How Saying No to McDonald's Might Lead to Dad Losing Custody

[Just]

 

The trouble began last week, the Post explained Thursday, when Schorr was scheduled to take his son to their usual neighborhood restaurant for their weekly Tuesday-night visit. But that night the child dug in his heels about wanting to go to McDonald's instead. Schorr, who felt the boy had been eating too much junk food lately, refused, saying he could eat anywhere else but the fast-food joint — or have no dinner at all."The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," Schorr says in the suit, according to the Post. "It was just a standoff. I’m kicking myself mightily. I wish I had taken him to McDonald's, 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."

 

When the boy went home hungry to mom Bari Yunis Schorr, a vice president at Rue La La, he reported the incident and went to McDonald’s with her. Then she contacted the psychiatrist, Marilyn Schiller, setting the forensic investigation in motion. Schiller, according to the Associated Press, told a judge the incident "raises concerns about the viability" of the father's weekend visits with his son and suggested they be limited or eliminated entirely.

 

Now David Schorr wants Schiller to return the required $2,750 he paid for her input on the case. Meanwhile, the custody trial will resume in December.

 

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/how-saying-no-to-mcdonald-s-might-lead-to-dad-losing-custody-165611460.html

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Junk food, is a meal at Mc Donalds USA that bad? In the EU you have salad options, Wrap(Bento?) options etc. The mistake was to punish a child instead of addressing its needs. 

 

Daddy wanted to go to restaurant X but little fellow went mad about going to Mac D. Daddy said no, because you had to much of fast food. Little fellow didn't see his needs addressed and was stubborn. Daddy thought, he is not compliant and his behaviour should be punished but he actually don't want to punish him. Classical case of authority by power. He better should have done the Stef.

[wdiaz03]

Wait a minute, What's so bad about McDonalds? What's bad is the choice you make once you are in there.

I would compromise with chicken nuggets meal or chicken sandwich with apple slices and milk, etc for the kid. and get a grilled chicken salad for myself.

[Just]

yeah.  Really, everybody handled this situation in such a terrible way.  What baffled me was a psychiatrist being dragged in to complete a 'forensics investigation' hahah.. ??? Jesus lady, the father even offered a compromise - no McD's, ANYTHING else, OR no dinner.  Still, she thinks starting this 'investigation' is a legit course of action.  It's one of those news stories that are so shockingly ass-backwards you almost expect it to have come from The Onion.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Jesus lady, the father even offered a compromise - no McD's, ANYTHING else, OR no dinner.

 

 

This is not a compromise, this is saying, I am the Fuehrer, you have to obey my rulez. This is not addressing the issue in any productive way.

[Just]

This is not addressing the issue in any productive way.

 

The issue is hunger, and clearly, a coerced appetite for greasy low-nutrient dense food is not in the interest of the child.  What kid honestly goes to McDonald's and orders a salad? Seriously...  Of course it's a compromise.  The father is saying, look I know your craving some kind of fast food, probably a burger, why dont we go to red robin where at least we can get a burger but get decent vegetables on the side.  Truth is, fastfood is like crack, and once you take away an addicts drugs they act irrationally just as the both the kid and the psychiatrist did

[wdiaz03]

The issue is hunger, and clearly, a coerced appetite for greasy low-nutrient dense food is not in the interest of the child.  What kid honestly goes to McDonald's and orders a salad? Seriously...  Of course it's a compromise.  The father is saying, look I know your craving some kind of fast food, probably a burger, why dont we go to red robin where at least we can get a burger but get decent vegetables on the side.  Truth is, fastfood is like crack, and once you take away an addicts drugs they act irrationally just as the both the kid and the psychiatrist did

 

You are running to the other extreme here, What if the kid just wanted a "Happy meal" for the toy. or wanted to play on the playground? The Point is that we will never know because the father never bothered to ask. For all we know he wanted a grilled steak and the kid was getting in his way.

 

I say treat children like adults who do not have all the information to make the right decisions. Ask, suggest, negotiate.

[Wesley]

Ask, suggest, negotiate.

This.

 

There was a guise of negotiation, but no negotiation.

 

"Tell me where you want to eat, son."

 

"Well the only place I want to eat in the whole world is A."

 

"Well too bad. I do not like A. You can choose any place in the whole world except the place you want which is A and if you still want to go to A, because I don't like it then you will have to starve instead of going there as a punishment for disagreeing with me."

 

 

This is not negotiation, asking, or having a relationship.

