Chicken Nugget Child abuse?

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Chicken Nugget Child abuse?


[h=1]Child Abuse? 17-Year-Old Drops After Eating Only Chicken Nuggets Since Age 2[/h]
Teenager taken to hospital after passing out from complications due to hazardous diet.

Sarah Fuss


(Photo: Nick Wilkinson/NTI)
Stacey Irvine looks surprisingly well for a 17-year-old who's eaten onlychicken nuggets since she was 2. But when she recently went to the hospital after passing out from struggling to breathe, doctors told her that she absolutely had to eat more healthily.
"She's been told in no uncertain terms that she will die if she carries on like this, but Stacey says she can't eat anything else," her mom, Evonne, told U.K.'s Daily Mail. "It breaks my heart to see her eating those damned nuggets. I am at my wit's end. I'm praying she can be helped before it's too late."
MORE: McDonald's Investors Don't Want to Talk About Childhood Obesity


Evonne says her two younger children eat normally, and that she's tried depriving Stacey of food to force her to expand her repertoire.

Stacey claims never to have tasted fruits or vegetables, but admits to sometimes eating fries and toast. "McDonald's chicken nuggets are my favorite," said Stacey. "I share 20 with my boyfriend, with [fries]." She also enjoys nuggets from KFC and the supermarket.
In the hospital, Stacey was injected with much-needed vitamins and doctors found that she suffered from anaemia and inflamed veins on her tongue due to her obsessive diet.
It's hard to imagine that in the 15 years since Stacey tasted her first nugget at McDonald's, her mom has been unable to influence her to eat the minimal level of nutrients necessary to sustain a human being. Do you think this level of leniency qualifies as abuse? How have you gotten your kids to expand beyond their comfort foods?

[/QUOTE]

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Sorry for the wonky cut and paste.

Here is the link

Child Abuse? 17-Year-Old Drops After Eating Only Chicken Nuggets Since Age 2

What do you think? Should the mother be charged with child abuse? Do you believe that a child as young as TWO can honestly be in charge of their food choices, and only eat chicken nuggets, all day, every day, for years, and have it NOT be abuse?

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Yes, it is abuse, IMO. This makes me feel sick. The mother is completely responsible. Somebody gave her that first nugget and continued to buy them for her through her entire childhood - long before the girl was able to buy them on her own. Complete neglect and I would enjoy seeing this mother charged.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I do not think McDonalds on an occasional basis is abuse. We go to McDonalds maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I think that is a normal healthy balance. I do think that if is to that extreme then CPS would need to get involved and perhaps give some nutritional classes to the parents.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

As a mom with a picky eater w/sensory issues with smells I know the battle for them to eat out of their comfort zone.

However, I definitely think they contributed to it but I have a hard time with abuse on this. Did mom and dad try to address with physicians at any point?

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Yeah, I'm okay with abuse on this one.

My family has never had fast food, and even though we don't eat it I don't know anyone who would argue that the occasional feeding of it to ones children would be ABUSE....however, just it only it 24/7? Yeah. Clear cut, just from the physical problems alone that this "diet" has caused.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Yeah. I don't see this story as any different than the parents who were arrested after their baby died because the exclusively bfing mother was a vegan and the infant was severely malnourished as a result.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

Absolutely abuse. My 2nd child is very picky, and will not eat one single vegetable. However, she will still eat those squeezable baby foods (Happy Baby or Plum Organic), so I buy the ones with veggies in them (mixed with fruit) and she has at least one a day, often 2. While I do think it's kind of unusual for a 2 year old to still be eating purees, at least I know that for now she is getting some nutrients she needs. I simply don't believe that this mother could not get her child to eat anything else from the age of two, and it has to be abuse because the child's health has absolutely suffered terribly from her lack of proper parenting.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

I don't even understand how something like this happens.

