Father Labeled ‘Unfit’ for Refusing to Take His Son to McDonald’s!?

[bonnie]

Father Labeled ‘Unfit’ for Refusing to Take His Son to McDonald’s!?

FOX AND FRIENDS

A father is suing his child’s psychologist after she labeled him an unfit parent for not taking his son to McDonald’s! David Schorr wouldn’t take his son to the chain because he felt the boy was eating too much junk food. The boy threw a tantrum but Schorr stood firm.

The boy then told his mother that he was sent to bed without dinner and she reported the incident to the child’s psychologist, who then told the judge that Schorr was incapable of taking care of his son and should be denied weekend visitation rights.

Schorr has filed a defamation suit.

Here's the full AP story:

NEW YORK — Saying no to a toddler's demands for a McDonald's meal got a father branded an inept parent, he says in a lawsuit claiming a psychologist urged a judge to curtail his parental visits over the dinner debacle.

David E. Schorr says psychologist Marilyn Schiller pronounced him incapable of caring for his nearly 5-year-old son after he offered a choice — dinner anywhere but McDonald's, or no dinner at all — and let the boy choose the latter. He then took his irate son home to the boy's mother's house early from their Oct 30 dinner date, according to a defamation suit Schorr filed Tuesday.

Schiller didn't immediately return a call Friday.

Schorr, an attorney and employee-benefits consultant, is in the midst of a contentious divorce with estranged wife Bari Yunis Schorr. Schiller was court-assigned to evaluate the couple and their child, according to the lawsuit.

Schiller's reports and other filings in the divorce case aren't public; court records indicate only that there have been a flurry of filings over two years. Bari Schorr's lawyer, Louis I. Newman, declined to comment.

While the case plays out, David Schorr has alternate weekends and dinner every Tuesday with his son, according to the defamation suit.

"Normally not a very strict father who rarely refuses his child McDonald's," Schorr put his foot down Oct. 30 "because his son had been eating too much junk food," the suit said. Schorr himself didn't immediately return a call Friday.

He quickly regretted his stance when his son threw a tantrum, but he felt that giving in would reward bad behavior, so he offered the elsewhere-or-nowhere "final offer," as his court papers put it.

"The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," the suit says. And the father promptly carted the boy back to Bari Schorr's building, still trying to entice the child into changing his mind as they waited in the lobby for her to get home from work, according to the suit.

Schiller told a judge the fast food flap "raises concerns about the viability" of the father's weekend visits with his son and asked a judge to eliminate or limit them, his lawsuit says.

[olger]

Welcome to the dark liberal world.

[Naomi]

I suppose a swat on the bottom side would have not helped the father's case

[Gerr]

Looks like discipline is being taken out of the hands of parents.

[Gregory Matthews]

Welcome to the dark liberal world: Not as I see it. People mess up. Social workers and counselors may mess up.

Last year I had an employee tell me of a contract Social Worker who was telling the court that the employee was not providing proper care to her child. Within 18 hours that contract Social Worker was no longer employed. Shortly thereafter a formal complaint was filed with the State agency that licensed the Social Worker.

I put all of that in motion. Hospital administration, where I work, moved immediately to terminate the employment of that Social Worker.

The bottom line: Whether of the Left of the Right, wrongs can be addressed and issues resolved.

[olger]

Two points Greg. The nanny state that is mutating under our noses right now is the product of our current president's twisted (and ungodly) view of reality.

Secondly, that vision for America is affecting people like the social worker you describe, and the one that Bonnie describes.

Good that you were able to hold someone accountable for it. Appreciate that.

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator Note:

Ger, you have been warned before to stop politicizing topics that have nothing to do with political issues. Save your political palavering for the politics forum. Not everything fits neatly in your simplistic liberal vs. conservative mindset. There is always more to the story than is reported. And whatever problems this story illustrates certainly cannot rationally be blamed on the current president or any past president, no matter how fervently you may wish to express your perversely partisan political predilections.

If you persist, all of your posts will be edited out of this topic so it can stay where it is and be discussed by others. The alternative would be to simply move it over to the politics only forum where you may drown it in the political cesspool.

