Dad 'wholly' incapable of caring for 4-year-old son because he refused to take kid to McDonald's

[alp227]

Full title: Shrink brands dad 'wholly' incapable of caring for 4-year-old son because he refused to take kid to McDonald's

No Happy Meal for this dad.

An Upper East Side father has filed a defamation suit against a court-appointed psychologist who branded him "wholly" incapable of handling his 4-year-old son because he refused to take the boy to McDonald's.

David Schorr, in court papers, said his son "threw a temper tantrum" on Oct. 30 when he said no to Mickey D's — and his soon-to-be ex undermined him later by taking the boy to the Golden Arches.

A former corporate attorney, Schorr said he drew the line at McDonald’s because his boy has been eating "too much junk food," the papers state.

Instead, Schorr gave the boy two options: another restaurant or no dinner at all.

“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," the papers state.

[Tikki]

1. I support this father whole-heartedly….NO CHILD NEEDS to go to mcdonalds..

Put food out for child to eat…if he gets hungry enough... he will eat.


Tikki

[kcr]

3. Well, there's the rub

the kid didn't eat. He should have just taken him someplace else to eat. The claim that he he's being punished for not taking him to McDonald's is false. He got in trouble for returning the kid without dinner.

[Tikki]

10. He did eat…his mother took him to mcdonalds..

The father did the correct thing…where he made the mistake…he should have sent the child
back to his mother's house with a sack full of nutritious foods.


Tikki

[kcr]

13. But he didn't send him back with a sack full of nutritious foods

He simply didn't feed him.

[Tikki]

16. Hopefully, lesson learned…this child obviously needs his father..

Still say the father set the correct tone..now he needs to follow up a bit smarter.

Tikki

[kcr]

18. I don't think his intentions were bad

I just think it was a bad idea in a divorce situation. And I don't think this was a case of Dad is being punished for refusing McD's" The headline is wrong.

[Tikki]

26. I think he was being punished for not giving into the child. Yes, a divorce situation..

but mom giving in instead of preparing a nutritious meal is wrong.

Tikki
ps…mcdonalds is NOT nutritious food. It is not better than nothing.
They live in a city..even with a four year old you can find nutritious food nearby.
Maybe, both parents need to go to parenting classes.

[kcr]

46. Where did I claim anyone should have given him McDonalds?

I'm not saying anyone should have given him McDonalds. I think maybe you're mistaking me for someone else. He could have taken him to another restaurant or simply made him a sandwich himself.

[Tikki]

49. Both parents need to go into mediation and discuss parameters.

And meanwhile…I am still thinking..



Tikki

[Silent3]

76. "not better than nothing"

Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2013, 05:25 PM - Edit history (3)

Whatever you think is wrong with McDonald's food or other fast food, "the poison is in the dose".

It matters much, much more what you make a habit of eating than what you occasionally eat. An occasional trip to McDonald's is hardly going to kill you. McDonald's generally isn't very nutritious, but it's over-the-top snobbery when people act like it's rat poison mixed with broken glass.

McDonald's food has calories. Since we live in a culture where there are typically way too many calories available, a lot of people forget that plain old calories are a big part of nutrition. While some means of delivering calories are obviously far better than others, providing better quality nutrition with fewer bad side effects, your body nevertheless does need calories in and of themselves.

If you're in a situation where you're going to be short on calories, and either have no need to be on a weight-losing diet, or the calorie shortage would be even greater than is healthy for weight loss, then McDonald's is better than nothing.

When it's a matter of a 4 year-old kid missing one meal or eating at McDonald's, it's probably not a big deal going either way for the one meal. Unless a kid is already on the verge of a major calorie deficit, I'd say teaching a kid not to be a stubborn brat, and not contributing to long-term bad eating habits, is worth letting the kid go a little hungry on a few rare occasions.

[Ms. Toad]

97. +1 n/t

[SheilaT]

52. Did you not see the sentence where the father gave the kid a choice

between another restaurant and not eating? And the kid chose not eating?

Kids will survive, and possibly get much better nutrition if they rarely or never go to fast food places.

[kcr]

53. Yes. So?

So what if the kid chose not eating. Take him to that restaurant anyway, sit him down in front of that food and tell him to eat it.

[enlightenment]

60. No.

You do that at home. Taking a whinging four-year-old - already in a swivet because they aren't getting their way - to a public place and telling them to eat what is put in front of them is a recipe for a meltdown, and a restaurant is not the place for a meltdown.

Why would you think even for a moment that would be appropriate? A restaurant is a public place, not your home. People go there for a meal, not a shrieking sideshow performed by a toddler and abetted by parents who don't understand the difference between public and private.

[kcr]

61. Okay fine, do it at home

But do something. Just shrugging your shoulders when they say no, and doing nothing? Particularly when you're a party in an acrimonious divorce? Not smart. And then you certainly can't claim it was just because you didn't get McDonald's. Or you'd better have the proof in writing that that was the actual objection. Because I'm not buying it.

[enlightenment]

66. I think we're talking apples and oranges

but I understand your perspective.

In an acrimonious divorce, it is apparently important that every action be weighed against its potential to be used against you. Nasty that things get to be that way.

[warrant46]

94. If the kid continues to eat at McGrease He will have a photo future

on the Website "The People of Walmart"

[stevenleser]

19. The dad offered to take him somewhere else. The kid refused.

This is the problem with custody cases.

All of a sudden every thing that goes on with the child is assessed with all the spin of a political campaign against one of the parents.

In a healthy situation, the mother would have backed up the father's refusal to cater to the child's request to go to a fast food restaurant.

Instead, its spun into the father being bad.

[kcr]

22. The headline is doing the spinning

Parents don't cooperate when they divorce? Wow. And the sky is blue. Water is wet.

He shouldn't have just offered to take him somewhere else. He should have just taken him somewhere else. Because he's no longer in a situation where he has a parent co-parenting cooperatively. He can't act as though that's happening. Reality check. If you return your child to the non-co-parenting parent not fed? Trouble.

[stevenleser]

44. Sorry, that is B.S. What is acceptable in a non-divorce situation should apply

Parents turn over uncooperative children to each other all the time with something along the lines of "Johnny/Susie isn't cooperating for me right now, see if you can do better"

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Child protective services and child psychiatrists don't need to get involved.

