A recent case out of the U.K. has brought renewed attention to the issue of whether morbid obesity in children is a sign of abuse and neglect, such that the parents of those children should lose custody.

The latest case to make headlines concerns a Scottish couple who lost custody of two of their six children on the basis of what was, their lawyer claims, a failure to reduce the kids’ weight following warnings from Scottish social services. The couple lost their Oct. 14 appeal in a case that is far from clear-cut — representatives of Dundee City say they would never remove children “just because of a weight issue.” But obesity appears to be the primary reason South Carolina mom Jerri Gray lost custody of her 14-year-old, 555-lb. son in May. She was arrested after missing a court date to examine whether she should retain custody after doctors had expressed concern about her son’s weight to social services. The boy is currently living with his aunt, and his mother is facing criminal child-neglect charges.

Several other cases in recent years — in California, New Mexico, Texas and New York, as well as Canada — have garnered attention because a child’s obesity resulted in loss of custody. “It’s happening more than the public is aware of, but because these cases are usually kept quiet [as a result of child-privacy laws], we have no record,” says Dr. Matt Capehorn, who sits on the board of the U.K.’s National Obesity Forum. The issue of whether parents should lose custody of their obese children took center stage two years ago with a British television documentary about Connor McCreaddie, an 8-year-old who weighed more than 200 lbs. and was at risk of being taken from his mother by authorities. She eventually weaned him off processed foods and retained custody.

Read the full Time article here.

“A ruling last week by a divided Ohio Supreme Court in a pregnancy discrimination case is igniting controversy on the Internet.

“Although the court didn’t reach the key issue of whether an employer violated a state law barring discrimination against pregnant women, its final dismissal of the claim brought by LaNisa Allen over the unauthorized 10 a.m. bathroom break she took to pump breast milk for her baby is nonetheless being seen as a blow to working moms, according to the Columbus Dispatch and the Juggle blog of the Wall Street Journal.

“The court found that Allen didn’t follow the proper procedure in seeking accommodation for the bathroom break she said she needed at 10 a.m. after starting work at 5 a.m. Hence, the issue of whether her Cincinnati-area employer was required to allow her to take a breast-pumping break at that time wasn’t reached, the articles explain.”

Source: http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/mom_loses_case_over_unauthorized_10_a.m._breast-pumping_bathroom_break

“Despite strong social riptides working against it — the liberalization of divorce laws, the vanishing stigma of divorce, the continual online temptations of social sites like MySpace or Facebook — the marriage bond is far stronger in 21st-century America than many may assume. Infidelity is one of the most common reasons cited by people who divorce. But surveys find the majority of people who discover a cheating spouse remain married to that person for years afterward. Many millions more shrug off, or work through, strong suspicions or evidence of infidelity. And recent trends in marriage suggest that the institution itself has become more resilient in recent years, not less so,” authors Benedict Carey and Tara Parker-Pope report.

“[O]ne of the most commonly cited statistics about marriage is that half of marriages end in divorce,” the article continues. “But that number reflects the expected lifetime divorce rate of people married in the 1970s…The story is different for more-recently married couples. A comparison of 10-year divorce rates among college-educated men married in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s shows that divorce is becoming less common, said Dr. Stevenson, the Wharton researcher. Among men who married in the 1970s, for example, about 23 percent had divorced by the 10th year of marriage. Among similar men married in the 1980s, about 20 percent had divorced by the 10th year. Men married in the 1990s are doing even better — with a 10-year divorce rate of 16 percent.”

Whatever we may attribute the decreasing rates to, I like the outcome–here’s to stronger marriages everywhere!

Read my article, Academic Year Outlook in Parents & Kids Magazine for the experts’ opinions on the changes you’re likely to find in the 2009-2010 academic year.

The Complaint, filed on July 8th in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, states:

“In 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Since that time, more than 16,000 qualified and committed same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state. Despite these developments, same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act (”DOMA”) interferes with the Commonwealth’s sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage. As applied to the Commonwealth and its residents, DOMA constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law.”

Fortunately, paternity testing in Massachusetts has become less painful in modern years. Need to know more? Read about the basics in my article on establishing paternity in Parents & Kids Magazine!

“Willis requires parents who adopt infants in his county to agree that one of them will be home with the baby during the first year and won’t work full time during the baby’s preschool years. Willis is perhaps the only justice in Michigan to require such a pledge, which he acknowledges is not legally binding and may be offensive and outdated to some,” the article reads.

“Willis’ wife has suggested he may be “old fashioned,” and the judge admits he’s had lots of complaints about the moral-commitment pledge. But he has no plans to change his stance,” the article continues.

“I have this awesome burden to speak for children,” Willis said. “It came with the job, and I am going to fulfill it as I see best so I can look at myself in the mirror in the morning.”

I’m all for finding the most supportive adoptive parents possible, but since when are working parents considered sub-par simply because they work? Is this “moral-commitment pledge” an imposition that unduly restricts prospective parents’ adoption rights and stalls the adoption process for otherwise qualified parents? What’s your take on the story?

Interested in information about foster parenting? Read my recent article in the June issue of Parents and Kids Magazine.