[Bravus]

Simple solution: Dad could cook something for the kid instead of making the ultimatum between restaurants and nothing... Maybe the kid still wouldn't eat - but the meal would be there.

Of course, so much more than a 'nanny state', this is evidence of malicious divorced parents using the kids to get at each other.

Which is a heart matter much more than a legal one.

[Gerr]

If the kid's heart is set on McD, he still would have refused that Dad's cooking.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom said:

Quote:

There is always more to the story than is reported.

True. All to often we do not attempt to find out more than the media has reported.

Of, course there was more to the comment that I made. Social Workers may have a responsibility to report to the Court on the ability of a parent to care for a child.

The hospital where I am employed would not terminate the employment of a contract Social Worker within 18 hours if there had not been provable gross professional misconduct that was clearly evident.

I left out all of those details as they were not important for the point that I was making, that there is a proper way to address wrongs.

[Gregory Matthews]

This story is all over the Internet.

Dr. Marilyn Schiller appears to be a psychologist, as has been generally reported.

However, I note that she has also been reported to be a psychiatrist, by a reputable organization, which seems to have been wrong.

Point: Even reputable organizations can get it wrong. One cannot believe everything that one reads.

[bonnie]

This story is all over the Internet.

Dr. Marilyn Schiller appears to be a psychologist, as has been generally reported.

However, I note that she has also been reported to be a psychiatrist, by a reputable organization, which seems to have been wrong.

Point: Even reputable organizations can get it wrong. One cannot believe everything that one reads.

The gist of the story remains the same in all accounts.

The boy then told his mother that he was sent to bed without dinner

This doesn't sound like a child that had much in the way of discipline prior to this.

Any responsible adult would take this route without finding out why the child went to be without supper,regardless of the title they hold.

Sounds like the child is being used as a weapon by the mother,which would be more serious than missing a meal. The father seems to acknowledge he is quite lax as to instilling respect in his young son.

Doubtful if this is the first time a tantrum has been used by this child to get his way.

A simple but firm no should take care of the problem in children that have been raised to respect their parents.Obviously this is a contentious divorce and one spouse looking to use anything,but to say there has to be more to the story than that is not always true.

Many times a vindictive spouse will use the slightest incident against the other,even when it means using a young child

[phkrause]

Exactly Tom, it gets really tiring to have to read posts that are so anti-christian, or even on the verge of gossip. Unless there is actual truth to back up what some posts, its gossip in my opinion. It definitely belongs in the cesspool threads, if we are gonna start slinging politic #$ into the fray.

[phkrause]

Sad thing is Bonnie, discipline has been taken away from parents. We are in the process of becoming the guardians to our grandchildren, but with the state being there guardians right now, there's not much you can do. You should be able to say no to a child or minor when needed. But with so much bad things happening to children because of parents or guardians that don't really care for them, others who see this, report this abuse and than the state gets involved. Its a very thin line these days. I think we as a society have done this to ourselves. Very interesting case, I wonder how it will play out.

[phkrause]

The gist of the story remains the same in all accounts.

The boy then told his mother that he was sent to bed without dinner

This doesn't sound like a child that had much in the way of discipline prior to this.

Any responsible adult would take this route without finding out why the child went to be without supper,regardless of the title they hold.

Sounds like the child is being used as a weapon by the mother,which would be more serious than missing a meal. The father seems to acknowledge he is quite lax as to instilling respect in his young son.

Doubtful if this is the first time a tantrum has been used by this child to get his way.

A simple but firm no should take care of the problem in children that have been raised to respect their parents.Obviously this is a contentious divorce and one spouse looking to use anything,but to say there has to be more to the story than that is not always true.

Many times a vindictive spouse will use the slightest incident against the other,even when it means using a young child

Exactly, very good points Bonnie

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie, I happen to agree with your post.

However, I suspect that there is much more to the story than the media has reported. I cannot believe that the sole reason that the psychologist claimed the Father was unfit was due to the fact that he refused to take the child to McDonalds. I think that there was much more which the media did not report.