In a divorce situation, now you have a parent spinning it against the other as a big deal. It's B.S.

[kcr]

45. I'm sorry

But I place the likelihood of a psychiatrist deeming a parent unfit because they didn't take their kid to McDonald's at close to zero. Right, in a perfect world where there's no poverty, no war, the birds are chirping, there's no pollution, everyone's happy, there's no anger and sadness? Well, there'd be no divorce either, would there, in that world? I think claiming that the psychiatrist ruled that he was unfit because he didn't give his kid McDonald's is coming from the same place that's making their divorce acrimonious in the first place. In other words, it's total BS.

[stevenleser]

54. I'm not talking perfect world, I'm talking what happens 99.9999% of the time.

Outside of custody battle situations, this is a non-issue.

[kcr]

56. Well yes, but in custody battles it's not.

So you make every attempt to feed your kid. That way when you return them having not eaten for hours, you can at least say you tried. Divorce isn't good for kids. There's no way around it.

[stevenleser]

64. Which is exactly why I focused the problem on how things get spun in custody battles.

That whole process is fatally flawed and pretty easy to fix if only there was a will to do it.

[kcr]

71. I think the problem, at least when discussing it, is the perception

I've witnessed too many of these things. I think his claim of 'They think I'm fit because MCDONALDS!" is bluster. Someone I'm close to has had her ex pull all kinds of garbage, like showing up without carseats. Not making sure she does her homework, being late so she misses appointments and parties, showing up in filthy clothes all kinds of garbage, all of it documented, and nothing. None of it mattered.

[Fumesucker]

140. I believe Solomon had the, or at least a, fix for that particular problem

Of course Solomon's solution might seem a wee touch over the top these days.

[kcr]

144. Cutting the cheeseburger in half?

[Fumesucker]

165. I prefer to think of it as dividing the assets n/t

[Ms. Toad]

100. Then you have not

run into some of the psychiatrists/psychologists I have run into. In more than one case where I know both parents the psychiatrist/psychologist has inserted her own issues into the reports she was providing to the court, making assessments which were so out of touch with reality that no one who knew the accused parent would be able to connect the dots, and with one of those "professionals" where I knew the parents involved had her license to practice stripped later for similar behavior in an unrelated case.

[kcr]

103. Sorry

There's the stuff people claim happens on the internet, and then there's the real life I've experienced. I'll go with the latter. And I'm not going to jump to conclusions and think this guy's claim is correct. Especially since he just shrugged his shoulders when the kid said no, and didn't even bother to feed him anything else. I'm not buying his claim.

[Ms. Toad]

109. So your real life is more valid than mine.

I'm not talking about stuff I've read on the internet. I'm talking about real life friends who, unfortunately, had unfriendly divorces. I'm talking about "professionals" I know personally.

And - he didn't just shrug his shoulders when the kid said no. He offered the kid two choices, both of which were reasonable, and both of which got across the message that a 4 year old doesn't rule the world. Until mom stepped in and undermined that message.

[kcr]

112. Well, why is your real life more valid than mine?

No one ever offers real evidence that these ridiculous things happen. I see 'MY sister's cousins best friend lost custody because his ex looked at her sideways!" on the internet all the time. But none of the people I know have ever experienced anything remotely like this. None of my own experiences with professionals have ever even hinted that they would be nutty to the extreme that they would deem someone unfit because they wouldn't take a child to McDonald's. Don't get me wrong, I know it's a big world, and that there will be outliers. But they're not the norm. And because this guy and his story sounds so sketchy? I'm guessing he's not telling the truth, or not the whole truth, for sure.

[Ms. Toad]

120. If you want to visit the suspension notice and follow-up

I'll be glad to send it to your DM box. Even though it is public information, I am not comfortable linking it here, given that her actions impacted real (innocent) people.

[kcr]

121. If it's sending me actual personal info on other people, no

I don't think that would be right to do just to prove a point and win an argument on the internet. And really, like I said, I'm not arguing that no bad people in a profession exist. Surely there are some. But they aren't hte norm. And I just don't buy this guy's story. I don't think offering somethiing to a kid and him saying no constitutes a real solution. Given that he's a party in a custody dispute, he should have actually taken him to the restaurant or made him something to eat, reducing the chance he would take a hungry kid back to his ex. Therefore if the ex really would level a 'He didn't take him to McDonalds!" charge, he could point to that.

[Ms. Toad]

135. They are links to documents available on the internet,

because they are the public notices of license suspensions (and final termination of the license of) professionals I know personally who have done things which you can't imagine such professionals would do. You suggested that no one ever provided any evidence. I was responding with an offer of evidence.

[kcr]

142. And your offer doesn't change my point.

Nor does it suddenly mean all those claims on the internet of everyone's brother's sister's best friend are true (vast majority aren't, or are exaggerated). Nor does it mean that this guy's ex's shrink really does think lack of McDonald's is bad parenting. I still think he's an aggrieved party in a divorce grabbing headlines to bolster his case.

[Ms. Toad]

146. "No one ever offers real evidence that these ridiculous things happen."

I did, so it kind of does change your point.

[kcr]

149. How does your one case prove my point?

No. I still think the vast majority of "My sister's cousin's brother lost custody because they tore the tag off their mattress" are BS.

[Ms. Toad]

152. One of your points was that no one offers to provide evidence

(with the strong implication that no one offers to provide evidence because they are making it all up).

I did.

[kcr]

153. Well good for you.

Very few people do.

[Hestia]

122. Are these people "somebody" up there, because how does one parent have enough clout to get

a 4 y/o's tantrum in the news as if it is news?

[stevenleser]

125. He is a former corporate attorney. Not sure how prominent.

Oh wait, yep, a lavish wedding ceremony 4 years ago at the St. Regis http://nypost.com/2013/11/07/psychologist-called-dad-unfit-parent-for-refusing-son-mcdonalds-suit/

That is probably $250,000+ wedding right there.

[dballance]

87. Such Bullshit

It used to be common practice with kids that you ate what was put in front of you at the table or you didn't eat. That was not child abuse then, nor is it child abuse now.

