As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Childhood morbid obesity = Neglect?

Magus`Magus` The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered User regular
edited March 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/454788/7_year_old_girl_weighs_400lbs_or_141kg/

Most, if not all, of us know the traditional signs of childhood neglect. Not feeding the child, not taking it to the doctor, not enrolling it in normal everyday activities like school.

But what about the parents who feed their child at such a rate that they become like the girl shown above? Obviously we can't expect every kid to be thin and athletic, but there is seemingly a fine line between being chunky and weighing 400lbs (!).

If you do consider this a kind of neglect, what would you suggest be done? Should the kid be removed until the parents are 'better' at feeding them? Perhaps an in-house diet plan?

If this isn't neglect, why not? Should we assume that kids are smart enough to know when to stop eating so much?

Personally I think something has to be done. I wouldn't go so far as to remove the child entirely, but at least have some sort of supervision going on to prevent these kinds of things from reaching these kinds of extremes.

Magus` on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    LibrarianLibrarian The face of liberal fascism Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Of course this is neglect and the parents are to blame.

    This is just bizarre, how can anyone stand by and watch when their daughter turns into some sideshow freak?
    I mean, the girl can't even walk, she has to shuffle around the house on her ass, the parents have given her the food that turned her into this gigantic lardball, noone can expect a 7 year old child to keep a sensible diet on their own, so it's totally the parents fault.

    I don't even see the need to discuss this, it is pretty obvious

    Librarian on
  • Options
    ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Librarian wrote: »
    Of course this is neglect and the parents are to blame.

    This is just bizarre, how can anyone stand by and watch when their daughter turns into some sideshow freak?
    I mean, the girl can't even walk, she has to shuffle around the house on her ass, the parents have given her the food that turned her into this gigantic lardball, noone can expect a 7 year old child to keep a sensible diet on their own, so it's totally the parents fault.

    I don't even see the need to discuss this, it is pretty obvious

    No clearly it's the fault of McDonalds, TV advertising and schools. The parents are faultless, and should sue.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • Options
    FreakNRageFreakNRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    The child should be removed from the household. The parents have shown that they are unable to take care of their child, nor their child's health. While there isnt the intent for harm that physical abuse has in this case, the child is still being harmed. Their health, life expectancy and mental well being are all being affected.

    I seriously doubt they will remove the child though, because while this case is clearly an example of the child being harmed, it would require them to come up with a framework to determine at what point does child obesity constitute enough danger to children to neccistate removal from a home. This I believe they will be unwilling to do.

    FreakNRage on
  • Options
    urbmanurbman Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    FreakNRage wrote: »
    The child should be removed from the household. The parents have shown that they are unable to take care of their child, nor their child's health. While there isnt the intent for harm that physical abuse has in this case, the child is still being harmed. Their health, life expectancy and mental well being are all being affected.

    I seriously doubt they will remove the child though, because while this case is clearly an example of the child being harmed, it would require them to come up with a framework to determine at what point does child obesity constitute enough danger to children to neccistate removal from a home. This I believe they will be unwilling to do.

    That is easy enough to come up with. When the child's weight exceeds its body's ability to function properly. Like how that girl could not walk or breath correctly.

    urbman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    There'd be ample precedent for removing the child, though. I recall awhile back some dipshit hippie vegan parents were raising their infant on nothing but nuts and fruit, or something, resulting in a child that was grossly underweight and severely malnourished. Not only was the child removed from the household, the parents were charged with child endangerment and neglect.

    That said, I think the solution here is not to remove the child, but to issue a court-ordered diet plan that the parents must adopt, combined with a timeline for reducing the child's weight. If they don't comply, then take away the child. It's likely the parents are just too stupid to know how to fix the problem at this point.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    more_cowbellmore_cowbell Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Well the parents certainly skrewed up. agreeing w/ El Jeffe, there needs to be an official court ordered diet plan. That girl is the definnition of unhealthy, and the parents do not even care, or if they do, they have a bad way of showing it. If she continues to maintain/gain more weight then she does in fact need to be removed from the home and moved to a place where she can recover.

    more_cowbell on
    [sigpic][/sigpic]
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    ShogunShogun Hair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get along Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    man what

    Low income people qualify for government programs to ensure this doesn't happen. That includes decreased school lunch prices as well. Give me those foodstamps and I'll go to Sams Club, fill up the commercial freezer in my garage, and eat like a king.

