Dad Branded Unfit Parent For Refusing To Take Son To McDonald’s, Lawsuit Says:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/dad-criticized_n_4241370.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl6|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D403639
The story starts right off with how this toddler beat the professional in the child psychology business:
NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — 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.
This just shows that governments and their officers have no clue as to their proper duties, nor do they have a clue about child-rearing, especially in family courts.
From another forum:
1. It’s likely that the psychologist is unable to publicly give her side of the story, while dad is free to speak his mind publicly.
It look like the details were taken from the lawsuit filed. The psychologist told “her story” to the judge. From this report, “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.” So that much is indeed public. I don’t trust AP at all on the usual attention-getting headlines in politics or international issues, but this is outside the scope of that. So what is here is based on what is public, and based on the timeline of the publicly known facts, and based on the history of abuses by many family court judges and the trend toward official antagonistic attitudes toward parental discipline taken by courts.
The psychologist told “her story” to the judge. From this report, “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.”
So that much is indeed public. I don’t trust AP at all on the usual attention-getting headlines in politics or international issues, but this is outside the scope of that. So what is here is based on what is public, and based on the timeline of the publicly known facts, and based on the history of abuses by many family court judges and the trend toward official antagonistic attitudes toward parental discipline taken by courts.
The Dad offered to take the kid –a toddler– ANYWHERE ELSE.
The kid is a spoiled brat.
The TODDLER is the master psychologist here, like all children are, orchestrating and manipulating the mother, the judge, the state’s little family dictators, and of course the official state-paid psychologist too.
The Dad was the one who started it by refusing to be manipulated by the kid. The Mom saw a chance to cut off the Dad, and to hell with the lesson for the kid. (Did she take the kid to McDonald’s?)
But the state does the absolutely worst job of raising children than almost anybody else. And in family court, all you need is a couple of social workers, a judge, and some manipulator like this spoiled brat to ruin a kid’s life.
So what if this Dad made what you think is a mistake anyway?
The kid, the Mom, the psychologist, the social workers, and the judge are all making it WAY worse because the kid is going to use this threat on the Dad, the ONLY one in this mix who actually wanted to actually teach the boy to eat healthier, and it will always be in the back of the Dad’s mind and ruining the time they have together. And it will ruin the kids’ opportunity to learn what he needs to learn, after this.
The Dad was the only one who truly had the kid’s interest foremost in this decision, especially knowing he was in an adversarial divorce situation.
Reminds me of the attempted prosecution of about 200 in a peaceful community in Island Pond Vermont in 1972, with infamous kidnapper and “de-programmer” criminal Ted Patrick, and police, and judges, and “social workers” all cooperated in a raid. A judge set them free the next day, calling it unconstitutional, which it absolutely was of course.
One of them was quoted after the release commenting on the social workers’ interrogations, saying, something like, Come on! They’re abused because we don’t let them watch Mickey Mouse?
Lotsa loot in civil forfeiture
Trutherator's Weblog 