Fop 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Man told he is too fat to adopthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7823337.stm By Louise Birt Victoria Derbyshire programme, BBC Radio 5 Live Damien and Charlotte Hall on their feelings about the ruling A couple from Leeds have been told they cannot adopt because one of them is too fat. Damien and Charlotte Hall cannot have children of their own, so they approached Leeds City Council about adopting a child. They were told Mr Hall's weight, at 24.5 stone (156kg), made him morbidly obese with a body mass index, or BMI, of more than 42. In a letter, the council told them his BMI must be below 40 before they could be considered as potential parents, because there was a risk he could become ill or even die. Charlotte, 31, who works as a nanny, has been married to Damien, 37, for 11 years and they have been a couple for 14. Mr Hall works in a call centre and, at 6ft 1in, says he knows he is overweight. "It's hard to lose weight under pressure, " he told BBC Radio 5 Live. "I'm not a couch potato and I don't sit eating takeaways every night. The bottom line is I'm too fat Damien Hall "I just feel as though we were only judged on my weight and not all the other good things about us. We don't drink or smoke and we could give a child a happy and safe home." The letter the couple were sent by Leeds City Council, signed by a team manager and seen by the BBC said: "I am writing to confirm that we are unable to progress an application from you at this time. "This is due to the concerns that the medical advisers have expressed regarding Mr Hall's weight. "I have discussed this with our medical adviser... who considers that it is important to alter lifestyle, diet and exercise in a sustainable way so that any weight reduction can be maintained in the long term. It went on: "I understand that you would like to begin the assessment as soon as possible and while appreciating your reasons for this, I consider it would be more appropriate to begin the assessment once Mr Hall's BMI is below 40." Child in care Mrs Hall said they were very shocked when they received the letter. "I think it's just gutting. We had an inkling they'd say something about (his) weight but to be turned down flatly just on that, it's just harsh. "My husband has a full-time job and is very active. He walks our dog at least twice a day and doesn't feel unfit or unwell. The council's adoption service has a legal responsibility to ensure that children are placed with adopters who are able to provide the best possible lifelong care Leeds City Council "You've got a child in care who's going to get up tomorrow morning not knowing where it's going and we're here ready to take a child on. They seem to be saying it's better for them to be in care and being shoved from pillar to post just in case Damien dies." Mr Hall added: "The bottom line is I'm too fat. We don't know if there will be any other blocking factors, because that letter is just a reaction to a medical we had which said I'm healthy but overweight." The Department for Children, Schools and Families said it does not issue guidance on maximum weight for adopters to local authorities. In a statement, Leeds City Council said: "The council's adoption service has a legal responsibility to ensure that children are placed with adopters who are able to provide the best possible lifelong care. "Part of this responsibility is advice for applicants on a range of suitability criteria, including any health and lifestyle issues which may impact on an applicant's long-term ability to adopt. "Expert advice on health and medical issues for applicants is provided by medical advisors to the council's adoption service, in line with BAAF (British Agencies Adoption and Fostering) guidance. "Mr and Mrs Hall's application to adopt is still active and they have been given advice on how best to proceed regarding this issue." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7823707.stm Too fat? Too white? It's strange the criteria that they judge on (and what they don't - especially as some have "health risks" statistically too) given that there's a dire need to place kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6816 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He obviously has some horrendous lifestyle habits to be that weight. Is he fit to bring up a kid if he cant even look after himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Sounds about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 He obviously has some horrendous lifestyle habits to be that weight. Is he fit to bring up a kid if he cant even look after himself? Habits that increase his risk of disease and death, certainly. But any more so than say sky diving, unprotected anal sex, being a fisherman (most dangerous job in Britain), a builder (4th most), lorry driver (5th) or living in London, or being "too white" and "too middle class"? And should that necessarily rule him utterly out as a parental choice? It would be more understandable if there were more potential "parents" than kids in need of them, but there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 If he's too fat to fuck he shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29474 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Well if he really wants a kid then he'll lose a bit of weight, it mightn't be right but it's hardly that big a sacrafice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He obviously has some horrendous lifestyle habits to be that weight. Is he fit to bring up a kid if he cant even look after himself? Habits that increase his risk of disease and death, certainly. But any more so than say sky diving, unprotected anal sex, being a fisherman (most dangerous job in Britain), a builder (4th most), lorry driver (5th) or