    Shogun on
  • Options
    AngelofVengeanceAngelofVengeance Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I really don't think we should expect every kid to be the thin, athletic type. What we should expect is that everyone should keep themselves healthy at least. I do, and I'm not exactly in Football Runningback shape.

    AngelofVengeance on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    I'm pretty sure people in low-income areas have the option of not cramming 6 double bacon cheeseburgers per day down their kid's slavering gullet.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    True enough

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    stigweardstigweard Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    There is no way that family is poor. That kid either has a severe chemical imbalance / growth problem, or has no ability to tell when she is full. You'd have to work to get that size, eating 5+ large meals a day in between snacks.

    stigweard on
  • Options
    Ninja BotNinja Bot Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    I'm pretty sure people in low-income areas have the option of not cramming 6 double bacon cheeseburgers per day down their kid's slavering gullet.

    Come on now that's just ridiculous.

    Anyway these people definitely need their kids taken away from them. They obviously don't give a shit about their kids' health, which I'm not sure about but seems to be a pretty good sign of neglect.

    Ninja Bot on
  • Options
    The PastryThe Pastry Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Yeah, there's definately no doubt in my mind that that child needs to be removed from that home.

    I don't think they need to make a new law, though. It doesn't take a big time lawyer to point out that being this fat = clear danger to immediate heath = child abuse.

    If a = b, and b = c...

    The Pastry on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    That Southern Accent drips with stereotype affirmation.

    Thing is this: If someone doesn't step in, the child will be dead soon anyways.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    The Pastry wrote: »
    Yeah, there's definately no doubt in my mind that that child needs to be removed from that home.

    I don't think they need to make a new law, though. It doesn't take a big time lawyer to point out that being this fat = clear danger to immediate heath = child abuse.

    If a = b, and b = c...

    However it may take a big time lawyer to deal with these questions: To what extent, given their education and socioeconomical status, can the parents be held responsible for that condition, and - more importantly - how fat must a child be to turn from just another fat kid into a case of child abuse?

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    What did Morgan Spurlok say in Supersize me? That the 5-a-day commercials were dwarfed many times over by junk food commercials? I mean, how can a kid choose grapes over a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles when Fred and Barney advertise every hour?

    On top of that, I'm a little confused on why hydrogenated oils are still in American foods - I've read most European countries have banned them.

    And what's up with the Cheeseburger Bill? You can't sue anyone for making you fat anymore even if those foods contain substances you can't digest - isn't that the definition of poison?

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What did Morgan Spurlok say in Supersize me? That the 5-a-day commercials were dwarfed many times over by junk food commercials? I mean, how can a kid choose grapes over a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles when Fred and Barney advertise every hour?

    On top of that, I'm a little confused on why hydrogenated oils are still in American foods - I've read most European countries have banned them.

    And what's up with the Cheeseburger Bill? You can't sue anyone for making you fat anymore even if those foods contain substances you can't digest - isn't that the definition of poison?

    You can't digest gum.

    POISON!!!

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    According to the video, she was ordered into a paediatric hospital and placed on a strict diet, so she was in fact taken away from her parents.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Options
    The PastryThe Pastry Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Bliss 101 wrote: »

    However it may take a big time lawyer to deal with these questions: To what extent, given their education and socioeconomical status, can the parents be held responsible for that condition,

    Wha? If the child was being fed too little, to what extent are the parents held responsible? If you cannot properly care for you child (and I'm not talking raising them with weird values, I'm talking not feeding them correctly and constituting a danger to their heath) you should not be in charge of care for said child, QED.
    and - more importantly - how fat must a child be to turn from just another fat kid into a case of child abuse?