I think if they could somehow address this problem without criminalizing the parent...that would be a better solution for this girl. I'm not keen on throwing around abuse charges on something like this. If the family is not dysfunctional otherwise, what benefit to the daughter would be it be criminalize her parents? To me, abuse means that overall, a child would be better off without their parents than with them. I think its really hard to tell if overall that would be the case in this situation.

Maybe some middle ground where they are forced to find proper help for her and prove they are attempting to address the problem. I could see not seeking proper help on this could be considered medical neglect, but not abuse.

Unless of course there are all sorts of other dysfunctional things going on int he family that would justify a large abuse case.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"KimPossible" wrote:

I don't even understand how something like this happens.

I think if they could somehow address this problem without criminalizing the parent...that would be a better solution for this girl. I'm not keen on throwing around abuse charges on something like this. If the family is not dysfunctional otherwise, what benefit to the daughter would be it be criminalize her parents? To me, abuse means that overall, a child would be better off without their parents than with them. I think its really hard to tell if overall that would be the case in this situation.

Maybe some middle grown where they are forced to find proper help for her and prove they are attempting to address the problem. I could see not seeking proper help on this could be considered medical neglect, but not abuse.

Unless of course there are all sorts of other dysfunctional things going on int he family that would justify a large abuse case.

In thinking more about this I believe that the damage was done years ago. Is the mother abusing the girl today? Maybe not. But for years she systematically encouraged a cycle of addiction that has almost killed the girl. We would have no problem labelling the withholding of food as abuse, or providing a diet of nothing but high fat, high sugar and high calories that leads to obesity as abuse. That kind of abuse is a lot more obvious to the eye. This girl looks pretty healthy - neither severely underweight or overweight - so I can see how lots of people wouldn't consider this girl to be (or to have been) abused. Still, I think the mother did abuse her. She gave the girl nothing but one food, day in and day out for years, that just destroyed her health.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I agree with Kim. Yes the problem needs to be addressed, but not take the child away unless there are other problems. I know a mother that was nursing for the first time. The baby was not gaining any weight and was very sickly looking. CPS did become involved but the answer was not to ripe the baby away from the mother. They brought a nurse out every Friday for a few months and the nursed worked with the mother on breastfeeding and nutrition. A couple of years later the baby is a healthy happy little girl. The young mom just needed some education. She was not purposefully trying to starve her baby yet she would have died without intervention.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I agree with Kim. Yes the problem needs to be addressed, but not take the child away unless there are other problems. I know a mother that was nursing for the first time. The baby was not gaining any weight and was very sickly looking. CPS did become involved but the answer was not to ripe the baby away from the mother. They brought a nurse out every Friday for a few months and the nursed worked with the mother on breastfeeding and nutrition. A couple of years later the baby is a healthy happy little girl. The young mom just needed some education. She was not purposefully trying to starve her baby yet she would have died without intervention.

Yeah......this is 15 years of nuggets. REALLY hard for me to see the comparison. If this person is so dumb that in any way they think that it is okay on any level to only eat ONE thing for 15 years as a growing child, let alone have that thing be a processed death food? You are a danger to your child, negligent at best.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

In thinking more about this I believe that the damage was done years ago. Is the mother abusing the girl today? Maybe not. But for years she systematically encouraged a cycle of addiction that has almost killed the girl.

I get the feeling it was out of cluelessness though. Not out of some demonic feelings towards the child or some sort of pervertion of the parenting/child relationship.

We would have no problem labelling the withholding of food as abuse,

Well of course not, because thats a more serious issue than just malnutrition...this is deliberate torture.

or providing a diet of nothing but high fat, high sugar and high calories that leads to obesity as abuse.

Actually i think this is a very controversial topic...i'm not too keen on abuse in this situation either. I think its terrible and wrong, but I think it can be a result of again, being clueless, uneducated or something else along those lines. Not to mention its extremely hard I think to find a line between a 'really bad diet" and "bad enough to be abuse".

