Did somebody say McDonald's? Yep, a 4-year-old New York City boy, but his dad David Schorr said nope. Now Schorr, embroiled in a child custody case, is suing a court-appointed psychiatrist for defamation for deeming him "wholly incapable of taking care of his son" after he refused to let his kid eat dinner at McDonald’s.
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.
Now Schorr, embroiled in a child custody case, is suing a court-appointed psychiatrist for defamation for deeming him "wholly incapable of taking care of his son" after he refused to let his kid eat dinner at McDonald’s.
But Neumann, who is not involved in the Schorr case, adds, "It's well-known that allegations of abuse during a divorce have most often been found to be false — because the other parent uses it as leverage — so they're looked at very suspiciously. This, as well, should have been looked at suspiciously."
Isn't this story about how people availing themselves of the court system designed to protect them has led to this absurd hair-trigger response against personal responsibility by the government, which in this case seems to perceive itself not merely as the executor of laws and contracts but as being in custody of these people simply because they are before it?
If the subtext of that choice in the headline is about institutional authority vs personal choice I suppose it makes some sense...
but I initially construed it as if McDonald's had somehow acted against the father for not buying a cheeseburger (which didn't strike me as an obvious impossibility- which made me wonder if the believability of such a misreading might be the whole point).