    How malnurished must a child be for them to be neglected rather than just skinny? I'm not saying being a little chunky is the same thing as being malnurished, I'm just saying that the other side of the spectrum seems to work fine being handled on a case by case basis, why not this?

    edit: Ninja'd for grammar

    The Pastry on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    And what's up with the Cheeseburger Bill? You can't sue anyone for making you fat anymore even if those foods contain substances you can't digest - isn't that the definition of poison?

    Main Entry:
    1poi·son Listen to the pronunciation of 1poison
    Pronunciation:
    \ˈpȯi-zən\
    Function:
    noun
    Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French poisun drink, potion, poison, from Latin potion-, potio drink — more at potion
    Date:
    13th century

    1 a: a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism b (1): something destructive or harmful (2): an object of aversion or abhorrence2: a substance that inhibits the activity of another substance or the course of a reaction or process <a catalyst poison>

    So, no. No it is not.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I'm not convinced. A high fat diet might cause diabetes and that damages your organs. Saturated fats, enriched foods, and corn syrups might not be quick but they do damage you in the long term.

    ...how are they not poisons? Bleached flour is MURDER! ...j/k...

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Pretty much anything is poisonous at a high enough dose.

    jothki on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I'm not convinced. A high fat diet might cause diabetes and that damages your organs. Saturated fats, enriched foods, and corn syrups might not be quick but they do damage you in the long term.

    ...how are they not poisons? Bleached flour is MURDER! ...j/k...

    Stretch things far enough into the realm of absurdity and water is poison. Doesn't matter though, you asked if "cannot be digested" is the definition of poison. No, it is not. Incidentally you don't really digest water, either.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Unless this was caused by some kind of a medical condition then yes, the parents are absolutely guilty of neglect.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Unless this was caused by some kind of a medical condition then yes, the parents are absolutely guilty of neglect.

    I don't think a medical condition can force other people to keep buying way too much shitty food and feeding it to you.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    That depends. Is stupidity a medical condition?

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Al_wat wrote: »
    That depends. Is stupidity a medical condition?

    I'm not sure. I know you're not allowed to deliberately only hire smart people, though, so it's a protected demographic of some sort.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    HiredGunHiredGun Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Aside from the issue of the parents (who are clearly doing something wrong, at the very least), does anyone else think that there's got to be something wrong with the girl medically as well? I'm trying to imagine how much you would have to eat to be able to put on that much weight at 7 years old, unless you had a profoundly abnormal metabolism.

    HiredGun on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Shogun wrote: »
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    man what

    Low income people qualify for government programs to ensure this doesn't happen. That includes decreased school lunch prices as well. Give me those foodstamps and I'll go to Sams Club, fill up the commercial freezer in my garage, and eat like a king.

    Nexus has way overstated his case, but there are some major problems with the subsidised food programs for low-income people in the states (and elsewhere, I don't doubt). The foods on the 'allowed to buy' list are often high-GI, low nutritional quality, and highly processed - for instance, you can only buy fruit juice with the stamps/card under some programs, not fresh fruit. There' s also a tendency for the program to be used to work down surpluses of particular products, regardless of whether the food is actually any good for you. Its not a universal thing, but it does make it that much harder to make good nutritional choices when you're poor, even when you know what's good and what isn't. And its starting to show - there was a report released late last year (i think) into nutritional status as related to wealth, and it discovered that in many western nations you can now visually gauge a child's economic status just by looking at them, with a fairly high degree of success. The poor ones are just plain fatter, shorter, and sicker, visibly so. It takes more than ignorance for that to happen.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shogun wrote: »
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    man what

    Low income people qualify for government programs to ensure this doesn't happen. That includes decreased school lunch prices as well. Give me those foodstamps and I'll go to Sams Club, fill up the commercial freezer in my garage, and eat like a king.