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any recourse to help children who are the victim of inept or clueless parents, i just don't see it the same as abuse of other sorts. I think there needs to be a difference somehow.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

But Bonita, ignorance is not a defence for neglect or abuse. Saying "But I didn't know any better!" doesn't make it okay that it happened.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

But Bonita, ignorance is not a defence for neglect or abuse. Saying "But I didn't know any better!" doesn't make it okay that it happened.

I do believe that CPS would take intent into consideration when taking a child away from a parent. If it was that they just did not know better and are willing to work with CPS and make changes and improvements then CPS would work with the parent. If the intent was to be malicious and to starve the child, then CPS would be less accommodating.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

But Bonita, ignorance is not a defence for neglect or abuse. Saying "But I didn't know any better!" doesn't make it okay that it happened.

Seriously though. What would charging her with abuse accomplish? Would it scare other parents who don't know how to handle a picky eater into somehow figuring it out? I don't think so actually. I don't think you can 'scare' a parent into figuring out how to parent better. I doubt this mom actually wanted her to only eat chicken nuggets.

I think of wild children who aren't discipliend well. Their parents are doing a disservice to their kids too.

Thats what this sounds like to me...that this mother did not know how to deal with those 'battles of wills' that are so common with kids and parents. I dont' think you can scare someone into knowing how to deal with that better.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

I can kind of see Kim's point because there are a lot of obese children who are that way because their parents allow them to eat nothing but junk. Those parents are not (I don't think) visited by CPS or accused of abuse, even though really, they are doing the same thing....just with potentially a wider array of junk food than JUST chicken nuggets 24/7. So I guess it could be a gray area, but I do think some serious intervention is needed.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

But Bonita, ignorance is not a defence for neglect or abuse. Saying "But I didn't know any better!" doesn't make it okay that it happened.

I guess for me I put a lot of weight on the mental aspect of the relationship between a parent and child more so than the physical when it comes to abuse. I don't like it when parents who genuinely love their children and want the best for them, but get bad results because they can't figure out how to parent are criminalized in the same way as someone who is sexually, physically or mentally abusive.

Like i said, i think there should be a method for dealing with this type of thing...but i guess i don't like it categorized as being equal to other more typical forms of abuse.

We don't treat all death at the hands of others equally...i guess i feel like it should be the same way for abuse.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Severely obese children frequently have CPS involved, up to and including the removal of the child from the home.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"KimPossible" wrote:

I guess for me I put a lot of weight on the mental aspect of the relationship between a parent and child more so than the physical when it comes to abuse. I don't like it when parents who genuinely love their children and want the best for them, but get bad results because they can't figure out how to parent are criminalized in the same way as someone who is sexually, physically or mentally abusive.

Like i said, i think there should be a method for dealing with this type of thing...but i guess i don't like it categorized as being equal.

We don't treat all death at the hands of other equally...i guess i feel like it should be the same way for abuse.

I cannot fathom a parent who loves their child walking to McD's three times a day to pick up chicken nuggets. I just can't. No amount of ignorance can overcome the laziness and selfishness and pure slovelyness of this action. Its negligence. This girl will DIE if her diet doesn't change NOW. That is not love. Its neglect. She has neglected her child's physical needs to the point where the child needed to be hospitalized. Its the definition of neglectful parenting, to me.

fuchsiasky's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 959

I don't think nuggets are a bad thing in moderation, but all the time it is. They are terrible for you if you eat them all the time! I have a really hard time with the mom saying that she could not convince her to eat anything else through her whole life. How about just saying no when she was 2? How about not buying them? A child will eat if they are hungry enough! That the mom was not able to control her child enough to get her to eat anything else isn't right. That isn't parenting. I am ok with the abuse claim on this. The mom may not have abused her child, but she knowingly allowed her child to abuse herself.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Severely obese children frequently have CPS involved, up to and including the removal of the child from the home.

But not as a first response. First they would try educating the parents and look for underlying problems. They would not just come in and say "well your child is over weight so we are taking him."

