For me, the financial abuse was mostly in the form of just not contributing. Forced his way into my home, refused to contribute to rent, utilities, paid $20 a week towards food. Most of his money went on his credit card debt, drugs and alcohol. When he was working and doing better with his addictions, he saved thousands and claimed that it was 'his' money because he earnt it, whereas my money was from the government (overlooking that I worked all day as a parent and homemaker AND had a part time job). When I left for a refuge with our son, he got to keep the house, every stick of furniture which had all been mine, my whitegoods, my car, and many of our belongings. 
He had been homeless with only what he could carry when he first moved in. 

Maybe it was your reaction to her saying no that has kept her away.... you asked, she said no, what's there to be upset about? It's actually a HUGE ask to babysit someone's kids, especially for free, and especially during the evening.

You're very judgemental of other parents... and yet several of your own parenting practices are far more damaging to your children's lives in the long term than letting kids turn a few cartwheels on the lawn at a garden party.

Why did they not cooperate with FACS and go to the supportive relative FACS asked them to live with? They'd still have their baby now. Of course FACS isn't going to let you take a baby to live in an abusive home!

They were given alternatives and assistance and they made the choice not to cooperate. Would you allow a baby into a home known for drug abuse, violence, sexual abuse? Because that's what their plan was. The alternative given to them by the social worker was a safer relative who was prepared to take them in. Unfortunately they weren't prepared to do that for their baby.

It is heartbreaking, but these teenagers chose to not take the option of a safe, supportive home for them and their baby that DOCS gave them - with a maternal relative. Instead they insisted on staying with the paternal relative, in a home known to police and FACS for abuse, drugs and DV. It's a heartbreaking situation but one in which if only they had cooperated and acted in a more mature manner, they'd be with their daughter right now.

The boy's mum is the reason that DOCS have taken the baby, not the teenagers. They wanted to live with her. DOCS would have let them keep their baby had they agreed to live with another relative. The boy's mum has a documented history of sexually abusing a foster child in her care, drug abuse and DV. Can definitely see why DOCS didn't want them living with her!
If they'd only been open to taking the other option given to them, they'd be with their baby now.

I grew up in a family that was very restrictive and had harsh rules about food. We never ate junk food during normal times. It was difficult to even have a spoon of sugar in your tea - and then it had to be level, not a tiny bit rounded. "Empty calories" was my mother's favourite cry, after "Waste not want not".

In contrast, Easter and Christmas were times of gorging. So much chocolate, so many lollies, we went to town!

Guess who ended up with a life-threatening eating disorder, that I attribute at least in great part to the attitudes surrounding food in my home growing up? Yes me.

It's important to have one clear message around food, not conflicting messages. It's important to not be restrictive and encourage enjoyment in moderation - but it's just as important to not portray bingeing on special occasions as 'normal'.

Also, I think Tess isn't a great person to put up there as a role model to ANYONE considering her fraud.

So true. And, another one that most people can't seem to understand, is that the majority of people with anorexia are NOT emaciated. Many are not even underweight. It's totally possible to have anorexia and be overweight or obese - weight is but a result of the illness, and like symptoms of every illness out there, it varies among sufferers.
But people don't get this.

Tess is perpetuating body shame as much as anyone else in the industry. Sure, she's obese, but she's still portraying a look few larger women can achieve - shapely, glamorous, airbrushed in her photos (despite claiming she is not), conventionally 'beautiful', made up to the nines etc. Plus, Tess is morbidly obese. I think we need to accept one another and shut up about other people's weight, but Tess is saying that she's healthy, and pretending that to be obese can be perfectly healthy. It is not. Studies show that being *overweight* can be more healthy than being underweight or normal weight, as long as the person is active and eats healthily, but being morbidly obese carries exponentially greater health risks across the board AND directly leads to a host of health problems, many severe. There's no way around that.
So accept other people, don't criticise or shame - but don't stand up there and pretend that something that isn't healthy is healthy, sending a dangerous message to people who look up to you.

part of being a mum means teaching your child hygiene and consideration for others. Your child may be young, but she's absorbing everything.

People don't want anything that involves hard work, which couples therapy is... viewers want quick, magical 'fixes'. :(

As a psychology student, I'm horrified for this sort of thing to be associated with psychology. It would never be approved for any genuine psychological research study. It's highly unethical and risky to all participants. The Nuremberg protocol was meant to stop this sort of playing with human lives... instead they just turned it into a reality show and got 'consent'. Is it informed consent? Probably not, given the stress the couples are all under, the disclosure of private information, the miles of fine print none of them probably read...
And, did none of these couples ever sit down and do actual relationship therapy?

The reality is, no research ethics committee, anywhere, would ever give approval for this as an actual research study. The risk of lasting damage to the participants is too huge. Making it into a reality show gets around that. So you are right, it's not ethical at all, and they are not upholding duty of care.

There's a fool born every minute.... if you want to pay through the nose for something that is simple and takes a few minutes to do (seriously, wash, chop, maybe even peel... are we that lazy now that this is too hard?) go for it.
No you won't eliminate or even cut down on waste. They don't grow special pre-chopped, peeled, cored veggies... you might not see the waste but it still is waste. And imagine how often supermarkets will throw the entire thing out at night because it's not been bought. Whole veggies will last for days, even weeks, til sold. Cut stuff, a day if that, and will need preservatives probably. Then add in all the plastic waste packaging the chopped veg so they can be transported from the factory (you don't think supermarket workers are going to be there in the back chopping it all up do you? No, they are chopped and delivered in bulk plastic packs that are just poured into the containers).
And then - as soon as you chop your veg they start to deteriorate, losing nutrients as well as freshness.
Have we really become so lazy and clueless we have to resort to this? Sad.

I have had eating disorders for 32 years. Wanting to be thin had nothing to do with it at it's core.

I think the author is missing the point - health at every size is NOT about gorging on anything you want. It's about NOT focusing on SIZE. It's about eating appropriately, nourishing your body, listening to it, moving in a way that feels good. It's about stopping trying to change what your body looks like and just trying to treat yourself well and with care and respect.

The author has instead gone off to the other extreme which just like starvation isn't healthy either.

Also I do not think Belle qualifies as munchausens so much as she has crossed the line to malingering - where you do it for gain.

From what I've heard, the recipes were plagiarised from other sources anyway.

I agree - mental illness does not make you into a criminal. Belle crossed a line there. To do what she has done required her to have the ability to think ahead, plan, and took a lot of hard work. She didn't just pretend to be sick - she built an empire around those lies. The excuse of being mentally ill would not protect Belle in court, because she was well aware of the fact that she was doing the wrong thing, and because she did have the insight and presence of mind to create what she did. I think she is using 'mental illness' in the same way as she's used cancer - at the very least she's highly exaggerating how much she is unwell, hoping that it will bring sympathy and people won't hold her to account.
The vast majority of people with mental illness, including those with munchausens, do not break the law.