By Carrie K. Hutchens
A Kansas City area man and his wife have apparently been denied the right to adopt a relative's child, because he is too fat! Too fat and "might" develop health issues. (Full Article)
Monday, July 30, 2007
Missouri Says: Too Fat to Adopt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
FYI, a legal defense fund's been set up for the family:
Gary Stocklaufer Fund
Commerce Bank
17601 E. Highway 24
Independence, MO 64056
Let's help bring Max home!
Adopted kids have enough baggage--they don't need to be weighted down, so to speak, with an obese parent. If Gary wants the child so much, maybe he should look into conquering his addiction.
Denice, what addiction would that be?
Thank you for the info, Kell!
thank you for saying the truth
If anyone out there has ever seen an injustice, it is here. I personally have been at 500 lbs, and I persoanlly have been a foster parent for three years, and I now weigh 200 lbs. This system is getting worse everyday and if I was going to make a donation to a good cause it woud be to get these people that made this decision to be fired and disbarred. They are idiots. Gary you keep going and never quit. BRING HIM HOME!!!
Hello everyone just wanted to give everybody an update on the progress on getting max home. My wife and I went to our new atturney today and he says that the guard em um at light um for max is tring to stop the rehearing . also he told us to that we were wronged in the wors't way. she didnt even come out to our house to investigate us and had never meet us before court so she cant legitimantly explain her decicion. our attourney also stated pls tell all of our friends and family in blog all over the net about the bank who is taking donations for us because it is going to get realy expensive real quick because he wants to bring in expert wittnesses . so any help in assisting us with legal bills in hopes that we win and get my son back realy soon would be most apprecheated by the whole family(TINY7299)
To Gary and family,
We at Adoption.com are getting out the word to thousands of our readers through several blogs. You can read them here...
http://open.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/missouri-man-deemed-to-obese-to-adopt-up
http://open.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/outraged-take-action
http://open.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/the-birthmom-in-the-gary-stocklaufer-cas
http://adoptee.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/discrimination-in-adoption
Also have left a number for you in Dallas to call me directly. We are pulling for you & have some experts who want to testify on your behalf.
Deb Donatti
For the record, the gentleman in question weighed 558 pounds at the time of the adoption hearing. To put that in context, it is comparable to more than two NFL linebackers, almost three MLB players, and most disturbingly just 90 pounds short of of an entire women's college basketball team.
This gentleman, with a stunning Body Mass Index of 65, was not merely "overweight". He was by ANY medical definition morbidly obese. Cardiovascular disease is the single leading cause of death for Americans and the US leads the entire world in obesity rates.
The courts have not only the right but the duty to consider the physical and mental health of any prospective parents. To blindly pretend to simply dismiss this case as "anti-fat discrimination" is at best asinine, and at worst disingenous.
He is also 6'7", isn't he? Little bit taller than the average citizen.
If his weight was so important at this hearing, why wasn't it important when he adopted his first son? Why wasn't it important when considering him to be a foster parent? Kinda selective in their worry about his health, don't you think?
mY SISTER WAS A VERY LARGE WOMEN AND SHE RAISED 2 GIRLS ON HER OWN. THEY WERE IN SOFTBALL AND EVERYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF. I THINK THAT THIS JUDGE NEED TO STOP JUDGEING THESE PEOPLE AND LET THIS CHILD GO HOME WITH THEM.FOR GOD IS OUR ONLY JUDGE AND HE CAN HELP THIS FAMILY WITH THERE WEIGHT PROBLEMS. DOES THIS JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS?I THINK HE IS STEPPING OVER THE LINE!! MATBE HE IS TRYING TO MAKE SOME MONEY BY LETTING OTHERS ADDOPT THIS CHILD!! WELL GOD BLESS AND MY PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU!!!