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"Potter75" wrote:

I cannot fathom a parent who loves their child walking to McD's three times a day to pick up chicken nuggets. I just can't. No amount of ignorance can overcome the laziness and selfishness and pure slovelyness of this action. Its negligence. This girl will DIE if her diet doesn't change NOW. That is not love. Its neglect. She has neglected her child's physical needs to the point where the child needed to be hospitalized. Its the definition of neglectful parenting, to me.

If she is not very bright and is sent into a panic when her 6 year old refuses to eat for 2 days because she has refused to eat anything else and continues that cycle....possibly excusing it because a)she doesn't realize how bad it is and b)because she feels all other aspects of her life are going all right...i could see it continuing on.

I'm not saying this is typical as in "oh yeah of course that happens!" kind of way...just saying i could see it happen.

I mean really if this happened when she was a little younger, like 13 or 15 and everything else about this childs life was fine and she had a good relationship with her parents, do you reallly think it would be better to take the child away from them and put her into foster care or to actually work with the parents to address the problem.

Or maybe i don't understand law....and parents who are charged with abuse don't always have their children taken away

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

No- they dont- it's simply a step in involving CPs- following up, therapy, in home visits etc. removal of the child would not be a first step except for sexual or physical abuse etc (generally). To me it would be important to have the charge so that if OTHER things came up say with the other children etc this is all documented. Someone is watching. This moms on someone's radar. NOT a bad thing IMO.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

But not as a first response. First they would try educating the parents and look for underlying problems. They would not just come in and say "well your child is over weight so we are taking him."

Ummmmmm. Right. That's why I wrote "up to and including". I really was just replying to carrie as she didnt seem aware that yes, this does happen.

I'm not suggesting they take this child. I'm suggesting they charge the mother with neglect. Do you know what that means?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

At age 17 it is not abuse, at that age you can't force her to change her behavior unless she wants to change. From ages 2-10 or so when the mother could control what she bought and what she ate is a different matter. I'm not sure I would classify it as abuse, but I surely wouldn't call her mother of the year. My step-daughter just turned 18 and she is almost the same way because her dad allowed her to eat whatever she wanted. She will eat a few more things than chicken nuggets but not much besides ramen noodles, macaroni & cheese, hot dogs or maybe a ham or turkey sandwich. I have given up trying to get her to eat meals with us and she just makes her own food.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"Potter75" wrote:

No- they dont- it's simply a step in involving CPs- following up, therapy, in home visits etc. removal of the child would not be a first step except for sexual or physical abuse etc (generally). To me it would be important to have the charge so that if OTHER things came up say with the other children etc this is all documented. Someone is watching. This moms on someone's radar. NOT a bad thing IMO.

Well i guess thats the kind of progression i would like to see...if thats the case i don't care so much what the charge is called although i still do think there should be a different word for something like this and more severe cases of child abuse that involve mental trauma..the two are just in different leagues to me.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

It's called neglect. Child neglect. That's a charge.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Potter75" wrote:

Ummmmmm. Right. That's why I wrote "up to and including". I really was just replying to carrie as she didnt seem aware that yes, this does happen.

I'm not suggesting they take this child. I'm suggesting they charge the mother with neglect. Do you know what that means?

It is not necessary to speak to me as though I was 5 years old.

Your posts did come across as though you felt that a child in this situation should be removed from the home. I stated that I felt nutritional classes and parental education would be a better option.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

At age 17 it is not abuse, at that age you can't force her to change her behavior unless she wants to change. From ages 2-10 or so when the mother could control what she bought and what she ate is a different matter. I'm not sure I would classify it as abuse, but I surely wouldn't call her mother of the year. My step-daughter just turned 18 and she is almost the same way because her dad allowed her to eat whatever she wanted. She will eat a few more things than chicken nuggets but not much besides ramen noodles, macaroni & cheese, hot dogs or maybe a ham or turkey sandwich. I have given up trying to get her to eat meals with us and she just makes her own food.

She's a minor, under the care of her mother. Did you read anything that said she was emanicpated? 18 is the age of majority in the UK. Doesn't matter if the mother's no longer force feeding her chicken nuggets. She has allowed this to continue in her own home.