[kcr]

91. Okay, fine.

Then why didn't he just put something else in front of him?

[dballance]

128. Because he gave the kid two options already

The story said he gave the kid two options. Pick someplace else or don't eat. The kid made his decision and the father had to stick by what he told the kid. Doing anything else lets the kid think they won the battle and so they'll misbehave again.

[kcr]

129. I don't think asking actually constitutes giving an option

Or, more specifically, I suspect that's the other party's problem with it. That's my whole point. We're hearing from one side of a contentious custody battle, and he returned the kid hungry. And it's his contention that their problem with it is he didn't take the kid to McDonald's. I think their problem with it is he didn't try harder. The cold hard truth is you have to be more careful in situations like that. His side: They're just mad I didn't take him to McDonalds! Their side: He came back and the kid was hungry and cranky because he hand't eaten in hours! They aren't commenting so we're just hearing his interpretation.

His only option wasn't just aksing the kid to eat somewhere else. There were other options without giving in to McD's, and if he wanted to avoid this mess he would have been wise to take them.

[left is right]

164. Perhaps father was trying to be a good parent and this isn’t a case of not feeding a child

a divorced father wanting to take his son out for a meal before retuning him to the custody of the mother:
“Where do you want to eat, Son.”
“McDonald's, Daddy.”
“No, Son, you get way too much fast food Let’s eat somewhere else.”
“NO, Daddy NOOOOO!”
All right, Son We just go on home to Mommy.”

Mother made a big deal when it really wasn’t. Father would have eventually fed the child if there weren’t time restraints caused by custody arrangements.
If father made any mistake, it was in letting a child think that the he had a real choice in the selection of restaurant. It might have been better to have suggested two or three restaurants and had son choose.
He was not wrong by refusing to take a fussy child to a restaurant that couldn’t possibly measure up to NcDonald’s. Fussy, disappointed kid in this scenario will cause a commotion. He will disturb other patrons. It may upset the balance of power that must exist in any parent-child relationship.

[kcr]

168. I think that's exactly what happened

And the mother overreacted, probably because it isn't fun to have a hungry cranky kid returned to you. And then he in turn overreacted when she wasn't happy about that by claiming they're deeming him unfit Because He Didn't Take The Kid To McDonald's, Headline Making News!!!! But this isn't headline making news. No one is being deemed unfit merely because they didn't take a kid to McDonald's . We don't know what's actually in that psyche report, nor do we really know the full extent of why the mother is unhappy. We're only getting his side of the story.

[2naSalit]

115. That's how I was raised.

And it didn't cause me any kind of nutrient deficiencies, brain damage or anything other than realizing that when my parents said no that's what they meant and throwing a tantrum was unacceptable. Kids in America who eat on a regular basis can endure a night without food without damage. This was a fucked up parental relationship that is out of control, period... one wants to do damage to the other an there will always be ammunition and a point at which ammunition can be employed. This seems to be one of those incidents.

[liberal_at_heart]

143. some of us were spanked too. Doesn't mean we should excuse it now.

You shouldn't give a 4 year old(practically a baby) a choice between going to a different restaurant and not eating at all? That is irresponsible parenting.

[Barack_America]

155. Have you ever tried to feed a toddler?

"Eat or don't" is pretty much an every day occurrence. Hell, the only way I could guarantee my two-year old eats 3 times a day right now would be to feed him straight candy. And mine is not a picky eater. Their primary focus at this age is to figure out how to control their environment. They figure out pretty quickly how emotionally invested their parents are in their appetites. And they use it.

[liberal_at_heart]

169. I have raised two children, so yes I know how difficult it can be to get them to eat.

I have been through it all. Telling them they only had to eat a certain number of bites, giving them a desert when they were finished, giving them a choice between two healthy choices. I never once made them go without eating. They always ate something nutritious at every meal. Expecting a four year old to reason is like expecting a newborn to reason. What this parent did was irresponsible parenting, plain and simple.

[2naSalit]

163. Gues we'll have to

agree to disagree on that one. I think the father was responsible and did what he felt was an appropriate way to give the child an opportunity to choose... and there were consequences for the child that were not entirely out of bounds. The child made a choice and that should suffice. It wasn't like it was a life or death situation in any way, shape or form. I think all the complaining about the manner in which he handled an unreasonable child was appropriate.

But feel free to rave on, I mean, everyone should raise their children according to the standards of strangers who were not present.

[Ms. Toad]

96. He offered the child another meal.

The child refused.

No child without a pre-existing condition like diabetes, with the means these parents obviously have, will suffer any serious harm from skipping a meal.

[kcr]

98. He didn't offer it. He merely asked.

He should have either just taken him to the alternative restaurant, or taken him home and made him something. At any rate, my point really is, I highly doubt the objection was he didn't feed him McD's. THe objection was he didn't feed him. And they're right. He would have a better defense if he did more, instead of just shrug his shoulders and said hey, I asked him, he said no!

[Ms. Toad]

105. As several other posters have pointed out,

Anyone who has been around a 4 year old in the middle of a temper tantrum knows that is not a realistic option.

You're reaching way too hard when you insist that offer and ask are different, and you are reading a lot more into the story about how the father responded than is reported.

A 4 year old without a medical condition which requires regularly scheduled food, like diabetes, is not going to suffer any serious harm from going without a meal, and he is of the age where he may actually learn that throwing a temper tantrum isn't the way to get what you want.

[kcr]

107. They are when you're a parent in a custodial battle.

He returned a kid hungry who hadn't had dinner. And all he could do was say "Hey, I asked, he said no!" That's my point. I'm reading no more into it than those who are buying the crapolla that he's telling the truth that the psychologist is deeming him unfit because he didn't take him to McDonald's. He'd be able to defend himself a lot better if he'd actually offered an alternative. He could say he tried.

[Ms. Toad]

111. Point to that quote in the article, please.

You are seriously exaggerating things.

[kcr]

114. what am I exaggerating?

Did he or did he not take the kid to another restaurant, or another alternative meal?

[Ms. Toad]

117. Here's a couple.

And all he could do was say "Hey, I asked, he said no!"