I have seen many blogs and have read many of the comments revolving this issue. I have seen very few people comment or focus on the true issue at hand. First of all being a parent is not a right, it is a privilage people. Children are the most precious gift that God has given us. And as a parent of two children myself, I feel that every parent should strive to be as close to perfect as possible for the sake of their children. Having said that I feel that if this man's weight and potential health problems are the issue, then he should address them. yes, anyone might get hit by a car crossing the street, but as a resposible adult, you would look both ways before crossing the street and you do not play chicken with oncoming traffic.
Secondly there is not a doctor in America who would classify a 40 year old 500 lbs man as healthy. And if you can find one, he or she needs to have their medical license revoked.
Third the focus should be this child. Not whether or not this man is being discriminated against or not. The court's job is to place this child in the most stable home possible. Key word being stable. Not loving, not sweet not caring. There are millions of parents in the world who care for and love their children but are unable to provide a stable home for them. The court is looking for stability. When you have a parent who may be diliberatley engaging in activites (in this case eating) that are dangerous to his/her health, that says something about that parent's mental stability or lack there of. Whether or not the court allows the adoption to take place is one thing, but the fact that a question was raised regarding the stability of the home is not discriminatory at all. That is what the court is supposed to do.
We as Americans tend to jump and react based on emotions too easily rather than looking at the situation from a logical point of few.
Anonymous,
Since you have read so many blogs and comments regarding the Stocklaufer case, I'm assuming you are fully aware that Gary lost weight immediately following the hearing and prior to his gastric-bypass SURGERY? Obviously, he has been addressing the weight issue.
If there is such worry about the stability in the Stocklaufers' life, why do you imagine the court would allow one adoption and not the second? Why would Gary be considered stable enough to be a foster parent, but not to adopt his cousin? Sounds rather selective, don't you think? Makes me wonder what is up!
What about the mother's right to give guardianship to the people of her choice? She didn't simply give up parental rights. She was giving them up specifically so that the Stocklaufers could adopt her son. How can a Missouri court simply ignore this little fact? Maybe Texas ought to sue Missouri to get the child back. After all, Baby Max was only going to be a Missouri citizen based upon his adoption into a specific Missouri home. Since a Jackson County court prevented that from taking place, thereby breaking the intended contract, then the transfer of custody should be voided as well, don't you think?
The court appointed guardian ad litems first duty is to the child.
The GAL is chosen from a pool of disinterested, unbiased and uninvolved/unattached outsiders.
Apparently the GAL doesn't feel it is in the best interest of the ward (child) to be placed with the Stocklaufers. Of course it is only possible to SPECULATE and make assumptions as to the reason(s) the GAL would come to this conclusion since the GAL has issued no statements.
The GAL would have first hand knowledge and be in possession of facts and factual information versus what is available via the public relations of attorneys and parties involved who hope to make their case with the public and by influencing public opinion. Courts concern themselves with facts and what is in the best intest of the child.
Public discussion- and particularly blogs- discard the facts and focus on emotion and inflaming the passions.
Bloggers are about rallying the troups to support the parents (if you want to put a "face" on the issue) or to support a more generic concept or idea such as "all child protection workers are evil" or "all child protection agencies are godless and heartless".
People who cannot win their case in court based on facts and evidence have turned to the new venue of public relations. It is a venue they have control over. They use the tactics of advertisers- they wrapper it, they gloss it over, they paint it, they put it under controlled lighting, they give truth a narrow scope. Whatever it takes- and usually it takes all the things that courts don't allow.
anonymous, if you believe what you say is true, then you are likewise trying to win your argument via public opinion, otherwise -- why leave a comment?
I guess this means you can't win your case in court and that is why you turned to the blogs.
This isn't the only wacky case this court is involved in. Check out http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bring-baby-noah-home.html This is a case where the same lawyers Cheri Simpkins and Micheal Mann stole another guys baby on really weird grounds. The case went to the Supreem Court and he won. Since then it was sent back to the same local court and they have put him under a gag order and refused to obey the order of the Supreme Court to give the kid back. Its crazy, that court is a baby mill and thanks to gag orders they get to cover it all up.
Post a Comment