[NeoEclectic]

This is absurd. So now parents should be ruled by children?

 

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they should get it especially if someone else has to spend their resources to provide it. The father's role is to make sure that the child is fed. Fine. That doesn't mean he has no choice but to feed him McDonald's.

 

And it's definitely not negotiation considering the kid was dead set on going to McDonald's. Where is the father's negotiating leverage?

 

No kid goes to McDonald's to order a salad. That is plainly absurd. There are far better options from where to get a salad than McDonald's so I think its very clear the kid had no intention of ordering a salad.

 

Okay, so it's an issue about forcing a child to go hungry? The only force I see is child ordering a parent on what to do. The child was offered three options and he opted to not eat.

[wdiaz03]

This is absurd. So now parents should be ruled by children?

 

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they should get it especially if someone else has to spend their resources to provide it. The father's role is to make sure that the child is fed. Fine. That doesn't mean he has no choice but to feed him McDonald's.

 

And it's definitely not negotiation considering the kid was dead set on going to McDonald's. Where is the father's negotiating leverage?

 

No kid goes to McDonald's to order a salad. That is plainly absurd. There are far better options from where to get a salad than McDonald's so I think its very clear the kid had no intention of ordering a salad.

 

Okay, so it's an issue about forcing a child to go hungry? The only force I see is child ordering a parent on what to do. The child was offered three options and he opted to not eat.

 

Seems strange doesn't it? Specially for someone growing up with parents imposing their will on them.

 

What I find sad is the lack of curiosity from new people on the board. There's hardly a "Ahh, Why do you think that  way?" or "I see, What would you think would happen if option B is followed?" followed by "But don't you think that C would follow B?" instead people push their believes around like car through a crowd. They see a new concept that's foreign to them and they just step on the gas... I might be getting less patient with old age, but I find it harder to even explain my points of view when I notice the reckless driving and lack of curiosity.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Why is the kid so stubborn? Was there any negotiation beforehand, any reasoning?

 

Okay, so it's an issue about forcing a child to go hungry? The only force I see is child ordering a parent on what to do. The child was offered three options and he opted to not eat.

 

 

Children cannot force, cuz they ain't got power to force. They are fully dependent in an involuntary relationship, cuz they haven't chosen it. Negotiating skillz are something that has to be developed. It is a typical slave resentment in case of the child. Offered? Eat it or beat it, there was no negotiation involved. Negotiation doesn't mean setting the rules and let the child(slave) choose from, what is only benefitial to you.

[Wesley]

This is absurd. So now parents should be ruled by children?

 

Negotiation is not rule. It is asking and negotiating.

 

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they should get it especially if someone else has to spend their resources to provide it. The father's role is to make sure that the child is fed. Fine. That doesn't mean he has no choice but to feed him McDonald's.

 

Look up the definition of negotiation.

 

And it's definitely not negotiation considering the kid was dead set on going to McDonald's. Where is the father's negotiating leverage?

 

Um. Why is it about leverage? That seems like manipulation rather than true curiosity and negotiation.

 

No kid goes to McDonald's to order a salad. That is plainly absurd. There are far better options from where to get a salad than McDonald's so I think its very clear the kid had no intention of ordering a salad.

 

Maybe he wants the toy, maybe he just really craves the french fries, maybe he knows the cashier and enjoys her company.

 

Maybe you could get a toy, maybe you could go through the drive through and get fries and go actually eat somewhere else, maybe you could stop by and talk to the cashier and buy a small thing but then go eat somewhere else.

 

That is the point. Negotiation brings up millions of other options.

 

Okay, so it's an issue about forcing a child to go hungry? The only force I see is child ordering a parent on what to do. The child was offered three options and he opted to not eat.

 

Hmm. 2 people disagree. 1 is forced to starve and the other has nothing bad happen to them. My assumption is that the victim is committing force. That makes sense....

[NeoEclectic]

He more than likely ate something when he got home. And please don't even compare missing a meal for a few hours as going hungry in the devastating mortal sense. It's irrational and insensitive to people who truly starve so don't go there.

 

This is just irresponsible. Your premise is to allow the child to dictate the terms at the same time teaching him that eating fast food all of the time is perfectly fine. Later he turns into an obese slob rife with diabetes and we're all going to be sitting here groaning that we pay too much taxes to take care of other people.

 

Children are the most impressionable and it's during that time that they tend to learn good or bad habits.

[JamesP]

The question to ask is, why doesn't this little boy trust his father's judgment?

