Along the lines of presumption of innocence doctrine, fathers should be considered fathers, which they are, in lieu of specific conduct contravening that status.
‘Special’ seems to convey ‘uncommon’, and that would in turn a lack of faith in fathers in general.
And in this instance, the conduct does contravene the status of either “father” or even much less, “dad”.
I have no idea why you are defending his boor’s conduct, but I will say, you are going to be busy on this thread.
SZ