Saying No to McD's Might Lead to Dad Losing Custody

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.

I think the psychiatrist in this case, may need some psychological help.

It sounds to me like this kid is spoiled to start with. But aside from that, my guess is mom might not have let the kid eat at McDonalds all the time, either. But since it was leverage she could use against her ex, she decided to do just that. This is really low, imo. On the part of the mother, and on the part of the psychiatrist. It is true, we don't know the history of this family, but all things being equal, it just wreaks of the usual, "kid stuck in the middle of a bitter divorce and custody battle".

Source
Scroll down for a video of a short interview with the father.

Careful parents...

Using the "You eat what I make or no dinner for you" line, can result in custody being taken...


anti-paternal US Court par the course BS.


He told his kid anything but MCD, kid refused, so father said no diner... sounds like he was doing his job just fine.

When I was a kid, asking for McDonalds meant you ate only rice or potatoes for dinner. It was like a swear word in my house.

Oh how times have changed…

*Message to the kid: Don't worry buddy, you will get years and years of opportunity to eat McDonalds, and you will end up hating it.

reply to post by Klassified


So let me get this straight,
US kids in general are obese, this dad is trying to help his kid eat healthy and the court psychiatrist says that is a bad thing? The psychiatrist needs sensitivity training in what is proper food to eat instead of fast food. The dad should sue the county for this screwed up psychiatrist and gets tons of $$$$$$ for emotional distress that this caused him and for defamation as well.

I saw this last night and my first thought was that this guy is going to have one hell of a rough row to hoe for the next 14 years. Judging from this... this woman is going to keep him in court until he either gives up and bows out of the kid's life, he eventually does lose custody, or she eventually succeeds in turning this child against his father. All three will be detrimental for the child, but nobody will care and she will be happy because "she wins".

Being a woman, this stuff disgusts me. If you have a man that wants to be in his child's life for the love of all that is holy let him do it. He might not always make the decisions you would, but if he loves his child quit being a vengeful control freak.

Ok... I'll end the tangent early.

This is ridiculous to say the least. The woman should be fined for wasting the court's time and made to attend mandatory therapy sessions for being a spiteful... you know.

reply to post by rangersdad

He is suing the psych. I'm not sure he could win against the county.

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.

This is what an attorney had to say...

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."

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

True. I'm always amazed at how little some parents really care about their kids once the court battles begin. I've never seen a kid come out the winner yet. They're always the ones who suffer in the end.

It's odd how McDonald's is somehow part of the lead in this story.

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).

reply to post by The Vagabond

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?

That's a very interesting perspective on a case like this. And not the first time I've read about a case that has given me the impression that once you present yourself before a court, you have somehow, at least from their vantage point, given them authority over every aspect of your life.

If the subtext of that choice in the headline is about institutional authority vs personal choice I suppose it makes some sense...

Also an interesting thought, considering the above.

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).

Now you've got me wondering. lol.

Refusal too partake in the McDonald , is a pathway to a great many things

Woman runs over boyfriend 3 times for refusing to go to McDonald's


everyone knows if you try to opt-out of McDonalds you must be a terrorist

I don't watch a lot of news these days (because i feel that I have already been exposed to all the lies and misconceptions that I need to stay in step with this society)- are odd stories like these two about McDonald's always out there but I haven't noticed, or are we going to see a new pattern of stuff like this, possibly as a viral marketing campaign. They wouldn't actually have to DO anything to anyone- just hire some kids to scan the AP wire for a stupid story involving somebody who wanted McDonalds and then pay a newspaper to play up that angle.