The wife and I have agreed to go on the Jenny Craig diet, because we are extremely susceptible to advertisements featuring the former cast of Cheers. If Woody Harrelson told me to buy a new Hummer I'd be smashing up Priuses in the parking lot and enraging people with hemp shoes with it by the end of the week. I'm extremely dubious that Katrina requires this diet; if she does, she needs it several orders of magnitude less than I do. I've sailed past late Elvis and late Marlon Brando and am fast approaching Dom Deluise/Oprah/Hutt.
Anyway, she's already had her first appointment and picked up her week's supply of ludicrously expensive, sodium-and-preservative rich food-analogue-products. (As near as I can tell, Jenny is flirting with the hypothesis that cell death from sodium poisoning will cause weight loss. You could set some of this stuff out for deer to lick.) She showed me one of the dishes the other night. "It's nice they give you an amuse bouche to start with" I say. No, that was the entire dinner. Since I'm in a different weight class, the one good J.C. classifies as "planetoid," I'll get to eat more every day. But unless I get to line up nine or ten of those entrees like tequila shots on a bar, I'm going to be gnawing the pillows by the weekend.
This is a roundabout way of mentioning that I'm fat. I'm a fat adoptive parent. In some places, as recent news shows, this is an anaomly, as adoption agencies and authorities have health restrictions for adoptive parents that include weight restrictions. Yet somehow our busy friend Matt Drudge saw fit to announce breathlessly on his front page that a family had been excluded from adoption because the husband was too fat.
Damien and Charlotte Hall were told to reapply once Mr Hall, who weighs 24 stone, had slimmed down.
The couple, who do not drink or smoke, have accused Leeds City Council of ignoring their parenting skills and denying a child a loving home.
They approached the council about adoption because they cannot have children of their own, but were told that Mr Hall's weight made them ineligible, because of the risk that he could become ill or die.
The 37-year-old call centre worker from Leeds must cut his body mass (BMI) index to below 40 and prove he can keep the weight off for the couple to be considered. He currently has a BMI of more than 42, classifying him as morbidly obese.
24 stone, for those of you who do not live in a country where they still measure things by reference to various forms of rubble, is about 336 pounds. That's a much bigger planetoid than I am. And I'm a good distance from BMI 42, thankfully, though nowhere near as far away as I should be.
To me, it seems self-evident that someone with a condition with "morbidly" in the title, whether or not the condition is "voluntary" or "involuntary," is questionably qualified to adopt a child. But people like the Halls and their supporters assert that they have a right to adopt a child despite this level of obesity, that Mr. Hall can still parent, that they can love a child who needs a home, and that the restriction simply reflects a commonly accepted social prejudice against fat people. I have no doubt that Mr. Hall is capable of loving a child and being a good parent by any number of measures. But I also have no trouble with adoption agencies — and governments — setting requirements for adoptive parents reasonably calculated to ensure that every child is adopted into a home with healthy and capable parents who do not pose a unusually high risk of stroking out when the kid is in junior high.
Certainly some adoption requirements are motivated by social prejudices that do not warrant respect. I have very low regard for states that prohibit adoption by same-sex couples, which strike me as questionably related to actual child welfare and more related to enforcing social norms. And China's ban on parents with "severe facial deformity" is probably a reflection of that culture's regrettable attitude towards visible disability or difference. But someone who is morbidly obese is much more likely to die early, or suffer substantial health problems, than someone who is not. That's a medical fact; it would exist whether or not our society had decided that Paris Hilton and Kiera Knightly represented reasonable beauty ideals. Adoption agencies and governments setting adoption requirements are entitled, legally and morally, to restrict adoption to reasonably healthy parents, as determined by reasonably available and workable criteria.
Some of the outrage about eligibility limits on adoptive parents carry a dangerous tone — the tone of entitlement. People like the Hills feel they are entitled to a child in the care of the state, and that thus the adoption process should be as accommodating and "non-discriminatory" as the application for a library card. But children placed for adoption are not anyone's entitlement. The entitled attitude encourages the commodification of children, which is already enough of a problem in both domestic and international adoption. People like the Hills offer a similarly problematical chord when they trot out the "I just want to give a needy child a home" argument. First, this argument plays into the parent-as-savior complex that offends self-aware adoptive parents, who recognize that viewing your child as lucky to have you is the exact opposite of the way a principled adoptive parent should view the situation. Second, the argument lends itself to the view that adoptive children are strictly second-class, and ought to he happy for what they can get — that restrictions on suitability on adoptive parents are inappropriate when children ought just be thankful to have a roof over their head. Once again, this is a vision of an adoptive child as a supplicant rather than a family member, and is a terribly unhealthy foundation for a family relationship.
And so, though I am interested in discussions of whether eligibility requirements are rational, I make no pretense to suggesting that everyone should be eligible to adopt. I'm not morbidly obese — I'm probably 8 BMI points behind Mr. Hill — but an agency or government could rationally and morally eschew me in favor of a physically fit parent. Most American adoption agencies will not refuse me because I take anti-depressants, and I view that as a rational decision, but when China made me ineligible I recognized that this was their call based on their medical and psychological judgment. It's not the judgment that I'd make, and I'd argue against it given the opportunity, but it's not irrational or unscientific, like their sad cultural hang-up about facial deformity. The truth is, I'm not much of a parent if I stop taking my meds.
Adoption is not about me and my right to self-realization, and I ought not expect it to be.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- A Response To Marc: Institutions, Agendas, and the "Culture War" - January 13th, 2016
- Lawyering Is About Service, Not Self-Actualization - January 11th, 2016
- Lawsplainer: Was FAU Prof. James Tracy Fired in Violation of His First Amendment Rights? - January 7th, 2016
- Defy, Defy, Defy. - January 7th, 2016
- President Obama And The Rhetoric Of Rights - January 5th, 2016