Posted on 11/09/2013 6:02:21 AM PST by JoeProBono
NEW YORK, - A defamation lawsuit in New York alleges a court-appointed psychiatrist told a judge a man who refused to take his son to McDonald's was an unfit parent.
David Schorr, 43, a Manhattan attorney, filed a lawsuit in city Supreme Court alleging court-appointed psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller filed a report in his custody battle saying he was "wholly incapable of taking care of his son" and should be denied weekend visitation rights for refusing to take his 4-year-old son to the fast-food restaurant, the New York Post reported Friday.
Schorr said the incident in question involved his son throwing a temper tantrum during a Tuesday night visitation last week when he refused to take him to McDonald's.
Schorr said he told the boy they could go to any restaurant other than McDonald's, but if his son would not consent to another restaurant, there would be no dinner.
"The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," Schorr said in the lawsuit. "It was just a standoff. I'm kicking myself mightily.
"I wish I had taken him to McDonalds, but you get nervous about rewarding bad behavior. I was concerned. I think it was a 1950s equivalent of sending your child to bed without dinner. That's maybe the worst thing you can say about it," he said.
Schorr said the child's mother made sure he did not learn any lessons from the incident.
"My wife immediately took him to McDonalds," Schorr said.
Schorr said he regrets his decision, but Schiller's report amounts to defamation.
"You'd think it was sexual molestation," Schorr said of the psychiatrist's report of his actions. "I am just floored by it."
You'll NEVER represent ME.
Just when you thought the spoiled brat hipster douchebags of the Millenial generation were as bad as it gets... Here comes a new generation of mommy to enable kids into servitude of the entitlement culture.
I’m lovin’ it.
Let me guess...the wife’s now a lesbian.
He should clarify that he regrets giving the child the option of no food. Apparently the mother is painting that as an act of him starving the boy. He should have taken him to a restaurant or better yet taken him home and prepared something. But do people in NY cook for themselves or do they all eat out?
Maybe Mr. Corporate Lawyer should have chosen his babymama more carefully.
Perhaps, but one thing for certain, he is going to pay for this “indiscretion”. Any wonder why marriage seems to be on the decline? Even with prenups, the odds are stacked against the husband more so if he has a big wallet.
The no food option is an acceptable choice. Baybe a bad choice, but the kid will get the message about who is in charge.
The psyhopathigist (what she is creating) is just another imbecile with credentials.
I've turned into the canary in the coal mine, when he needs to be reminded of how much he's been enjoying his bachelorhood.
I've been married 25+ years, and I love my wife. However, I'm one and done when it comes to marriage. Easy for me to say, I have little doubt she'll outlive me. lol
I thought New York was criminalizing fast food... This sounds like double jeopardy.
A woman psychiatrist ... and she concluded that the man was the scum of the Earth????
How utterly shocking.
You know, I’d bet the insane psychiatrist still doesn’t know what he did wrong.
You know, I’d bet the insane psychiatrist still doesn’t know what he did wrong.
Exactly...my wife and I raised six children...all of them knew if you didn't eat what was prepared for you...you didn't eat...period
It was only a bad choice because the kids Mom is probably a psycho...
I think the no food option is going the way of the spanking option. Both are arguably acceptable, but when one is caught in a situation like this father where the courts have control over his relationship with his son you sometimes have to make difficult choices.
He decided during his visit that he wouldn't eat the dinner I made. So, I told him it was to eat or go hungry. He chose "go hungry."
Later at night, he said he was hungry. I told him dinner was still available. He didn't want to eat.
The next morning he wanted breakfast. I happily set the table with his dinner from the previous night. He didn't want to eat.
Come lunch time he was hungry. Dinner was served. He happily ate it without complaint. I didn't have a problem with the tantrums the rest of the time.
I am the parent. I am not here to be your friend; my will is stronger.
The "judge" and this "psychiatrist" need to have the stupid slapped out of them.
The court will find him guilty of Parenting While Male. All else is just pretext. Cough up the money and keep coughing it up or go to jail, dude. Oh, and stay away.
“Exactly...my wife and I raised six children...all of them knew if you didn’t eat what was prepared for you...you didn’t eat...period.”
We have the same policy at our house. The kids each have only chosen the “no food” option once—just to see if we were serious. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.