living in London, or being "too white" and "too middle class"? And should that necessarily rule him utterly out as a parental choice? It would be more understandable if there were more potential "parents" than kids in need of them, but there isn't. It's a pragmatic thing at the end of the day though isn't it. The country/society needs lorry drivers, fishermen etc etc so it's not going to rule those categories of people out of adoption candidacy simply for that reason. On the other hand, it doesn't need people to be fat/morbidly obese however (and of course he could always lose weight), therefore it is willing to rule Damien Hall out as a candidate and others of that ilk The sky diving thing is a fair point as is the unprotected anal sex example, but it's rather easier for candidates to withold that type of information. To be honest though, for me it'd be less an issue about Mr Hall's life expectancy (due to being morbidly obese) and more about the likely diet that the child would receive in that scenario. I think if the wifey led a relatively healthy lifestyle (it doesn't say) then that should stand in their favour and militate against the risks posed by Mr Hall's being such a fat cunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Do they let smokers and drinkers adopt these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 He obviously has some horrendous lifestyle habits to be that weight. Is he fit to bring up a kid if he cant even look after himself? Habits that increase his risk of disease and death, certainly. But any more so than say sky diving, unprotected anal sex, being a fisherman (most dangerous job in Britain), a builder (4th most), lorry driver (5th) or living in London, or being "too white" and "too middle class"? And should that necessarily rule him utterly out as a parental choice? It would be more understandable if there were more potential "parents" than kids in need of them, but there isn't. It's a pragmatic thing at the end of the day though isn't it. The country/society needs lorry drivers, fishermen etc etc so it's not going to rule those categories of people out of adoption candidacy simply for that reason. On the other hand, it doesn't need people to be fat/morbidly obese however (and of course he could always lose weight), therefore it is willing to rule Damien Hall out as a candidate and others of that ilk The sky diving thing is a fair point as is the unprotected anal sex example, but it's rather easier for candidates to withold that type of information. To be honest though, for me it'd be less an issue about Mr Hall's life expectancy (due to being morbidly obese) and more about the likely diet that the child would receive in that scenario. I think if the wifey led a relatively healthy lifestyle (it doesn't say) then that should stand in their favour and militate against the risks posed by Mr Hall's being such a fat cunt. Again you can somewhat "justify" it (and others - although at the moment it's hypocrisy in some cases, and compared to those discrimination against the lardy) if you're talking about ideal circumstances (in ideal circumstances there's a lot of things to consider, some that are currently deemed PC , and others deemed discriminatory currently - despite been effectively the same things). However it's not ideal circumstances, it's basically a case of is a child better with a fat family or in care? The answer to that would seem to be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7055 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 "He walks our dog at least twice a day" This man should clearly be running Barnado's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He obviously has some horrendous lifestyle habits to be that weight. Is he fit to bring up a kid if he cant even look after himself? Habits that increase his risk of disease and death, certainly. But any more so than say sky diving, unprotected anal sex, being a fisherman (most dangerous job in Britain), a builder (4th most), lorry driver (5th) or living in London, or being "too white" and "too middle class"? And should that necessarily rule him utterly out as a parental choice? It would be more understandable if there were more potential "parents" than kids in need of them, but there isn't. It's a pragmatic thing at the end of the day though isn't it. The country/society needs lorry drivers, fishermen etc etc so it's not going to rule those categories of people out of adoption candidacy simply for that reason. On the other hand, it doesn't need people to be fat/morbidly obese however (and of course he could always lose weight), therefore it is willing to rule Damien Hall out as a candidate and others of that ilk The sky diving thing is a fair point as is the unprotected anal sex example, but it's rather easier for candidates to withold that type of information. To be honest though, for me it'd be less an issue about Mr Hall's life expectancy (due to being morbidly obese) and more about the likely diet that the child would receive in that scenario. I think if the wifey led a relatively healthy lifestyle (it doesn't say) then that should stand in their favour and militate against the risks posed by Mr Hall's being such a fat cunt. Again you can somewhat "justify" it (and others - although at the moment it's hypocrisy in some cases, and compared to those discrimination against the lardy) if you're talking about ideal circumstances (in ideal circumstances there's a lot of things to consider, some that are currently deemed PC , and others deemed discriminatory currently - despite been effectively the same things). However it's not ideal circumstances, it's basically a case of is a child better with a fat family or in care? The answer to that would seem to be obvious. What i'm saying is that it's a difficult one to reconcile when at the