscuit]

75. Addendum:

re: #3: I shouldn't rule out all wheelchair-bound persons. Some can care for children. Some can't. It depends on the medical condition that placed them in the wheelchair. Which is why "medical condition" is a factor weighed by the adoption courts, and "wheelchairs" isn't.

[pnwmom]

55. He's licensed by the state for long term foster child care and yet

this judge didn't approve of him adopting his own cousin's child.

What if he weighed 150 pounds but had diabetes? Do you think he shouldn't have been able to adopt? What about a parent with asthma? Do you think everyone with chronic illnesses should be prevented from adopting relatives?
What if it was a grandparent in her 60's that wanted to adopt? I guess she would have been too old, right?

I don't think this judge should have singled out one factor to determine this adoption -- and he should have given much more weight to the mother's wishes. She was in the best position to know what sort of parent her cousin would make.

[depakid]

62. Kinda makes you wonder what else is going on

and what's actually in the case file.

It's impressive how otherwise reasonable people can get sucked into things by local "news," which of course could care less about the child- or the family.

[Seabiscuit]

64. The article doesn't say *when* he became licensed, but

it does say he adopted his other son 7 years ago! Chances are, he didn't weigh nearly 500 pounds at the time he adopted the first child or got his license. The judge is required by law to examine various factors when approving an adoptive parent (and yes, there are restrictions on age - e.g. if you want to adopt in Russia the adoptive mother must be younger than 46), and medical condition is one of them. A 500 pound weight affliction is a far greater problem when it comes to caring for a child than any of the other medical conditions you've mentioned.

We don't know all of what the judge considered - we have a news article briefly talking about how upset the petitioner was ("discrimination!!!") that his adoption petition was denied.

[pnwmom]

68. Being licensed as a foster care provider is an ongoing thing.

He still has foster care children in his care.

I mentioned the other conditions in response to a previous poster who had made similar comparisons.

But I don't see what the adoption age limit in Russia has to do with this situation, which is in the United States. Grandparents here frequently adopt their grandchildren, despite having a limited life span ahead of them. Is this something you think a judge should oppose?

We know a child who was conceived when his father was 65. Should a judge have removed him from his home? Just in case?

[Seabiscuit]

71. You're overlooking the fact that

the rules for foster care licensing are quite different from laws covering court proceedings in consideration of adoption. Perhaps if the agency which approved his foster care license long ago became aware of his current weight it might revoke his license. I don't know how exactly they operate.

I mentioned Russia because I'm familiar with those age limits - my wife and I once considered adopting there because we don't like some of the adoption laws in the U.S. I don't know what age restrictions apply in the U.S. but I would imagine they may vary from state to state.

I'm not going to answer your hypotheticals because we're talking about legal rules judges *must* apply in considering adoption petitions, and your hypotheticals have nothing to do with that.

I don't know of any restrictions anywhere on a father's age when it comes to adoption.

My wife and I abandoned our Russian adoption quest when she became pregnant. Our son is now almost 3. She is now 44 and I am now 62.

[pnwmom]

73. Why is it okay for a 60ish father to adopt/have a baby, but not

a fat younger man? Both of them are in the situation where their health MIGHT cause a problem in the next couple of decades.

[Seabiscuit]

74. The "younger man" in question is not "fat". He's extremely morbidly obese.

And his morbid obesity already *is* a severe health problem.

And it is a serious medical condition directly linked by medical/scientific evidence to other serious, specific, and debilitating diseases such as diabetes. There is no such scientific correlation between age and any particular disease.

That's why.

Plus, there are no adoption courts governed by statutes placing conditions on adoptive parents involved where parents give birth to their own child.

I don't think you would want people to adopt children without any laws/rules involved, would you? You just don't like this particular decision because you prefer to imagine it "discriminates" against "fat" people. Talking about "discrimination" in that way (refusing to distinguish "fat" vs. "morbidly obese") denigrates really serious issues involved in the civil rights movement's accomplishments of the 1950's and 1960's..