- not in the article. This flips the tables and portrays the son as being in charge. The point of his action was to send the message to his son that he was not in charge, by giving his son two appropriate choices.

Just shrugging your shoulders when they say no, and doing nothing?

- not in the article. Again, he made an appropriate parenting decision to offer his son two choices. that is not shrugging your shoulders. That is not doing nothing.

[kcr]

119. Not in the article?

He didn't take the kid anywhere to eat. How is it out of the realm of possibility that his answer to what happened didn't go something like that? How is that an exaggeration?

not in the article. Again, he made an appropriate parenting decision to offer his son two choices. that is not shrugging your shoulders. That is not doing nothing.

As far as not feeding the kid, yes, it's doing nothing. He ended up exchanging custody with a hungry kid who hadn't eaten. Just asking the kid and taking no for an answer? See, I'm not getting why the stand your ground crowd is okay with that. That's so contradictory. Why is the kid calling the shots there? I think this is twisting things to be on the side of the father.

[Ms. Toad]

137. Neither of those two statements

were in the article, nor was any action which could be construed as demonstrating that attitude.

The child threw a tantrum. The parent acted appropriately, giving the child two choices other than the one the child was demanding.

Children, at age 4, need to learn that you do not get your way by throwing a tantrum - and being a little hungry until the next meal is not an unreasonable way to learn that lesson, particularly since the parent offered an option to have food (just not the food he wanted) and the child rejected it.

To describe that appropriate parenting as (1) doing nothing, (2) shrugging your shoulders and giving up is an exaggeration.

Missing a meal is just not that big of a deal, unless there is a medical contraindication. My problem is with the mother, who instead of reinforcing the "you do not get your way by throwing a tantrum" message the father sent, rewarded the child by taking him to McDonalds. That is the bad parenting.

[kcr]

141. The statements verbatim aren't, but the info is.

He didn't feed his kid. That info is in the article. But do you know what's also not in the article? Whether or not the other side's actual grievance is whether or not he took the kid to McDonald's. That's his interpretation.

Yes. Kids need to learn not to get their way by throwing tantrums. Duh. Is there absolutely only one way to do it? No. If you are in a contentious battle situation, leaving the kid a little hungry probably isn't wise. It might actually be the very last thing you want to do. Absolute last resort. They will be very cranky, to say the least. It's probably a better tactic reserved for parents who are co-parenting together. When you know the other parent isn't going to use it against you. And certainly if you're going to to use that tact ice? You should actually physically offer them an alternative food.

[Ms. Toad]

145. No, the info is not.

You are characterizing the situation as a child who refused to eat and a parent who didn't bother to try to get him to eat.

What happened was a child demanded to eat at a specific place, and threw a tantrum when he was told he could not eat there, and who was given a choice between eating somewhere else and not eating, and chose the latter.

No one said there was one way to teach a child that they don't get their way when they throw tantrums; what everyone is telling you is that the way the father chose was an acceptable way to teach that lesson. It would be fine to physically offer alternative food, but good parenting does not demand that.

[kcr]

148. But he didn't!

I'm not characterizing anything. He didn't take the kid anywhere because the said no. I'm not characterizing that, I'm stating a fact from the information given. That was how he chose to handle the situation. I'm not saying it was unacceptable. I'm saying it was unwise given he's in a contentious custody situation.

[Ms. Toad]

150. Well you actually have been saying it was unacceptable.

So I'm glad you understand that it was an acceptable parenting choice. But since there doesn't seem to be much chance you will understand that you are mischaracterizing the end result of an acceptable disciplinary plan as a failure to do anything, there's not much point in further conversation.

[kcr]

151. No. I never said it was unacceptable.

My whole point has been that it was unwise because he's in a contentious situation. My primary point though has been I don't believe the other side is saying he's unfit because he didn't take the kid to McDonald's.

[Ms. Toad]

154. .

Randome

That's a terrible view of parenting, IMO. A 4 year old who misses a meal is starving.

Their bodies are growing at an incredible pace. You don't 'let' them skip meals."
I'm not supporting the psychologist's conclusion but the Dad was an idiot. An Ayn Rand type of idiot. He shouldn't have just offered to take him somewhere else. He should have just taken him somewhere else.

Your response:

27. Really. Who's the parent here?

It's the kid's fault he didn't eat? I agree with you. And it's the reason the dad is in hot water here

And:

• He should have either just taken him to the alternative restaurant, or taken him home and made him something.
  
• So what if the kid chose not eating. Take him to that restaurant anyway, sit him down in front of that food and tell him to eat it.
  
• The option (of another restaurant) was there. The father should have taken it.

ETC: Moved the first bullet to the quote because it wasn't yours - just one you expressly agreed wtih

[kcr]

156. Really.

I'm not supporting the psychologist's conclusion but the Dad was an idiot. An Ayn Rand type of idiot. He shouldn't have just offered to take him somewhere else. He should have just taken him somewhere else.

That one isn't mine.

All the rest? Support my contention that it was unwise. Not unacceptable. And I'm going to go back and check 27. I don't remebmber that being in response to that particular post. I remember the "It's the kid's fault he didn't eat" part being in a context of something different.

[kcr]

157. And nice cherry picking

There are plenty of posts of mine where I make it clear my point is my problem with what he did is he's in a divorce situation. But you leave out those.

[Ms. Toad]

158. I was respondig to your statment that you never said it was unacceptable.

Why would I include comments about what you think is or is not wise in a divorce setting - you seem to think they are different, and you commented on both.

(Not to mention that - without going back and checking the time stamps - my recollection is that most of your statements about being unwise in a divorce setting came after people started challenging your position that what was generally acceptable.)

[kcr]

159. And I didn't

Now you're just derailing the conversation off into a different direction. This is a waste of time. I don't think it's unacceptable, therefore I didn't say it. End of story.

[kcr]

113. wrong spot

[kcr]

108. And while we're at it

I'm not getting how everyone is all happy that he offered another restaurant, but ooh, McDonald's is so awful, good for him for sticking to his guns! Well, what restaurant is so much better than McDonald's? If you're going to refuse McDonald's, do it because you're insisting on healthier food. Why the heck was he saying no to McDonald's, but "offering" another restaurant for him to say no to? Ridiculous. I don't buy his story at all.