same time society is coming to the view that imposing an unhealthy lifestyle/obesity on a child is a form of abuse. The smoking/alcohol examples given by Happy Face are very cogent and expose the inconsistencies of the 'policy' (such as it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Imagine the scene - a bit of horseplay on the carpet, he rolls over - the kids dead. Too risky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41317 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Just by looking at the pair of them , it's not too difficult to say they aren't the healthiest eaters. If the guy does the exercise he claims too( drag the dog about etc), then he really is shovelling in the cakes to still be this massive. He has a choice- loose weight or remain childless. Get on a diet fatty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4649 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Do they let smokers and drinkers adopt these days? probably not if they do it so much that it puts them at risk of an early death and will probably lead the child to doing the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7055 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Get on a diet fatty Fat man on a diet don't try it! *listens to house of pain* Cypress Hill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He can listen to what he wants can't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41317 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Get on a diet fatty Fat man on a diet don't try it!*listens to house of pain* Cypress Hill? 'tis they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41317 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He can listen to what he wants can't he? imagine the fat basser listening to House of Pain......... jump jump jump Cause a bliddy earthquake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He can listen to what he wants can't he? imagine the fat basser listening to House of Pain......... jump jump jump Cause a bliddy earthquake Calling him a fat bastard too now. Fuckin hell man, Ant's taking a kicking here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41317 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 He can listen to what he wants can't he? imagine the fat basser listening to House of Pain......... jump jump jump Cause a bliddy earthquake Calling him a fat bastard too now. Fuckin hell man, Ant's taking a kicking here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7055 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 What music does this man like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 41317 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Ant or the fat impotent fecker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 There is always the risk the child will be eaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Thread about to be Fop'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 He obviously has some horrendous lifestyle habits to be that weight. Is he fit to bring up a kid if he cant even look after himself? Habits that increase his risk of disease and death, certainly. But any more so than say sky diving, unprotected anal sex, being a fisherman (most dangerous job in Britain), a builder (4th most), lorry driver (5th) or living in London, or being "too white" and "too middle class"? And should that necessarily rule him utterly out as a parental choice? It would be more understandable if there were more potential "parents" than kids in need of them, but there isn't. It's a pragmatic thing at the end of the day though isn't it. The country/society needs lorry drivers, fishermen etc etc so it's not going to rule those categories of people out of adoption candidacy simply for that reason. On the other hand, it doesn't need people to be fat/morbidly obese however (and of course he could always lose weight), therefore it is willing to rule Damien Hall out as a candidate and others of that ilk The sky diving thing is a fair point as is the unprotected anal sex example, but it's rather easier for candidates to withold that type of information. To be honest though, for me it'd be less an issue about Mr Hall's life expectancy (due to being morbidly obese) and more about the likely diet that the child would receive in that scenario. I think if the wifey led a relatively healthy lifestyle (it doesn't say) then that should stand in their favour and militate against the risks posed by Mr Hall's being such a fat cunt. Again you can somewhat "justify" it (and others - although at the moment it's hypocrisy in some cases, and compared to those discrimination against the lardy) if you're talking about ideal circumstances (in ideal circumstances there's a lot of things to consider, some that are currently deemed PC , and others deemed discriminatory currently - despite been effectively the same things). However it's not ideal circumstances, it's basically a case of is a child better with a fat family or in care? The answer to that would seem to be obvious. What i'm saying is that it's a difficult one to reconcile when at the same time society is coming to the view that imposing an unhealthy lifestyle/obesity on a child is a form of abuse. The smoking/alcohol examples given by Happy Face are very cogent and expose the inconsistencies of the 'policy' (such as it is). But again is living in care better than living with a fat family? At worst the child's health/food intake could be monitored, as having lardy parents in no way guarantees a child is also fat, it only lifts statistical likelihood (but again down that road there are many things as bad or worse, as mentioned). Isn't imposing a life in the care system also a form of abuse, with many, many associated risk factors to go with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now