Like everyone else, my first instinct was to blame the mother, because that's how the "outrage bait" headline writers set it up. I mean, who could read a headline like that and not immediately jump to the conclusion that it's all the mother's fault. It's not until the 11th paragraph that readers are informed that the boy had an eating disorder (past where most casual readers will read).
To be sure, she probably shares some blame, but the circumstances were more complicated than the headlines and opening paragraphs would lead you to believe.
Now, some might question this "eating disorder". Is it just a fancy way of saying that the child was a picky eater? Can't kids be trained to be less picky? Perhaps the mother needed to be stricter, and not give in to the child's preferences. Hell, if I was allowed to only eat what I preferred when I was a young child, I would have chosen cake and candy and ice cream, not vegetables and other proper food. Parents are supposed to make their kids eat a healthy diet, and that may require putting your foot down and not allowing the child to rule you.