[pnwmom]

76. I don't like this case because a judge substituted his judgment for the mother's.

And I think she was in a better position to make the decision, based on the totality of the circumstances.

And I don't like this case because denying adoption based on the possibility that a parent "might" one day develop diabetes or apnea could lead to denying adoption to millions of people who are genetically suspectible to chronic illnesses, but who may never even develop them.

Genetic discrimination is already a real problem, and if cases are allowed to be decided on the basis of "mights" and percentages, it will only get worse.

[Seabiscuit]

77. Apparently you don't understand adoption proceedings very well

If all adoption took was the judgment of the birth mother as to who she wanted as adoptive parents we'd be living in a very sorry world of chaos with thousands and thousands of adopted children's lives at risk. Your comment implies that you don't want to see any laws or rules regulating who may adopt. For all any mother knows, the people she chooses could be drug addicts with a history of violent crime. Without a legal system in place to guarantee some protection of the child's interests, that's what you're left with. Without any laws in place and without a court proceeding where a judge investigates the facts and applies those laws, exercising his discretion/judgment where appropriate and allowed by law, that's what you're left with.

Perhaps you've been somewhat misled by the way this article was written, which presented the petitioner's complaining outbursts, but which said virtually nothing about the evidence reviewed by the judge, the laws applied (including any case law interpreting statutory law) and how he applied his discretion. But this case clearly wasn't decided on some mere random suspicion of some remote possibility that a prospective adoptive parent "might" one day develop diabetes. I suppose that's one possible reading of the article as it's written, unfortunately. The judge was following guidelines handed down to him by the legislature, and one of the factors was medical condition. Morbid obesity in itself is a debilitating medical condition scientifically linked to other serious medical conditions like diabetes and heart/circulatory conditions. This 500 pound guy is a very high risk candidate, in a scientific sense, for diabetes, heart disease and heart attacks. It's a wonder he isn't already suffering from all that and more. It has nothing to do with "genetic discrimination". I don't understand why you doggedly refuse to understand that.

There's a world of differrence between the words "discretion" and "distinction" and the word "discrimination", which you persist in misapplying here.

This guy knew he probably wouldn't be approved for adoption long before he walked into that courtroom, yet did nothing about it. He had gained weight for years to the point that if it continues he may not even be able to walk in a matter of months. There are people riding around Disneyland in wheelchairs because they're so morbidly obese they can't walk. Would you want someone like that babysitting a child of yours?

It takes a lifetime commitment to have and raise a child. Part of that commitment is taking good care of your own health. When I fell in love and got married and we mutually decided we wanted children, I made a solemn commitment to take very good care of my health so that I would have the energy, stamina and clarity of mind to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood, especially considering my relatively advanced age at the time. I've done so. This guy obviously didn't take such responsibillities seriously or he would have shed 300 pounds long before he applied for adoption. That kind of irresponsible behavior in itself should disqualify him from becoming an adoptive parent IMHO.

[pnwmom]

81. "For all any mother knows, the people she chooses could be drug

addicts with a history of violent crime."

That's ridiculous. This mother knows the adoptive parent personally -- he is her cousin. Not only that, he is licensed for long term foster care and has another young child that he previously adopted.

This case doesn't involve genetic discrimination per se, but -- with its reliances on statistical probabilities -- its outcome could bear heavily on those cases.

How do you know how the case was decided, except based on the articles that have been written about it? Do you have some inside information on how the judge made his decision?

[Seabiscuit]

83. One thing's finally clear.

You seem to be living in a dreamworld. How do you know what every mother knows or doesn't know about the adoptive parents she chooses in a world without laws regulating adoption? Do you imagine you're psychic?

