Among the options, which one would be the maximizing choice, and how does that choice maximize overall happiness?

Imagine that you are jogging in the park one day and you see an overweight rich kid
eating a triple-decker ice cream cone. Only a few feet away are three very poor, underfed
and envious children. As a utilitarian you realise this is the kind of situation where
utility/happiness could be maximized,

What options are available to you, which one would be the maximizing
choice, and how does that choice maximize overall happiness?

Utilitarianism will usually explain our decisions about right and wrong quite well. For
instance a utilitarian could easily show how his theory demonstrates the immoral nature
of an action like child molestation. The pedophile does gain some pleasure, but his
victim suffers a life time of tragic consequences, which massively outweigh the gain to
the molester. So total aggregate happiness is not increased and the action is therefore
immoral according to their theory
What kinds of consequences would there be for each of your alternative actions in the
park?

General comments: This paper topic is somewhat more involved than the previous three.
It requires you to run through several steps in the argument and could require a somewhat
longer paper to adequately discuss it. You can either defend utilitarianism by showing it
gives the answer we know to be correct or criticise it by showing that in the right
circumstances it could give an answer we know to be incorrect. (In this case it is almost
certainly much easier to defend it.)