And, please anyone else chime in, but I sure as he!! hope I'm not the only parent who plans on having control over what my kids eat WELL after the age of "10 or so".

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

Yes, i mentioned neglect in one of my earlier posts.

I guess what bugs me is that it would give someone the ability to simply remove the child from their care. I would not agree with exercising that right without trying other things first. From what i just read briefly...a court could in theory do that, they don't have to try other things first. So maybe i wouldn't argue the actual charge, but I think i would object if they chose to remove her from her parents care.

All a lot less meaningful since the child is already 17, but i agree with something being on record in case of other problems coming up with the other kids.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

And, please anyone else chime in, but I sure as he!! hope I'm not the only parent who plans on having control over what my kids eat WELL after the age of "10 or so".

I plan on having more control than that too...already do. But there are plenty of parents who lack control over their children. I'm sure they didn't intentionally plan it that way.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

She's a minor, under the care of her mother. Did you read anything that said she was emanicpated? 18 is the age of majority in the UK. Doesn't matter if the mother's no longer force feeding her chicken nuggets. She has allowed this to continue in her own home.

And, please anyone else chime in, but I sure as he!! hope I'm not the only parent who plans on having control over what my kids eat WELL after the age of "10 or so".

Well- it's clear from Gloria's post that that belief system didn't work so well for her child. Yes- I don't foresee this being much of an issue as so one in their life eats like that- but yes- we plan to continue to influence their food choices for the entirety of their time in our home. I would also hope that anyone who saw a 17 year old being physically or sexually abused would advocate for charges being pressed. The child is still a minor.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"KimPossible" wrote:

Yes, i mentioned neglect in one of my earlier posts.

I guess what bugs me is that it would give someone the ability to simply remove the child from their care. I would not agree with exercising that right without trying other things first. From what i just read briefly...a court could in theory do that, they don't have to try other things first. So maybe i wouldn't argue the actual charge, but I think i would object if they chose to remove her from her parents care.

All a lot less meaningful since the child is already 17, but i agree with something being on record in case of other problems coming up with the other kids.

CPS (at least in the states) is so overburdened and foster homes such a challenge that it would be extremely rare to have a child taken from a home for anfirst incident in a non physical or sexual abuse situation- unless upon interviewing the family they suspected that a lot more was going on. With lawsuits etc no one is eager to rip kids out of okay homes.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

And, please anyone else chime in, but I sure as he!! hope I'm not the only parent who plans on having control over what my kids eat WELL after the age of "10 or so".

I didn't mean that you wouldn't, I just meant that was the time that it would have been a lot easier for her to force her daughter to eat something else. Once they get to be around 10 a lot of their behavior is set and it is a lot more difficult to change something she has allowed her to do for the last 8 years.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I can get on board with neglect and at risk.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Potter75" wrote:

Well- it's clear from Gloria's post that that belief system didn't work so well for her child. Yes- I don't foresee this being much of an issue as so one in their life eats like that- but yes- we plan to continue to influence their food choices for the entirety of their time in our home. I would also hope that anyone who saw a 17 year old being physically or sexually abused would advocate for charges being pressed. The child is still a minor.

Well of course it didn't work because I didn't even meet her until she was 14. Pretty hard to influence what she did at 10 when I didn't even know her then. I can assure you that if she had been my child I would have let her starve before letting her eat chicken nuggets every day. But if you have some magic suggestion of how to take on a 14 year old step daughter already set in her ways with a father that allows her to eat that way and change her behavior I would have like to have heard it.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I didn't mean that you wouldn't, I just meant that was the time that it would have been a lot easier for her to force her daughter to eat something else. Once they get to be around 10 a lot of their behavior is set and it is a lot more difficult to change something she has allowed her to do for the last 8 years.