 

It's because his father has terrible judgment, as evidenced by him not having chosen a person he could have stayed in a relationship with to raise his son, and by the withdrawal of necessities from his boy as punishment.

[CrazyCanuck]

Wait a minute, What's so bad about McDonalds? What's bad is the choice you make once you are in there.

I would compromise with chicken nuggets meal or chicken sandwich with apple slices and milk, etc for the kid. and get a grilled chicken salad for myself.

The problem is that you don't know what they added to the food.  If you look up mcdonalds and pink slim and also silly puddy.  I wouldn't eat anything at mcdonalds it's worst than being junk food at the grocery store. I wouldn't trust anything at Mc Donalds.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291526/U-S-Chicken-McNuggets-contain-Silly-Putty-chemical-calories-fat-Britain.html

 

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282876-mcdonalds-drops-use-of-gooey-ammonia-based-pink-slime-in-hamburger-meat

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

Children cannot force, cuz they ain't got power to force.

Except for when, you know, the government threatens the custody rights of the parent on behalf of the child or the child manipulates the parents into attacking one another on behalf of the child.  I understand that we, the people on this forum, tend to take the side of the child over the parent because of the apparent power disparity.  However, it's important to understand that it's not the rulers against the ruled.  This example shows how a child can use the power of one parent to harm the other parent.  It's not all that different from how the American people try to use the power of their particular political party to harm people who belong to another political party, or socio-economic group.

[Yan]

I just do not understand why is it a psychiatrists problem where the father takes his son to eat - or not.

 

A psychiatrist is at least outside the US (american laws about who can administer drugs are so fucked up nowadays I do not even want to go there) someone who can prescript drugs.

 

 

Does this mean that MacDonalds is to be considered as a drug?

 

I would have understood a psychologist, I do not know how is it a psychiatric matter.

[wdiaz03]

The problem is that you don't know what they added to the food.  If you look up mcdonalds and pink slim and also silly puddy.  I wouldn't eat anything at mcdonalds it's worst than being junk food at the grocery store. I wouldn't trust anything at Mc Donalds.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291526/U-S-Chicken-McNuggets-contain-Silly-Putty-chemical-calories-fat-Britain.html

 

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282876-mcdonalds-drops-use-of-gooey-ammonia-based-pink-slime-in-hamburger-meat

 

My point exactly, The father could have chosen to share this type of information (Assuming the kid was after burgers and nuggets, but we'll never know now)

For example, My son wanted nothing to do with Mcdonalds after he saw a youtube video of their fries lasting weeks before decomposing.

[CrazyCanuck]

My point exactly, The father could have chosen to share this type of information (Assuming the kid was after burgers and nuggets, but we'll never know now)

For example, My son wanted nothing to do with Mcdonalds after he saw a youtube video of their fries lasting weeks before decomposing.

I bet you don't know there's phosphate injected into meat not just processed meat but factory farmed meat.

[Just]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the father is sueing the Psychiatrist now. 

 

http://www.gadailynews.com/news/regional/185541-david-evan-schorr-custody-battle-father-sues-child-shrink-after-she-labels-him-an-unfit-parent-for-not-taking-his-son-to-mcdonald-s.html

 

A full report should be out in a few days, and we can finally settle the score on what exactly the kid was going to order - it'll bring some closure to this discussion...

 

 I understand that we, the people on this forum, tend to take the side of the child over the parent because of the apparent power disparity.  However, it's important to understand that it's not the rulers against the ruled.  This example shows how a child can use the power of one parent to harm the other parent. 

  It's not an apparent power disparity when an individual uncapable of defending themselves is historically subjected to the will of another, but I do catch your drift and appreciate your perspective.  The child (I feel a barrage of hate coming) does seem like a little shithead doesn't he? haha.   Gaming the system to get what he wants cause he knows daddy is probably walking on eggshells.  The dad mentioned in the article that during the divorce preceedings his actions are 'under a microscope' as far determing his custody rights - with the Dad being in the already disadvantaged position relative to the Mom - I feel bad for the guy.  I'll check back on the story in a few days and see if anything new rolls out

[Guest Exceptionalist]

 It's not an apparent power disparity when an individual uncapable of defending themselves is historically subjected to the will of another, but I do catch your drift and appreciate your perspective.  

 

Off course it is, especially given the fact that this is an involuntary relationship. The parents have  chosen to have a child. The latter has no saying in it.

 

 

The child (I feel a barrage of hate coming) does seem like a little shithead doesn't he? haha.   Gaming the system to get what he wants cause he knows daddy is probably walking on eggshells.

