- Russell M Viner, reader in adolescent health1,
- Edna Roche, senior lecturer in paediatrics2,
- Sabine A Maguire, senior lecturer in child health3,
- Dasha E Nicholls, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist4
- 1UCL Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 3EH
- 2Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
- 3Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff
- 4Great Ormond Street Hospital, London
- Correspondence to: R M Viner rviner{at}ich.ucl.ac.uk
- Accepted 15 May 2010
The suggestion that childhood obesity may raise child protection concerns has generated increasing media and professional interest.1 2 3 The British Medical Association annual meeting in 2007 rejected a motion suggesting that childhood obesity in under 12s should result in legal protection for the child and parents being charged with neglect.4 However, a BBC survey of 50 consultant paediatricians that month reported that obesity had been a factor in at least 20 child protection cases in the previous year.3 In October 2008, the UK Local Government Association warned that increasing child protection actions related to childhood obesity would be a future cost pressure for local councils.5 Similar concerns are evident internationally,6 7 with case reports of US courts acting to remove obese children from their parents.8
Most recently, UK researchers reported that four out of the five obese children in their study identified with an extremely rare genetic deletion associated with overeating had also been on child protection registers.9 This was widely reported as evidence that families of obese children were being unfairly accused of abuse.10 11 Despite the high degree of contention, there are few published data and no published guidelines for professionals.
Why is there a problem?
The rising epidemic of childhood obesity is caused by a long term positive energy balance in modern children. This is related to a host of lifestyle factors affecting both energy intake (type and energy density of food, access to healthy foods, speed of consumption, family eating, meal behaviours, etc) and energy expenditure (activity, sedentary behaviours, safety concerns, and access).12 It is therefore not surprising that parents and …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27