It's only set at that age if the parents can't be bothered to make a change. We're not talking about unwelcome personality traits here. We're talking about food. Don't want your 10 year old eating chicken nuggets 3 times a day? Don't buy them. It's pretty easy, actually. On this issue it's black and white to me. Maybe you or others might say 'well, it's really NOT that easy' but I beg to differ. Changing a kid's diet, like TOTALLY changing their diet, would be really really hard. I wouldn't want to do it (of course, I never gave my kids $hit food from the start so I don't have that worry) and yeah, I'll bet it's easier for a mother like this one or other parents of obese kids to not even bother trying because they don't want to deal with the work involved and the pushback they know they're going to get from their kid. Lazy, lazy parenting, IMO.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It is not necessary to speak to me as though I was 5 years old.

Your posts did come across as though you felt that a child in this situation should be removed from the home. I stated that I felt nutritional classes and parental education would be a better option.

Could you point out to me where I say that I believe that the child should be removed from the home? I quite clearly state that this is neglect- and go on to explain what neglect means in cases where physical or sexual abuse is not involved. If you are going to misread and misinterpret my posts I am going to post differently to you to help you understand- as being continually misread is frustrating.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well of course it didn't work because I didn't even meet her until she was 14. Pretty hard to influence what she did at 10 when I didn't even know her then. I can assure you that if she had been my child I would have let her starve before letting her eat chicken nuggets every day. But if you have some magic suggestion of how to take on a 14 year old step daughter already set in her ways with a father that allows her to eat that way and change her behavior I would have like to have heard it.

my magic solution would be to start at 14. I also wouldn't tolerate a husband who allows their own children to ruin their lives and bodies like that. It's very unkind and unloving and it would be hard for me to respect or honor a man or father like that. *shrug*. No real magic there. Just some tough lovin to help a child set the foundations for a fair shot at a healthy life. Easier to unlearn / relearn at 14 than 40, and at some point she will have to relearn or will suffer the consequences of obesity or hypertension or diabetes or cancer or who knows what.

Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

I can't judge yet. Has she gone through genetic testing at some point?

There used to be a show about food issues. There was a lady on there that could only eat French fries. They did genetic testing and she had legitimate issues with her sense of taste so it went beyond a "choice."

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Potter75" wrote:

my magic solution would be to start at 14. I also wouldn't tolerate a husband who allows their own children to ruin their lives and bodies like that. It's very unkind and unloving and it would be hard for me to respect or honor a man or father like that. *shrug*. No real magic there. Just some tough lovin to help a child set the foundations for a fair shot at a healthy life. Easier to unlearn / relearn at 14 than 40, and at some point she will have to relearn or will suffer the consequences of obesity or hypertension or diabetes or cancer or who knows what.

Well I guess you must just be a better parent than I. Glad you have all the answers. Except what you said really amounts to if you can't force her and her father to do your will you would just walk away. I'm sure that would have helped her more.

Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

At age 17 it is not abuse, at that age you can't force her to change her behavior unless she wants to change. From ages 2-10 or so when the mother could control what she bought and what she ate is a different matter. I'm not sure I would classify it as abuse, but I surely wouldn't call her mother of the year. My step-daughter just turned 18 and she is almost the same way because her dad allowed her to eat whatever she wanted. She will eat a few more things than chicken nuggets but not much besides ramen noodles, macaroni & cheese, hot dogs or maybe a ham or turkey sandwich. I have given up trying to get her to eat meals with us and she just makes her own food.

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well of course it didn't work because I didn't even meet her until she was 14. Pretty hard to influence what she did at 10 when I didn't even know her then. I can assure you that if she had been my child I would have let her starve before letting her eat chicken nuggets every day. But if you have some magic suggestion of how to take on a 14 year old step daughter already set in her ways with a father that allows her to eat that way and change her behavior I would have like to have heard it.

DD2 has geographic tongue. When she was younger she was extremely sensitive to a lot of textures, tastes, and level of spices. Getting her to try new foods was impossible. There are a lot of foods that most children like that she just won't eat.

She's 9. I can't control what she eats for most of the day. She has 3 opportunities to eat breakfast each day and the option of taking or buying her lunch on school days. I could send her with a lunch, but whether she actually eats it or not isn't something I can control.