I also think that it is significant that the Father was involved in a messy divorce. I suspect that there is an issue of the Mother attempting to win points. Perhaps there are other issues that justify the Mother, perhaps not? I do not know.

In any case, I believe that there is much more that is significant to this case than the Father not taking the child to McDonalds.

[bonnie]

Bonnie, I happen to agree with your post.

However, I suspect that there is much more to the story than the media has reported. I cannot believe that the sole reason that the psychologist claimed the Father was unfit was due to the fact that he refused to take the child to McDonalds. I think that there was much more which the media did not report.

[ClubV12]

bonnie, your comment about the boy being a real joy at 15...

Another news story. A young man, 19, stole his fathers truck because the father refused to buy him cigarettes. Father called police. Police chase stolen truck that wouldn't stop, endangering motorists and police. In the end, police shoot and kill the young man. Over cigarettes... I gotta wonder, was it McD's at some point in this young mans life?

[bonnie]

bonnie, your comment about the boy being a real joy at 15...

Another news story. A young man, 19, stole his fathers truck because the father refused to buy him cigarettes. Father called police. Police chase stolen truck that wouldn't stop, endangering motorists and police. In the end, police shoot and kill the young man. Over cigarettes... I gotta wonder, was it McD's at some point in this young mans life?

With encouragement even very young children learn to manipulate very effectively.

Tantrums rewarded or not dealt with is manipulation by the child.

This child appears to have a very good teacher.

A very young child can understand NO and when No means No.

Unless of course he/she is taught that it really doesn't mean that.

They can also understand consequence. A tantrum and refusal to eat at another place deserves a "No supper for you".You made your decision.

[pierrepaul]

The gist of the story remains the same in all accounts.

That is because the only source for this "story" has been the statement of claim in the defamation suit. For those who don't know, court filings, especially those initiating a lawsuit, are not intended to be impartial unbiased statements of fact, nor are the "facts" alleged in such suits proven to be true. That is why defendants have the opportunity to file defenses, cross-examine witnesses, and ultimately have their day in court.

Since court filings are public (except in family matters and where the court has ordered the file sealed), "reporters" often leaf through filings, trying to find the unusual, the outrageous, the silly, the bizarre. They write up their story, and then their "fact-checking" process generally consists of calling the people involved for comment. But since the reporter is up against a deadline, the people generally have less than an hour or two to respond before the story is filed and published.

Then the bizarre story makes its rounds on the internet, gobbled up by the gullible who are all to willing to believe anything which fits their pre-conceived notion of a legal system out of control and a society gone to hell. Of course since by the time the defendant in this case gets around to filing his defense, no one will be interested. And even if the original reporter writes a follow up, you can be assured that the defense will have none of the sensationalism of the original story (and will diminish the sensationalism of the original story), and thus the story on the defense will not make the rounds.

Then the case will be stuck in the court system for two years or more while the parties and their lawyers do what they need to do to build their cases. It will likely be settled out of court before trial, with both parties signing a confidentiality agreement undertaking not to speak about the case to third parties including the media. So the "true" story is never told.

But the reporter in all of this accomplished his mission - the generation of webhits and the sale of advertising. Truth is irrelevant.

[bonnie]

Then the bizarre story makes its rounds on the internet, gobbled up by the gullible who are all to willing to believe anything which fits their pre-conceived notion of a legal system out of control and a society gone to hell. Of course since by the time the defendant in this case gets around to filing his defense, no one will be interested. And even if the original reporter writes a follow up, you can be assured that the defense will have none of the sensationalism of the original story (and will diminish the sensationalism of the original story), and thus the story on the defense will not make the rounds.

Then the case will be stuck in the court system for two years or more while the parties and their lawyers do what they need to do to build their cases. It will likely be settled out of court before trial, with both parties signing a confidentiality agreement undertaking not to speak about the case to third parties including the media. So the "true" story is never told.

But the reporter in all of this accomplished his mission - the generation of webhits and the sale of advertising. Truth is irrelevant.