[Ms. Toad]

116. The point isn't what food he offered.

The point was that he told his son that McDonald's was not an option, and the 4 year old threw a tantrum - as 4 year olds sometimes do (and continue to do if they get their way in response to throwing a tantrum).

Dad gave two options which were acceptable to him: another restaurant or not eating. If the options were harmful to the child (like a restaurant or a beating, or a restaurant or force feeding, or a restaurant or no food for a week, I would agree with you. But he didn't. He offered two non-harmful choices, and learning that you can't always have your way is an important lesson - and 4 years old is a very appropriate age to learn that lesson.

[kcr]

118. It is if he's going to claim they're deeming him unfit

for not taking the kid to McDonald's. If he makes such a claim, then it seriously weakens it if he didn't make a serious effort to actually provide an alternative. And merely asking the kid is weak. Yes, he may have been trying to avert a tantrum. But custody battles make things complicated. The claim that it wasn't the fact the kid wasn't fed, and that it was merely that he wasn't taken to McDonald's is ridiculous. Yes, you can't always have your way is an important lesson. But so is not giving your ex something to hold against you. And returning a very grumpy hungry kid who hasn't eaten? Very bad idea. It may have ultimately happened that way no matter what he did? But he should have done everything in his power to avoid that. And Another restaurant? No? Okay then. Wow, seriously. Not good.

[BlueJazz]

102. The Boy did not get to eat that night and later died.

[kcr]

106. Okay. Fine.

People can continue to be stupid and return their kids hungry and unfed thinking that's a perfectly intelligent thing to do in a custodial arrangement. There was no other way to handle that situation! Then just scream that it's about not taking them to McDonald's for the headline grab, because people will totally fall for that, as is evident in this thread. Because McDonald's bad! Derp.

[BlueJazz]

127. I was being sarcasic with all the other posts.

I don't know what I would have done in that case. I hope I never find out. (Divorce + Child + Trouble)

[kcr]

131. Sorry. It's hard to tell.

I know, nightmare situation.

[dlwickham]

17. so you want to treat a child like a dog

if the dog is hungry enough, he'll eat anything

I hope you're not a parent

[FreakinDJ]

79. Actually I hope your not a parent

Dad did the right thing and I can say that from experience

[handmade34]

2. the child

will be the one that suffers the most in this case… if the story is as presented, the psychologist is a hack and needs to retire

[gollygee]

4. He didn't give into a temper tantrum

and someone thinks that makes him incapable to parent? I would refuse McD's for no other reason than a temper tantrum about it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. +1

[randome]

9. He didn't feed his child. I think that's the point of contention...

...despite the sensationalistic headline.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[gollygee]

11. "You can eat McD's or nothing"

and the child choosing nothing isn't refusing to feed the child. It gives the child the choice to eat something other than McD's.

[kcr]

14. He could have taken the child to another restaurant. He didn't.

Big mistake. You can do that sort of thing when you're with the other parent partnering together making decisions. It's a bad idea if you're not.

[gollygee]

21. He said the option of another restaurant was there

The choice was another restaurant or nothing. But there was the option of going to another restaurant.

[kcr]

24. The option was there. The father should have taken it.

Not taken his kid back to the mom not fed.

[gollygee]

29. I think it would have been wisest to go to another restaurant

although there's a chance that the tantrum would have continued at the other restaurant, and the child would have refused to eat at the other restaurant and still would have gone to the mother unfed.

I think he should have picked up some healthy food and said, "eat it or it goes to your mom's house with you."

[kcr]

31. I think if he'd done that

Then the mother and psychologist wouldn't have a complaint. He could say in his defense, look, I tried. Then I sent him with some food. I gave him every opportunity to eat.

[gollygee]

33. People get stuck in either/or mindsets

"Eat at restaurant A or don't eat" when there are really tons of other options in the world. But I don't think him being stuck in an either/or mindset and him finding McD's unacceptable makes him "wholly incapable of parenting."

[kcr]

41. To be clear, I don't think so either.

Based on the info given, I don't think he should be stripped of his parental rights or lose what visitation he has. Not at all. Basically I object to the headline. That is a headline deserving of "He didn't take his kid to McDonald. And... Gasp... Made him eat a PB&J sandwich instead!!! AHHHHHHH!" I think it's very likely mischaracterizing the objection the other side has. And note, we don't have their side of the story. We don't actually know what's in the psych report.

[randome]

15. You never starve a 4 year old child. You never give them that kind of choice.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[gollygee]

20. The child could have gone to another restaurant

That option was open.

And the word "starve" is misused here. There are actual starving people in the world. A 4-year-old who wants McD's and refuses to go to another restaurant is not starving. Starving 4-year-olds would happily choose another restaurant.

[randome]

25. That's a terrible view of parenting, IMO. A 4 year old who misses a meal is starving.

Their bodies are growing at an incredible pace. You don't 'let' them skip meals.

I'm not supporting the psychologist's conclusion but the Dad was an idiot. An Ayn Rand type of idiot.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[kcr]

27. Really. Who's the parent here?

It's the kid's fault he didn't eat? I agree with you. And it's the reason the dad is in hot water here.

[gollygee]

30. I have a 4-year-old

A 4-year-old who misses a meal is a short time away from a snack. And a hungry 4-year-old is happy to eat at any restaurant.

[snooper2]

51. LOL, "A 4 year old who misses a meal is starving"

You raise any kids?

Some days my daughter eats like a pigeon other days like a lion...last night she ate a third of a pork roast


It's called being a kid. Missing one meal won't do any harm to that child. He would have been doing greater mental harm by giving into the tantrum.

[randome]

62. Yes, I raised 2 daughters. You do not let your child miss a meal.

That's completely separate from 'giving in' to a temper tantrum. The guy has poor parenting skills, IMO, or he would have been able to deal with the situation better.

Parents are supposed to make the decisions. Not the child.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Silent3]

67. So what do you recommend if missing any single meal is supposedly such a calamity?

Force feed a stubborn kid through a tube? IV drip? Pile punishments higher and higher until the kid gives in and eats whatever you put in front of him/her?