    Have you ever worked at a supermarket when the first of the month comes around? God-damn you should not be able to buy lobsters and prime rib on food stamps. It made me sad when I went home and ate my Mac and Cheese (even if it is the cheesiest).


    Edit: To be honest most of the people I was talking about above were drug dealers or had some other form of income cause they had SUVs with Dub (sp?) rims on them.

    Manning'sEquation on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shogun wrote: »
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    man what

    Low income people qualify for government programs to ensure this doesn't happen. That includes decreased school lunch prices as well. Give me those foodstamps and I'll go to Sams Club, fill up the commercial freezer in my garage, and eat like a king.


    Have you ever worked at a supermarket when the first of the month comes around? God-damn you should not be able to buy lobsters and prime rib on food stamps. It made me sad when I went home and ate my Mac and Cheese (even if it is the cheesiest).


    Edit: To be honest most of the people I was talking about above were drug dealers or had some other form of income cause they had SUVs with Dub (sp?) rims on them.

    That would be the result of failing to report illegal income instead of any problem with the food stamp program itself. I'm kind of suprised people like that would be so blatant about it, I would think that the last thing that they would want would be to be part of a government program.

    jothki on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Shogun wrote: »
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    man what

    Low income people qualify for government programs to ensure this doesn't happen. That includes decreased school lunch prices as well. Give me those foodstamps and I'll go to Sams Club, fill up the commercial freezer in my garage, and eat like a king.


    Have you ever worked at a supermarket when the first of the month comes around? God-damn you should not be able to buy lobsters and prime rib on food stamps. It made me sad when I went home and ate my Mac and Cheese (even if it is the cheesiest).


    Edit: To be honest most of the people I was talking about above were drug dealers or had some other form of income cause they had SUVs with Dub (sp?) rims on them.

    oh look, The Problem has reared its ugly head! Poor people shouldn't be prohibited from eating well. This goes both for you and the food stamp dudes.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Shogun wrote: »
    One problem is for low income people in many areas there's not a heck of alot of choice for parents as far as food goes.

    man what

    Low income people qualify for government programs to ensure this doesn't happen. That includes decreased school lunch prices as well. Give me those foodstamps and I'll go to Sams Club, fill up the commercial freezer in my garage, and eat like a king.


    Have you ever worked at a supermarket when the first of the month comes around? God-damn you should not be able to buy lobsters and prime rib on food stamps. It made me sad when I went home and ate my Mac and Cheese (even if it is the cheesiest).


    Edit: To be honest most of the people I was talking about above were drug dealers or had some other form of income cause they had SUVs with Dub (sp?) rims on them.

    That would be the result of failing to report illegal income instead of any problem with the food stamp program itself. I'm kind of suprised people like that would be so blatant about it, I would think that the last thing that they would want would be to be part of a government program.


    They use food stamps in exchange for real money. So a mom on welfare will sell $50 of food stamps for $30 in drugs. That is one way they could get the money without being in the program. Also CAT my post was to show you that you can buy nice food with food stamps at least in oklahoma like 7 years ago. I can not speak for other states or what is going down today.

    Manning'sEquation on
  • Options
    ZimmydoomZimmydoom Accept no substitutes Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Did anyone else notice the conspicuous lack of parents in that video? Granted it's just some crappy tabloid TV show, but I have to wonder why they had to go to the "word on the street" for commentary instead of just asking the Goddamn parents.

    Zimmydoom on
    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Gim wrote: »
    Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
    Flew away in a balloon
    Had sex with polar bears
    While sitting in a reclining chair
    Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
    Running around and clawing eyelids
    Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    They use food stamps in exchange for real money. So a mom on welfare will sell $50 of food stamps for $30 in drugs. That is one way they could get the money without being in the program. Also CAT my post was to show you that you can buy nice food with food stamps at least in oklahoma like 7 years ago. I can not speak for other states or what is going down today.

    That's cool, but I don't see why you needed to when I double-wrapped that post in caveats.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Maybe this bothers me because I'm a new father, but these asshats need to be charged with something.