 

   Are there any facts about the awareness of the child of the situation of his father? Given the case the little fellow knew about his father's situation, childs aren't born that way, using power to get what they want, ya know.

 

The dad mentioned in the article that during the divorce preceedings his actions are 'under a microscope' as far determing his custody rights - with the Dad being in the already disadvantaged position relative to the Mom - I feel bad for the guy.  I'll check back on the story in a few days and see if anything new rolls out

 

 

 

 

That doesn't change a thing about the relationship to his son, does it?

 

The problem is that you don't know what they added to the food.  If you look up mcdonalds and pink slim and also silly puddy.  I wouldn't eat anything at mcdonalds it's worst than being junk food at the grocery store. I wouldn't trust anything at Mc Donalds.

 

 

Typical horror storys spreaded by the media. They focus on the effects instead of the causes, which is being able to use government protection for your own benefits. We ain't got such nonensense in the German subsidaries.

[Just]

Off course it is, especially given the fact that this is an involuntary relationship. The parents have  chosen to have a child. The latter has no saying in it.

 

   I was saying: it's not an APPARENT power disparity, it is an OBVIOUS power disparity.  I can see how the context was a bit misleading, that was my mistake.  As far as whether or not the kid is in fact a little shithead who's using custody as leverage to get what he wants, well that was speculation. In my mind, the mother is pumping the kid with lies, and trying to break up the family to selfishly get as much child support/alimony as she possibly can.  The husband is a well-off lawyer by the way

[st434u]

What I find most interesting is that if the father would've grabbed the child by his arm and dragged him kicking and screaming to a restaurant, or to his house, then fed him whatever food he thought was appropriate, we would not even be hearing about this. Obviously FDRers would show contempt for something like that, but not the mainstream media or people in general.

 

The only reason this father is in trouble is because he gave his son a choice: Would you rather go to a restaurant of your choice (other than Mcdonalds), or not have dinner? The child chose no dinner. Most parents would never allow this level of freedom and negotiation to a 4 year old child. It's not a punishment to go home without dinner when that's what he chose to do. His father was not trying to starve the kid, just refusing to provide what he considers unhealthy food and instead offering a large variety of other things to satisfy the boy's need for food.

 

While I most often find myself in the opposite position, arguing that parents should not force their kids to do things, or forcibly prevent them from doing things, in this case I find that some posters here seem to be saying that the child has a right to be taken to McDonalds simply because he wants to go there to have dinner. This is troubling to me. I think it's very important to grant children the same basic respect that adults get, but that doesn't mean they should be entitled to get everything they want, and that the wishes or thoughts of the parents should be disregarded.

 

While I agree that the father could've handled this in a better way, I can't see myself blaming him for the way he engaged in this interaction. Most people would do far worse things in this situation. Sure the father made a bad choice by marrying this woman and having a kid with her, but I don't think that means we have to consider everything else he does as wrong also.

 

It seems to me that the example that things like this set for the kid is that he can use his mother and the family court system (which is incredibly biased against fathers in the favor of mothers) as a weapon to basically blackmail his father into getting whatever he wants. This would be very unhealthy behavior and it should be discouraged, but unfortunately it is too often the case in instances such as this, with divorced parents, because of the dynamics that the family courts create which are piled on to the already existing conflicts of interest between the divorced parents.

[NeoEclectic]

What I find most interesting is that if the father would've grabbed the child by his arm and dragged him kicking and screaming to a restaurant, or to his house, then fed him whatever food he thought was appropriate, we would not even be hearing about this. Obviously FDRers would show contempt for something like that, but not the mainstream media or people in general.

 

The only reason this father is in trouble is because he gave his son a choice: Would you rather go to a restaurant of your choice (other than Mcdonalds), or not have dinner? The child chose no dinner. Most parents would never allow this level of freedom and negotiation to a 4 year old child. It's not a punishment to go home without dinner when that's what he chose to do. His father was not trying to starve the kid, just refusing to provide what he considers unhealthy food and instead offering a large variety of other things to satisfy the boy's need for food.

 

While I most often find myself in the opposite position, arguing that parents should not force their kids to do things, or forcibly prevent them from doing things, in this case I find that some posters here seem to be saying that the child has a right to be taken to McDonalds simply because he wants to go there to have dinner. This is troubling to me. I think it's very important to grant children the same basic respect that adults get, but that doesn't mean they should be entitled to get everything they want, and that the wishes or thoughts of the parents should be disregarded.