How many hours do you work at this if the kid is being especially stubborn?

It's really that important that not a single meal ever be missed?

[randome]

72. Good point. If the kid refuses to eat, that's a different matter.

In this case, however, it was the father who decided the only other option was to go hungry. Not a good idea, especially in a divorce case.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kaleva]

78. I understood it was the child who refused to eat.

From the OP:

"Instead, Schorr gave the boy two options: another restaurant or no dinner at all.

“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," the papers state. "

[Silent3]

80. The father did offer a different restaurant as well.

The kid's options were eating at some non-McDonald's restaurant, or going without.

Perhaps the father could have made a bit more effort (hopefully not dragging the kid to a restaurant against his will so everyone else has to deal with the potentially loud and bratty scene that could have been!), but I can't see missing a single meal as being such a big deal -- the insanity of divorce proceedings aside -- as to make it worth monumental effort to overcome a kid's stubbornness, especially when going a little hungry now and then is probably a useful lesson.

[alphafemale]

138. An empty tummy is unpleasant for a night.

Training a child that people will give in to a temper tantrum creates an unpleasant person for a lifetime.

Did this child learn the lesson to accept an alternative when offered? Did the child learn the difference between hungry and appetite?

One of the only ways some people learn to appreciate what is placed in front of them is a lesson like this. Or they also risk becoming picky and even as adults not trying new things.

No the child learned that he has the power to manipulate and play his parents against each other to meet whatever whim falls into his now assuredly, increasingly bratty head.

He is in control of the house.

That is the lesson he learned.

Poor kid.

[jeff47]

70. That's hilarious.

An otherwise well-fed 4-year-old is not starving if they miss a meal.

If that were true, they'd be starving every single night - the kid isn't waking up every 4 hours for food. And they're still growing overnight.

[randome]

73. Well, none of us knows this kid's physical requirements.

I may have overstated my point but giving this kind of choice to a 4-year-old is a bad idea. The parent is supposed to be in charge, not giving bad choices to the kid to make.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

95. The kids physical requirements are either they can miss a meal

Or they are risking death every night.

Somehow, I don't think it's the latter.

but giving this kind of choice to a 4-year-old is a bad idea. The parent is supposed to be in charge, not giving bad choices to the kid to make.

Depends on the 4-year-old and what the parent does after the kid makes this decision.

Rewarding the tantrum is not a good idea. Neither is dragging the child kicking and screaming into another restaurant.

Letting the kid be hungry at least starts the ball rolling on learning "my actions have consequences" before those consequences are significant. Whether he gets that lesson depends on what the parent does when the kid calms down.

[arikara]

86. You can't force a 4 year old to eat if they don't want to

When mine was 4 she went through a stage where she wouldn't eat her dinner then just before bed she'd get all hungry and would want something to eat. I got fed up with it and started putting her dinner plate full of uneaten food in the fridge and hauling it out when she wanted her snack. She was generally hungry enough to eat it then. She got over that phase eventually. I can totally sympathize with the father's point about Mcdonalds, no kid should have that on a regular basis. But it would have been smart to make up a sandwich and delivered it with the kid to the mother for when the kid got over his snit instead of just dropping him off unfed.

It sounds like neither parent knows how to cook a meal if everything is revolving around eating in restaurants. That is the bigger problem imho.

[kcr]

12. Yep. The other side isn't commenting

But that's likely what their problem is. You can decide to not feed your kid because they don't want Micky Dees when you're together with the parent as partners and can make that decision together. But that isn't a good idea in a divorce situation. His own mother, per the article, basically told him he was an idiot for doing so.

[NoOneMan]

37. His child refused to eat anything but McDonalds?

Was he supposed to force feed the kid? The only thing he could do in this situation to make you happy would seemed to have given in to the tantrum

[randome]

75. No. Go home. Give the kid a banana. A piece of bread. Anything.

Not going home? Stop off on the way home and buy something similar.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nay]

47. My kid's temper tantrums were met with absolute refusal to do/buy

the item that the tantrum was about. And tantruming in public got him a quick trip home to bed, and no going out with Mom again until a suitable time had passed for him to "grow up" a little. Guess that would make me a shitty mom.

[alphafemale]

139. Giving into a temper tantrum is the worst thing you can do.

That mother is a far, FAR worse parent.

I'd have offered the kid a PB&J or some cereal or something.

On the "NO-OOOO-OOOO!!! MCDONALDS!!!" And foot stomping.

(Remember that European Condom commercial? lol.)

OK then. Go to your room and get ready for your bath. I'll be there in 10 minutes. No TV tonight.

And settle in for an epic battle. Long night likely ahead.

But. Never. EVER. Give in to a temper tantrum. Not even once.

[penultimate]

5. I wonder if the mother and psychologist are friends or share mutual friends...

[Shrike47]

6. There MUST be more going on here than declining to go to McDonalds.

Parents deserve rewards for not taking kiddos to McDonalds, not that I haven't done it.

[PoliticAverse]

32. There is, there is a divorce and custody... n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Certainly there is.

Two possibilities;
a) the lawyer dad is making noise to bolster his legal case
b) the court appointed psychologist is pursuing a personal agenda to keep kids with moms

I think both are equally plausible.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. This sounds like my life

Including the undermining part.

I've become more likely to give in over the years. It's just easier.

[sarisataka]

23. I guess I'm wholly incapable for caring for my children...

I often refuse to take my children to McDonalds. I do feed them, though they are not always happy with my choice.

[JVS]

28. This sounds like a setup. Say yes and you're unfit because you feed your kid junk. Say no and...

you're unfit because your kid throws a shit fit.

[IdaBriggs]

34. Sounds like the child comes by the stubborn honestly.

Instead of using his noggin, Dad got outsmarted by a kid.

The correct option: feed the kid a decent meal at home. If that isn't possible for other reasons (and Dad is sick to death of Mickey D's) then get the kid food someplace else (without negotiating).

My reading of this story:

Hungry child throws temper tantrum. Dad leaves child hungry. Dad is a moron. If he had offered other food - peanut butter sandwich, for example - and the child didn't eat it, that is one thing, and he could have sent it home with his kid for eating later. But "pick a different restaurant or don't eat" is Bad Dad behavior.

