Woman 'too fat to adopt child'

[bsheets]

Woman 'too fat to adopt child'

Sunday 24 June 2007
SUNDAY HERALD SUN
By Suellen Hinde



WOULD-BE mother Kylie Lannigan has been told she is too fat to adopt a child.

Mrs Lannigan, 29, and husband, Dave, 37, are devastated after complying with three years of bureaucracy to become eligible.

Mrs Lannigan, who is 170cm tall and weighs 126kg, lost 12kg in recent weeks.

She was told to lose another 40kg.

"They (two Department of Human Services adoption counsellors) came to see us for a second visit," Mrs Lannigan said.

"And one of the women said everything was looking good and we would be wonderful parents, but that my weight was holding me back from adopting.

"They gave me a BMI (body mass index) chart.

"They said, 'You are here' and drew a dot on the chart and then said, 'When you get to here (85kg) give us a ring' and they would come and start the assessment again.

"By the time I get down to that weight I will be too old - they're asking me to lose more than 50kg."

The Seymour couple said their application had not been refused, but suspended.

"I was disappointed when they said it," Mr Lannigan said. "It's discrimination."

Mrs Lannigan works about 40 hours a week as a chef at the local hotel bistro.

Her husband is a vineyard supervisor. The homeowners have been together for 13 years.

She has polycystic ovarian syndrome, which can lead to weight gain and difficulties getting pregnant. In 2000, she miscarried an IVF-conceived girl at 22 weeks.

"We tried IVF again, but it wasn't successful," she said.

"So we thought we would check out adoption."

The Lannigans attended an information seminar in Melbourne and completed an adoption training program.

They had medical, police and finance checks and a home assessment.

"When we went to the seminar three years ago, I asked if my weight would be an issue and they said that was not a factor, but that my health might be," she said.

"I walk to work and Tafe everyday. I have been tested for heart disease and diabetes and I am okay.

"I am counting calories, doing the best I can."

Source: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21956966-24331,00.html?from=public_rss

[MorganMac]

Oh man, that is heartbreaking, truly. :(

I suppose being in state custody or in an orphanage is better than having an overweight adoptive parent? Geezo.

Sure she may be at higher risk for medical issues, but she could also die in a car crash tomorrow.. what's the point?

I worry that as awareness and political wrangling bring obesity to the forefront, we're going to see a lot more discrimination cases such as this.... sigh.

[Legeon]

I asked if my weight would be an issue and they said that was not a factor, but that my health might be," she said.

I wonder what the agency's reasoning was. Health and weight are closely connected, yet to lead them on for 3 years? Are they trying to piss her off as a weight loss incentive? :lol:

[LC_Dave]

In my opinion, this is just the tip of things to come.

There will be institutionalised two classes. Those who are within an arbitrary BMI range, and those people that have a weight problem. The problem means that it's not in the arbitrary BMI range.

Also I predict that the BMI range will shrink, or the goal-posts will be shifted further.

It seems we need something to hate, and fat people are a big enough target.

"I am counting calories, doing the best I can."

I'm sure the calorie counters are proud!

[diemde]

This is really quite shocking. There are plenty of overweight mothers who raise normal sized children. And to lead them on for 3 years is just horrible. You know this world has come to a bad place when there is a loving home available for an orphan and they don't let them adopt.

[kyrasdad]

There is such a thing as too fat to raise kids, but 126Kg (about 277 pounds) isn't it. We'd all have to agree that if someone is so obese they can't leave bed, they would be unfit parents. That is not the case here. I hope this changes--it's wrong and discriminatory. Yes, 277 is obese. Yes, it's not exactly healthy. But it's not red-zone unhealthy. She could live a productive life that isn't much shorter than a person weighing, say, 177.

[jschwab]

There is such a thing as too fat to raise kids, but 126Kg (about 277 pounds) isn't it. We'd all have to agree that if someone is so obese they can't leave bed, they would be unfit parents. That is not the case here. I hope this changes--it's wrong and discriminatory. Yes, 277 is obese. Yes, it's not exactly healthy. But it's not red-zone unhealthy. She could live a productive life that isn't much shorter than a person weighing, say, 177.

Hell, I had two kids at home in my living room at this weight. If I can deliver a baby in my living room at that weight, there is a problem with adopting? Disgusting!

Janine

[ruthla]

Ugh. That is just nasty and cruel! And to give her an arbitrary number she has to get to, with no consideration for her unique body type?

I also want to point out that most kids who are adopted today are not orphans, but rather have parents unable to care for them due to incarceration, drug abuse, history of child abuse and/or neglect, etc. Some bio parents don't feel ready to be parents yet (ex: teen pregnancy). Orphans are more likely to be adopted by family members or close friends than they are to enter the foster care system and be available for adoption by strangers.

Still, it's crazy to dissalow a couple from adopting simply because of her weight, when there are so many children who need homes.

[Kristine]

Sickening. :thdown:

Does that particular agency hold its potential foster parents to the same level of "health"? I bet not. There was an article in the paper the other day about a foster mom battling cancer while still looking after six kids. My mom did the same thing; the foster kids never left the house during her treatment except for a few breif periods to give my dad a break. So it's okay to leave these kids with a very sick foster parent, but not be permanantly adopted - the best possible outcome - by an obese person in otherwise acceptable health? :rolleyes:

What makes it more sad, IMO, is that it sounds like she was given the ol' "just cut calories" advice for PCOS. If she went low carb, she might have had children of her own by now.

[Dodger]

I wonder how many Department of Human Services employees have the same or higher BMI than that woman. I bet some of them have children.

[HappyLC]

I just read about this at Junkfood Science (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/to-fat-to-love-child.html). She makes a very interesting point -

To show how illogical the concept of mortality risks are applied when it comes to fat women, even the fattest women are more likely to outlive normal weight men. “Being male is now the single largest demographic risk factor for early mortality in developed countries,” according to Daniel Kruger, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Yet, no one would deny the important role that fathers can play in a child's life, too. (Emphasis mine.)

[HairOnFire]

If this were in the States, the agency who denied this request would probably get slapped with a lawsuit. Not sure it would be legal to discriminate on the basis of size here.

More than 60% of Americans are overweight. What is the likelihood that a jury of this woman's peers is not going to at least know someone who is obese?!

[pennink]

I believe China now has a weight requirement for adopting children from there, now, too.

[deb34]

that makes me sick, You can be a crackhead or a coke whore and still have kids but being fat is still the last taboo. Since when are fat people unfit to be parents? (rant)

Why can't people think with some common sense and human decency instead of with the Politically correct collective brain of the government!!!!