As for starving, it can backfire. How long would you let a hunger strike continue before you gave in? For the mom in the OP it was 2 days. Would you be comfortable with a 10 YO or 14 YO not eating for a week? 2 weeks? And what would you do to force feed her?

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well I guess you must just be a better parent than I. Glad you have all the answers. Except what you said really amounts to if you can't force her and her father to do your will you would just walk away. I'm sure that would have helped her more.

I probably just wouldn't have been attracted to someone like that in the first place. But- between the son and the daughter it sounds like you've got your hands full...... Insisting on healthy food at home isnt quite "making people do your will"... its creating a healthy home for people who are obviously unable to do so for themselves. I don't know that I would walk away- not my style- If I do I will come to you for advice :). And if you ask me what I would do and I tell you it's weird to then play the "better parent" card. If you didn't want to know why'd you ask!?!!

talk about bending people to your will- you are the one who would have let her starve, to quote your exact words!

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Potter75" wrote:

I don't know that I would walk away- not my style- If I do I will come to you for advice :).

So what exactly do you mean by that little dig? Are you suggesting that I walked away from my marriage? A little low don't you think?

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

How is it different than you suggesting out of no where that I would walk away? That may be the first thing that comes to your mind- but no where did I say anything like that. Sorry if you don't like your own debate tactics, Gloria. I guess it just stings more because we are talking a fictional situation when you try to insult me. Sorry about that.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

As for starving, it can backfire. How long would you let a hunger strike continue before you gave in? For the mom in the OP it was 2 days. Would you be comfortable with a 10 YO or 14 YO not eating for a week? 2 weeks? And what would you do to force feed her?

I agree it is very difficult by the time they get that age, and it is almost impossible to control everything they eat. That's why I didn't try to starve my DSD. It wouldn't have worked.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Potter75" wrote:

How is it different than you suggesting out of no where that I would walk away? That may be the first thing that comes to your mind- but no where did I say anything like that. Sorry if you don't like your own debate tactics, Gloria. I guess it just stings more because we are talking a fictional situation when you try to insult me. Sorry about that.

Ok I'm sorry if you meant something different when you said you would never tolerate a husband like that. As you said, it was a hypothetical situation. I don't think that justifies your little dig but obviously you feel that was ok so I guess we will just have to differ on that.

Believe me taking on almost grown step children is not an easy task. You have made it clear that you wouldn't have taken on that burden. I get it.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Right- just like I don't tolerate my husband leaving wet towels on the floor. It doesn't mean when he slips up and forgets I walk away from the marriage, lol. It simply means that as a family we have high expectations and standards and goals- constantly trying to help one another be better people. A diet that was terribly unhealthy would just be another one of those changes...... But a lot more critical. I'm sure we can both think of some digs today that we feel were unjustified. Oh well.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"Potter75" wrote:

Right- just like I don't tolerate my husband leaving wet towels on the floor. It doesn't mean when he slips up and forgets I walk away from the marriage, lol. It simply means that as a family we have high expectations and standards and goals- constantly trying to help one another be better people. A diet that was terribly unhealthy would just be another one of those changes...... But a lot more critical. I'm sure we can both think of some digs today that we feel were unjustified. Oh well.

I think if you have this mentality from the start, it works really well. I think its fair to acknowledge though that a child that was never reigned in could prove to be an immense challenge once they gain a certain level of independence and autonomy, coupled with the fact that they have never been taught to have boundaries, or have to do something they don't want to do....and then add the step child thing into it.

I'm not saying it can't be done....but I think its a pretty extreme type of parenting challenge.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

On my personal radar I would say that is definitely some kind of abuse, but I am not sure if I would classify it only as neglect? From a legal perspective in my state they would have a very hard time getting a neglect charge to stick. It is the hardest charge to make and one that the state really only uses in extreme cases. They have to prove that no food was made available for long periods. If any food was made available, nutritious or not, then they wont try to charge on that.

Pages