I am going to go along with "incapable of taking care of his own kid" if he thinks "go to bed hungry, cranky child" is the best answer.

But expecting a hungry four year old to understand the concept of "someplace else" (especially if they SEE the restaurant) is ridiculous (altho some children can and do wait). My six year olds have trouble sometimes, and they are older - everything depends on how hungry/tired everyone is (including mommy).

Daddy is a Moron - NURTURE your hungry/tired/cranky kid. IDIOT.

ON EDIT: And daddy is flouting other court orders, and hasn't been paying child support. I repeat this: MORON.

I am fine with punishing "bad behavior" but being dragged all over creation past food while hungry/tired/cranky isn't the fault of the kid.

[B2G]

35. The kid learned that temper tantrums work

The mother is in for a world of hurt with this child down the road. Sounds like she'll deserve it.

[Wait Wut]

36. All the posts saying the father...

...should have just taken him to another restaurant have never taken a 4-year old to another restaurant when they've 'demanded' McD's (or anywhere else).

The kid probably would have sat there and pouted, thrown a tantrum, been rude to everyone around him and refused to eat, anyway. The mother would have said, "My poor baby is STARVING!!! You horrible, horrible father! Come on, sweet baby boy, I'LL take you to McD's and then I'll buy you some ice cream to reward your bratty behavior!! You love me more than daddy, don't you?"

Screw that. My son's dad and I always worked things out together. It was about our son, not us. Drove my kid crazy, at times. The dad is fighting a losing battle. He's trying to teach his son consequences of stubborn behavior, mom is giving in to try to prove she's the better parent. She isn't. That kid will learn that mom will give him anything he wants as long as he mentions 'dad'.

Oh, and there were a few nights my son went hungry due to tantrums, etc. He's almost 31 years old, so he didn't starve to death.

[kcr]

48. But at least he would have tried.

He would have the defense that he made the attempt. The point is, he's making the claim that "They're saying I'm unfit because I didn't take him to McDonald's!" His claim would hold more water if he'd attempted to feed him some other way. But he didn't. So, it's likely their problem - f this incident is even the problem, note we don't even have access to the report - their problem is likely more due to the fact he returned a hungry kid, not simply because he didn't feed him McDonald's. In other words, too many are just jumping to the conclusion that this guy's claim that their judgment of unfitness based on lack of McDonald's is truth. Which is ridiculous considering it's such an outrageous claim.

[stevenleser]

55. Exactly. So well said I have nothing to add!

[yurbud]

38. the dad made a stupid choice that would have been praised by most people 50 years ago

[ConcernedCanuk]

39. when I was 4 years old, I ate what was on the table - restaurants not an option.

.
.
.

Don't eat my meat and veggies? - no desert.

since when did 4 year olds get to dictate what RESTAURANT they want to eat at??????

oh - by the way - shrinks have one of the highest rates of suicides

so they certainly ain't the most stable people on the planet imo.
_________________________________________________________________________

One out of every four psychologists has suicidal feelings at times, according to one survey, and as many as one in 16 may have attempted suicide. The only published data—now nearly 25 years old—on actual suicides among psychologists showed a rate of suicide for female psychologists that's three times that of the general population, although the rate among male psychologists was not higher than expected by chance.

Further studies of suicides by psychologists have been difficult to conduct, says Lester, largely because the main professional body for psychologists, the American Psychological Association APA), hasn't released any relevant data since about 1970.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/why-shrinks-have-problems
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

go figure

CC

[hughee99]

40. I don't think the story is the man, wife or child, it's the shrink

who characterized someone who didn't give in to his child on a trip to McD's as "wholly incapable" of caring for them.

[bklyncowgirl]

82. Is Mom paying the shrink?

That would explain the "diagnosis".

[Arcanetrance]

42. I gotta be honest both my parents used to make dinner and put it in front of me say this is dinner

eat it or don't but that's all you're getting. Hell McDonalds wasn't even an option that was a no from the start. I remember the only time going to one as a kid was when a friend had a bday party. Other than that we ate at a local restaurant or got pizza from the pizza place under our apartment. But my family didn't consider Mcdonalds or any fast food real food.

[Sheldon Cooper]

74. Exactly.

My mom put dinner on the table, and if you didn't like it, then she'd see you at breakfast. McDonald's was never a dinner option for us.

[Nine]

43. I don't believe this.

I feel like a whole lot has been left out of this story.

[stevenleser]

65. All ya gotta know is "custody battle" which turns parenting into a political campaign of smears and

lies.

[Nay]

166. Agreed. Mom and shrink both sound like assholes with an agenda, and Dad

(a lawyer) can't push his ego far enough out of the way to make smart choices during a custody battle.

[JHB]

50. How did I know that that the words "custody battle" would be involved?

[valerief]

57. Why would ANY parent give a 4-year-old a CHOICE? That's insane. nt

[hugo_from_TN]

69. I give my 4 your old a choice all the time.

Just make sure that you are OK with both choices.

Do you want broccoli or green beans?
Do you want to wash your hands in the bathroom or the kitchen?

They like being able to make decisions for themselves and it is good for them. Just keep the options acceptable.

[pipi_k]

89. Exactly!!!

Get them to do what you want them to do by giving them choices between two acceptable options.

And make it seem like fun.

Everyone wins.

[Scout]

90. perfect answer!

"you can take your bath before you go to bed, or you can go to bed now and have your bath in the morning" ... that's the choice.

child chooses, but either way mom/dad wins and the child starts to learn about making choices and their various consequences.

[TorchTheWitch]

93. ^^^THIS^^^

Well said.

[winter is coming]

161. +1. We started doing this as soon as my kid had the ability to indicate a preference.

As she's gotten older, the arena of "choices" has grown. Now that she's in middle school, a lot of choices are about scheduling homework, as in, "You need to do X and Y by this date, but remember you also want to do Z (for fun). I think you could do it this way or that way." And sometimes she comes up with a third option that's also viable. By the time she leaves the nest, she'll have learned how to make good choices for herself.

[IronLionZion]

167. That's brilliant! nt

[Nevernose]

110. There's quite a bit of research on that

And it universally finds that young children given choices usually grow up to be smarter than children only given orders. Within reason, obviously.