 

While I agree that the father could've handled this in a better way, I can't see myself blaming him for the way he engaged in this interaction. Most people would do far worse things in this situation. Sure the father made a bad choice by marrying this woman and having a kid with her, but I don't think that means we have to consider everything else he does as wrong also.

 

It seems to me that the example that things like this set for the kid is that he can use his mother and the family court system (which is incredibly biased against fathers in the favor of mothers) as a weapon to basically blackmail his father into getting whatever he wants. This would be very unhealthy behavior and it should be discouraged, but unfortunately it is too often the case in instances such as this, with divorced parents, because of the dynamics that the family courts create which are piled on to the already existing conflicts of interest between the divorced parents.

 

Finally, the first bit of common sense in this thread. Good post.

[JamesP]

The only reason this father is in trouble is because he gave his son a choice: Would you rather go to a restaurant of your choice (other than Mcdonalds), or not have dinner? The child chose no dinner. Most parents would never allow this level of freedom and negotiation to a 4 year old child. It's not a punishment to go home without dinner when that's what he chose to do. His father was not trying to starve the kid, just refusing to provide what he considers unhealthy food and instead offering a large variety of other things to satisfy the boy's need for food.

 

You do not understand what negotiation is.

 

The definition of negotiation is: discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.

 

There was no discussion here.  What the father offered that boy was this: compliance or punishment.  The boy chose to be punished, possibly because he thought he could call his father's bluff.  That man's mealy-mouthed excuse for his behavior was "you get nervous about rewarding bad behavior."  He wished he had complied with his son's demands rather than attempting to enforce his own.

 

This is just not good parenting by any stretch.

[Billy]

I don't agree with hitting children, but I don't agree with letting them run you with tantrums or manipulation either. The larger part of this story that no one is discussing seemingly is how the ex wife is spoiling the child with bribery and refusing to be a good nurturer by standing in line with the father about decent nutrition. Instead she is helping to train the child in manipulation tactics as to win a custody case. Pathetic. If I were the father in that case I would have just took the kid to the supermarket and bought some damned burger and buns and made a 10X better and healthier burger at home. And if that wasnt good enough despite being the better alternative I would have the "talk" with the kid about being programmed by commercials and why mommy was a bad mommy for allowing him to eat such garbage often enough to think that McDonalds was a suitable dinner. 

[st434u]

You do not understand what negotiation is.

 

The definition of negotiation is: discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.

 

There was no discussion here.  What the father offered that boy was this: compliance or punishment.  The boy chose to be punished, possibly because he thought he could call his father's bluff.  That man's mealy-mouthed excuse for his behavior was "you get nervous about rewarding bad behavior."  He wished he had complied with his son's demands rather than attempting to enforce his own.

 

This is just not good parenting by any stretch.

 

Whoa, hold on. I didn't say this was perfect negotiation or perfect parenting. In fact I said I think he could've handled the situation better. I simply said that what he did is much better than what most parents would do.

 

And certainly, there is more negotiation involved in offering a wide variety of options to which the father is willing to comply, and letting the boy pick one he agrees with the most, than to simply do whatever the father wanted in spite of the boy's wishes, or do whatever the kid wanted in spite of the father's wishes. A negotiation is a process by which both parties make offers and counter-offers as to what they're willing to agree to.

 

Of course, in the case of a parent-child negotiation, it's better to delve deeper into the issues and provide as well as request explanations and assign values to each preference (so that each knows how much something matters to the other and why it does so), and finally coming up with the best solution to fit both parties' wishes. There's a high likelihood that the father didn't do a great job in this area, because the negotiation, from what is reported, seems to have been too short and quick. Of course, we can't know that for sure.

 

But what I was saying is that if we're gonna put something up as an example of bad parenting, we have far better options to choose from than this one. Sure, this father has a lot to learn, but let's not demonize everyone who makes the smallest mistake.

[Josh F]

The only person completely lacking empathy is the wife, who has hired a psychiatrist to investigate her ex-husband to revoke his guardian rights.  I suspect she is a horrific rotten cruel woman, but I am only suspecting considering she seems to be using dirty tricks and the strong arm of the state to control both her child and exhusband on something way more important than McDonalds.

[Brandon U]

Perhaps I'm misreading something, but the parents are divorced. So - isn't the elephant in the room the fact the mother is using the child as a pawn in the divorce? What is this teaching the kid when mommy filled him up with junk food in the first place causing the child's poor habits and then dad walks in and it's a mine field.