NY dad deemed unfit for not taking son to McDonald's
New York Post
A Manhattan dad is not lovin’ McDonald’s right now.
Attorney David Schorr slapped a court-appointed shrink with a defamation lawsuit for telling the judge deciding a custody battle with his estranged wife that he was an unfit parent — for refusing to take his son to the fast food joint for dinner.
“You’d think it was sexual molestation,” Schorr, 43, told The Post Thursday. “I am just floored by it.”
Schorr says in his Manhattan Supreme Court suit that E. 97th Street psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller filed a report saying he was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and should be denied his weekend visitation over the greasy burger ban.
Schorr, a corporate attorney turned consultant with degrees from NYU and Oxford University, had planned to take his 4-year-old son to their usual restaurant, the Corner Café on Third Avenue, for his weekly Tuesday night visitation last week.
But the boy threw a temper tantrum and demanded McDonald’s. So he gave his son an ultimatum: dinner anywhere other than McDonald’s — or no dinner.
“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the ‘no dinner’ option,” the disgruntled dad says in the suit.
“It was just a standoff. I’m kicking myself mightily,” Schorr said.
“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.
Adding insult to injury, he said: “My wife immediately took him to McDonalds.”
I heard stories that family court was a corrupt pit with no bottom you do not want to go anywhere near. Once they get hold, it never ends. Not giving in to your child is just the excuse, as it could have been using the wrong kleenex to wipe the kids nose.
ReplyDeleteThe courts are not the place you want to be when your children's welfare is at risk.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to hear a story of how the two lawyers and judge worked for the benefit of the child or children.
It's all about money, very sad.
I firmly believe that no matter ones income or who was wronged, that child support should be a fixed amount (what does the state pay to foster homes to raise a child?) for a fix time.
If the non custody parent is rich, then they have the moral (let their consonance be their guild) obligation to provide more support (voluntary) in the way of education and what not. They should never be a means for their ex to retire and live off child support. The support should go to benefit the children. If it is not benefiting the child then the guilty parent needs to be held accountable.
Bottom line, money does not equal support. In fact, it may lead to the opposite in many cases.
Sad, very sad for the children.