[LeftyMom]

58. Fast food aside, if you give in to temper tantrums you will get more of them.

Kids tend to be cranky little shits when they're hungry, but you can fix the underlying problem without giving in to the unreasonable demand.

[Vashta Nerada]

63. If that's the case, that shrink would have found my parents incapable of caring for me

when I was that age.

[pipi_k]

68. If you're going to give a kid

a choice, make it a choice between two acceptable things.

Not McD's OR hunger.

How about a choice between two other restaurants instead? The father feels better knowing his kid isn't eating crap, and the kid feels like he has at least some control over things.


Does anyone here who thinks the father was right in making the kid choose between McD's or hunger really believe that in a similar standoff involving inappropriate clothing choices, for example, the father would be right in telling the kid it's either this outfit or no clothes at all?

Geez, how hard is it to at least TRY?


God, I feel so sorry for kids in the middle of a nasty divorce fight. My sisters and I got placed in the middle of our parents' divorce squabbles and it sucked.

[Ms. Toad]

104. He did not offer the child a choice between McDs and hunger.

He offered him a choice of other food or not eating. The child chose not eating. As long as we're talking a meal, not a whole day, the choices offered were reasonable.

[geek tragedy]

77. Stories like this make me happy to be childless. nt

[Silent3]

81. +1

Maybe I'll regret it someday when I'm in the old folk's home with no one to come visit me, but in the meantime... ah! Sweet relief!

[bklyncowgirl]

83. Kid sounds like a spoiled brat to me.

It also sounds like he's learned to manipulate his feuding parents. He'll probably go far in business or politics.

[pipi_k]

88. Thing is...

kids don't become spoiled brats in a vacuum.

The parents have a huge influence on that.

And while the father didn't, IMO, offer up a good solution to the problem, the mom sounds even worse.

And it looks like the two of them are using their kid to get back at each other.

[bklyncowgirl]

99. The father offered to take the kid somewhere else--the kid refused--McDonalds or nothing.

I agree that this child, poor thing, is a product of his parents. They may have created a monster.

What choices did the father have? Give in to a squalling child? Take the screaming kid to some other restaurant and let him throw a tantrum? Take the kid home and send him to his room hungry?

I would have done the latter, with the promise that when he was done with his tantrum I'd have a sandwich waiting for him. Maybe I'm just out of touch with modern parenting.

[nolabear]

84. The article is so simplistic that it's pointless to think we know what happened.

Not a one of us knows what has happened day after day and legal manipulation after legal manipulation in this case.

I'm not defending the psychologist, but a one-liner isn't an accurate representation of an assessment and I can't figure out what kind of "papers" would describe a little boy as "stubborn as a mule." Legalese was created to avoid comments like that.

I avoid custody cases like the plague.

[Frustratedlady]

85. I agree with the father.

If he had taken him to McDonald's for a meal(?), that child would have demanded for everything denied to him from then on.

[libdem4life]

92. Our family was vegetarian: me, Dad and son. No meat and all was well. Until soccer and after-game

team trips to McDonald's. I/we folded quickly and took my turn with the winning team in the minivan to good old McDonald's. I take some comfort in that to this day, my son prefers vegetarian food.

[Arkana]

101. No, actually, I'd say that makes him an excellent father.

And that shrink should lose his license like yesterday.

[LittleBlue]

123. The child is a spoiled brat

and the psychologist should have his license to practice removed.

That kid needs Nanny 911 or something.

[ljm2002]

124. Assuming the father's version of the story is true...

...I'm on his side. Children do not need parents to give in to them when they throw tantrums. He offered to take the child elsewhere, but the child did not want that. So he went hungry. And then got returned to his mother, who promptly took him to a McDonald's to eat. Aaaarrrggghhh...

This is not a story about whether fast food is or is not good for a child, or about eating habits. It is about whether a child should be able to get what they want at any given moment by throwing a tantrum. My answer is no, and furthermore, if the child has to go without supper for one night, so be it. We're not talking about hitting the child, or ranting and raving at him, or withholding food for a prolonged period of time -- we are talking about teaching him, in a very direct way, that some behavior is unacceptable. Rewarding such behavior does not serve the child well.

[appleannie1]

126. I support the father for 2 reasons.

Children need to be taught that throwing tantrums does not end in getting your own way.

And 2 Children should be taught to not only eat, but actually like healthy food.

I could add that the Psychologist should lose their license but perhaps some re-education might suffice.

[derby378]

130. Pardon me for butting in, because sometimes you know I come up with ideas that are just too crazy...

...but did David Schorr ever offer to cook burgers and fries for his son instead of taking him to McDonalds?

My parents cooked burgers for me as a child. They still do whenever I go visit them. But every child should be imprinted with the notion that no matter what sort of culinary experience they develop, they should always have fond memories of Mom's or Dad's cooking, all that yummy nourishment that helped them grow up healthy and strong and reasonably focused to get things done as an adult.

[LeftishBrit]

132. Assuming that this story is being reported accurately (which is not always the case, of course)

the psychiatrist is being ridiculous and/or bought by the wife's legal team. It is no part of psychiatric practice to assume that children must always get everything they want, especially when it is bad for health.

[SoCalDem]

133. Why do I think there is MORE to this story?

We were lucky enough to raise our kids mostly in areas (and in a time) when there were NO fast food joints.. They were teenagers before we had access to fast food ...and by then their palates were more sophisticated

I remember a waitress once who was STUNNED when our 5 yr old ordered crab legs & salad bar

[Egnever]

147. Because of course there is

but its fun to stamp our feet. So here we are.

[winter is coming]

162. LOL. When my kid was a young toddler (as in <2), we ordered a Caesar salad

for her. The waiter was skeptical, but she chomped it right up, to his amazement. We discovered she liked the stuff because she stole a taste of mine while sitting on my lap.

[Taitertots]

134. I don't know any parent that thinks giving in to temper tantrums is good parenting

A child that isn't hungry enough to eat healthy foods is full enough to go to bed without diner.

[Niceguy1]

136. exactly

...sounds like dad is the better side of the equation