If you had ever been on the receiving end of situations like this or close to those that have,it is not so easy to dismiss as simply sensationalism.

Obviously there is serious contention between the spouses.That alone makes the situation ripe for idiocy like this.

If you believe a child will not pit parents against each other with partial truths to get his way,you are mistaking.

Or that a vindictive spouse will use anything to pile on to bolster their position

[bonnie]

After my one personal brush with social services from the public school I don't find this behavior by the "so called experts" that hard to believe.

We lived on a farm and there were many morning and evening chores. The boys generally were good about self discipline as far as bedtime went. They did reach an age where they felt they should be allowed to stay up much later than they did.We didn't force the issue but did tell them that 5:30 A.M would still come at the same time. A few days later I got a call from the school

wanting to talk to me about a unreasonable work load for my children as they were so exhausted they couldn't stay awake in class. I asked the counselor if he understood why my boys were tired. He said the boys had explained the boys claimed they had to get up so early because of chores. Kids being kids,they left out their own decision to stay up long after they should.

I interrupted his lecture on child rearing and asked him if he could tell me when he had any problems with my sons. Were they rude and a discipline problem as so many others were,had their grades been more than acceptable,did they complain of being physically abused? Of course the answer was no.

He still maintained that there were laws demanding children work to the point of exhaustion. I suggested he ask the boys for the full story and then get back to me.

The boys soon came to their own conclusion and went back to their regular routine.

Had this social worker had his way our boys would have been thought to be overworked and abused.

I can imagine the story of abused,overworked children,so exhausted they could not stay awake in class because of their parents demands

[Neil D]

Quote:

Since court filings are public (except in family matters and where the court has ordered the file sealed), "reporters" often leaf through filings, trying to find the unusual, the outrageous, the silly, the bizarre. They write up their story, and then their "fact-checking" process generally consists of calling the people involved for comment. But since the reporter is up against a deadline, the people generally have less than an hour or two to respond before the story is filed and published.

And my I inquire as to where the people on this thread obtained the news of this sensational story???

Did we not see this first on "Fox News and Friends"....?

Why would anyone ever, Ever, EVER ...rely on this as a NEWS source? They have an agenda...to make you angry...to cause rebellion again the US Government...to advance the cause of the rich....

and they do it by bringing stories as to how incompetent the government is, how democrats are stupid, and the sensational and non-journalistic stories that make YOU upset.

...and in bringing this type of news, they dumb you down by reinforcing that no body is as smart as you are in the government, that social networks are against capitalism, that vets died for a changing America, that everyone but you and your friends are submitting to a social/jihad agenda....

[bonnie]

And my I inquire as to where the people on this thread obtained the news of this sensational story???

Did we not see this first on "Fox News and Friends"....?

Why would anyone ever, Ever, EVER ...rely on this as a NEWS source? They have an agenda...to make you angry...to cause rebellion again the US Government...to advance the cause of the rich....

and they do it by bringing stories as to how incompetent the government is, how democrats are stupid, and the sensational and non-journalistic stories that make YOU upset.

...and in bringing this type of news, they dumb you down by reinforcing that no body is as smart as you are in the government, that social networks are against capitalism, that vets died for a changing America, that everyone but you and your friends are submitting to a social/jihad agenda....

You really need to invest in a new crystal ball.

If you note this is a story from AP Here's the full AP story:True Fox News picked it up but the story did not originate with them.

I first saw the story on AOL,the Huffington Post. I also have a yahoo account and it was on yahoo news.

I then saw it on facebook from Fox news.

..and in bringing this type of news, they dumb you down by reinforcing that no body is as smart as you are in the government, that social networks are against capitalism, that vets died for a changing America, that everyone but you and your friends are submitting to a social/jihad agenda....

The above is quite a claim

[pierrepaul]

They have an agenda...to make you angry...to cause rebellion again the US Government...to advance the cause of the rich....

Of course they have an agenda, but it is not what you think. The agenda is to make money, to maximize viewership/readership and thereby maximize advertising dollars.