This case is not about "reliances on statistical probabilities" - it's about the medical FACT that this man already suffers from the severe and debilitating medical condition known as morbid obesity. How many times do you have to be hammered over the head with that FACT before you are willing to abandon your fantasy world and accept that reality? And all you know about this particular birth mother is what one article slanted towards the 500 man's complaining point of view says about her. There could be all kinds of problems this guy has that she's not aware of, and she certainly isn't in any position to make medical decisions much less adoption decisions on her own. That's why this is a nation of laws, not men (at least it was until Shrub came along).

I don't have any inside information on this case, but as a seasoned attorney I know how the legal system works, how statutes are written, and how judges exercise their discretion in applying statutory law. There's already enough information in the article alone to support my points. I'm not passing judgment on this judge's decision either for or against, and wouldn't without far more detailed information, and I don't think you or anyone else should either. For all we know, in reviewing this guy's medical file, the judge may have discovered that this guy already has a history of heart attacks, and may already be showing some signs of diabetes.

[pnwmom]

90. We aren't talking about EVERY mother. We're talking about one mother

and the cousin, and his wife, that she knows well enough to want to adopt her child -- and who have been approved by the state for long term foster care. If the couple had just kept the baby as a foster child -- not decided to formalize an adoption -- the child would still be living with them now.

I don't have the blind faith in the workings of the legal system that you appear to have. We've named good guardians for our children in our will and we don't want some judge taking it upon himself to second guess us.

[Seabiscuit]

91. I already addressed your first point in my last post.

The choice to formally adopt was theirs. They assumed the risk that the guy's morbid obesity could result in court disapproval.

Having knowledge and respect for the legal system as it exists does not constitute "blind faith" in any particular judge's exercise of his discretion. As previously pointed out, I don't have enough information to approve of or disapprove of his decision. Where's the "blind faith" in that?

Guardianship law is different from adoption law, but you still may run into problems some day if the guardians you chose are not able to care for your children.

[Missy Vixen]

79. pnwmom, I'm so glad you asked that

He's in his sixties with young children? Considering the fact that life expectancy is roughly 72 for males, perhaps he shouldn't have been allowed to have care of a minor child, either.

:sarcasm:

Julie

[Seabiscuit]

80. That's a disgustingly ugly remark.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Truth2Tell]

84. But the logic is the same

as you have used throughout this thread. If that comment is disgustingly ugly then so are several of yours.

But I don't accuse you of that - just of being wrong. I think where we depart is over the importance of risk. I believe that even if some serious risk factors exist which could leave the child parentless (like old age or morbid obesity) - they do not justify preventing the relationship with the child in the first place. The same goes for risk factors associated with mobility, etc. I understand your desire to protect the child from these risks - but I think that concern is negated by the greater (in my opinion) benefits of a loving home.

:hi:

[Seabiscuit]

88. Only if you persist in being utterly illogical.

As you are being - your comments are also not just intellectually dishonest - they're fundamentally dishonest. See, e.g., my post #74 which directly answered your friend's question about trying to make the false comparison you incredibly still persist in making.

Your comments are apparently motivated by an attempt to come to the aid of a fellow DU'er you're fond of who's stepping in her own doo doo, as well as a fundamental disregard for the interests of the child involved in this case.

Your comment was so thoughtless, nasty and stupid it should be self-deleted.

[Truth2Tell]

92. Don't know that other DUer,

Sorry. But nasty and stupid? All I suggested was that you were wrong. I even gave you credit for not being a fat person hater and suggested that we simply had a legitimate disagreement about this issue. I don't see how that's "fundamentally dishonest." But hey, whatever. Have a nice day.

[Seabiscuit]

93. There are legitimate disagreements

and there are illegitimate ones. You didn't just suggest I was "wrong". You essentially called me a hypocrite by falsely comparing my personal age (58) when my son was conceived to a 500 pound man who suffers from a medical infirmity known as morbid obesity who is seeking to adopt in a family law courtroom. You suggested that if he shouldn't be allowed to raise a child then neither should I. That is not only a patently illegitimate "disagreement", it insults my intelligence and it insults me personally as well.