    I'm not going to lie; I give my son french fries, chocolate icecream, cake, pieces of cadburry eggs, kinder chocolate, and I've even let him have some IBC rootbeer. But it's in small ammounts and as a TREAT, not an actual food source.

    Sure there are times that he pitches a fit and doesn't want to eat his veggies, but you have to make sure, no matter how time consuming or aggrevating, that they eat right. There have been quite a few times that we've sat at the table/high chair, starring at eachother like Blondie and Angel Eyes, waiting to see who will give in first over the battle of the greenbeans. Yeah it's tiresome, it gets noisey, and sometimes you just want to give up; but giving him a twinkie is not the answer.

    At best thats lazy parenting. At worst, it's neglect.

    Oh, and here's a general guidline; if it says GERBER, it's usually pretty healthy. And they offer a pretty wide variety of foods to try. Once they get past the Gerber age, that doesn't mean that type of food is obsolete. Give them your home made spaghetti instead, or if your not completley lazy - DICE UP THE APPLES YOURSELF!

    People really should have to take a test and get a license before they can have a kid. But I guess it's just the future of the world at stake, no big deal.

    Capt Howdy on
    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • Options
    CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    People really should have to take a test and get a license before they can have a kid. But I guess it's just the future of the world at stake, no big deal.
    There's a Dilbert strip somewhere that is ever so relevant to that. But yeah, if you're significantly endangering the health of your child, by malice, negligence, or just circumstance, they're gonna have to be taken. As this is an instance where the kid isn't at an immediate threat (she likely isn't going to drop dead right this second) some leeway can be given, but if it keeps going like this, the kid has to leave.

    As for food and economics, poorer people also have to work longer hours at multiple places to stay afloat, so they mightn't even have the leisure to cook something nutritous from scratch. If you've just come from a 7-3 shift and have to do shopping, grab the kids, and run to the bank, you can't cook a dinner from raw ingredients prior to heading to your 6-10 shift at McDonalds.

    Corlis on
    But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
    I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
  • Options
    Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Corlis wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    People really should have to take a test and get a license before they can have a kid. But I guess it's just the future of the world at stake, no big deal.
    There's a Dilbert strip somewhere that is ever so relevant to that. But yeah, if you're significantly endangering the health of your child, by malice, negligence, or just circumstance, they're gonna have to be taken. As this is an instance where the kid isn't at an immediate threat (she likely isn't going to drop dead right this second) some leeway can be given, but if it keeps going like this, the kid has to leave.

    As for food and economics, poorer people also have to work longer hours at multiple places to stay afloat, so they mightn't even have the leisure to cook something nutritous from scratch. If you've just come from a 7-3 shift and have to do shopping, grab the kids, and run to the bank, you can't cook a dinner from raw ingredients prior to heading to your 6-10 shift at McDonalds.

    A luchable is still more nutritous than a bag of chips and a Suzy-Q.

    Sure microwave food isn't good for you, but there are still some that aren't horrible. Yes, they cost $1.00 more, but I'll give up my love of Monster Energy Drinks if it means my kid can eat better.

    This whole thing screams of lazy parents, thats my problem with it.

    Even if money is the problem; junk food isn't cheap; Dorritos are still $3.00 a bag and Twinkies cost $2.00 a box. An apple is .30 (WTF, there's no cent symbol on the keyboard), thats pretty cheap. Carrotts need to be washed, which takes all of 10 seconds, and costs $1.50 a bag. There is no true excuse to feed your kid nothing but crap; not money, not time. These people just didn't want to deal with their own child. Thats all it comes down to.

    Capt Howdy on
    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    These people just didn't want to deal with their own child. Thats all it comes down to.

    Sadly, this applies to almost every goddamn issue regarding children ever.

    The worst part is that, if you DARE to suggest someone's parenting skills are not perfect, OH FUCKING GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE.

    Sadly, democracy and growth-based economic models means that there will never be a parenting license scenario.

    Incenjucar on
Sign In or Register to comment.