Morbid obesity is already a pathological disabililty. My age is not. Morbid obesity is scientifically known to be a direct cause of other specific and often deadly diseases including diabetes and diseases of the heart and circulatory systems. Age in itself has never been scientifically linked to any particular disease. A person seeking to adopt must seek approval from a court of law. A person having one's own child needs no such approval.

To pretend there's some legitimate comparison between the two is fundamentally dishonest. And to tell me that if my position is that there may be legitimate medical reasons for a court to deny that 500 pound man his adoption petition, then I shouldn't be able to care for my son due to my age, is thoroughly dishonest, nasty, and stupid.

So, uh, yeah... "have a nice day" right back at 'ya.

[Missy Vixen]

96. Oh, I see.

You're allowed a hall pass on your own behavior, whereas someone YOU consider unfit -- well, that's just truth-telling, isn't it?

Can't have it both ways.

Julie

[Seabiscuit]

97. Where did I say I considered someone "unfit"?

That's a bald faced lie.

And you should be ashamed of yourself, but apparently you're not capable of that.

I have made it clear several times that I neither approve of or disapprove of this judge's decision because not enough information was provided in the article to make such a value judgment.

All I've done is lay out the facts.

You're a nasty, scurillous hypocrite only bent on posting mindless flames.

[cgrindley]

56. He's morbidly obese

500 lb is beyond fat. It's nice that some doctors have volunteered their services. Dude needs to lose about 300 pounds and learn how to take care of himself before he tries to take care of others.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vinca]

57. Could get diabetes, could have sleep apnea, could, could, could.

The judge could get hit by a truck leaving the courthouse. What a dumb ruling.

[flvegan]

59. Um, isn't there also a WIFE involved here?

Okay, he COULD have the problems that the judge suggested, but even if he was terminal, that wouldn't exactly leave the kid an orphan. Where's the info on the wife? I mean, she's adopting the kid, too, right?

[jazzjunkysue]

61. The judge has to provide for the baby's future. 500 lb man has little future.

The judge is not concerned with the man's feelings, nor should he be. This child needs a parent who will be around at least 20 years.

200 lb is one thing. Even 300 is.

[pnwmom]

69. By your standards, many grandparents wouldn't be able to adopt.

Are you aware that this man has a wife? In case something happened to him, the baby would still have a parent.

The mother of the baby was trying to provide for the baby's future, but the judge inserted his own judgment instead. I think her wishes should have been respected.

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. Allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment

I live in Kansas City. This story is being covered by ONE TV station. A station that has less than a stellar reputation.

As I read this story, I see only this man's version of events. We have no way of knowing (yet) what the judge actually said. If indeed this judge ruled exactly as reported here, then I will condemn the ruling. But we don't have all the facts yet. Maybe we should wait till we do.

[mzmolly]

70. The judge is an asshole.

Pardon my frank assessment.

[Megahurtz]

78. The War on The Fat Is Here!

What's next? :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I Have Battled Weight Problems All My Life So I Have Empathy For The Dad

but 500 pounds is very heavy...


Judges are supposed to be wise... Maybe he could have awarded custody contingent on the dad trying to lose weight and help him find a program to make it happen...

[TwilightGardener]

85. I know I'm stepping into a shit pile here, but if you weigh 500 lbs.,

you're not just VERY unhealthy physically, you've also got to have some mental/emotional issues as well. For God's sake, take responsibility for your own mental and physical well-being BEFORE you opt to undertake the responsibility of raising a child (or more children)--there's my offering of common sense for the day.

[Pithlet]

86. Terrible ruling.

What a ridiculous reason to deny someone adoption. It's discrimination, pure and simple.

[NaturalHigh]

95. Let me get this straight...

Our foster system is crammed with kids who can't get adopted, and a relative who wants to adopt a kid isn't allowed to do so? What kind of f***ed up decision is this?