Dad declared “unfit parent” by court-appointed psychiatrist for not taking his kid to McDonalds…in NYC

posted at 2:01 pm on November 8, 2013 by Steve Eggleston

Usually, when one sees “McDonald’s” and “New York City” in the same sentence, it is a description of the latest attack on the fast-food industry by soon-to-be-former mayor Michael Bloomberg. However, in this child custody case reported by the New York Post, it is the refusal of the father in the middle of a divorce to take his son to the land of the Golden Arches that is the issue:

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.

I’ve heard of some nasty divorces, but this one comes very close to taking the cake. Summarizing what happened after Schorr dropped off his son, his son told his mother, who has primary custody of him, that his father refused to take him to McDonald’s. The mother got the court to appoint the psychiatrist at a cost to the father. The psychiatrist only interviewed the child and the mother before telling the court that due at least in part to the refusal of the father to acquiesce to the child’s out-of-the-ordinary demand of McDonald’s, he should be denied his visitation rights.

I guess in New York City, it is now damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We’ll know for certain in December when the judge decides on the issue.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That shrink should lose their license.

workingclass artist on November 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Don’t worry. The child belongs to the proletariat now. Viva De Blasio!

blammm on November 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I will pray for the child caught in the middle of this.

Roy Rogers on November 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’m so confused.

First, they tell us we’re unfit for feeding McDonald’s to our kids. Now, we’re unfit if we don’t feed McDonalds’s to our kids.

Bitter Clinger on November 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Good thing he didn’t spank the kid instead. Then, he’d be in jail for battery.

RSbrewer on November 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Parents are bad for taking their kids to McDonalds they should be labelled unfit parents!!
:Cheers from the left:

Parent are bad for NOT taking their kids to McDonalds they should be labelled unfit parents!!
:Cheers from the left:

Gatsu on November 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I’m so confused.

First, they tell us we’re unfit for feeding McDonald’s to our kids. Now, we’re unfit if we don’t feed McDonalds’s to our kids.

Bitter Clinger on November 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

This.

Liberalism is, indeed, a mental disorder.

Aizen on November 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Don’t barter with your four-year-old.

The unfit parent is the mother, who did not love her kid enough to back the Dad’s decision on discipline for the tantrum. She thinks he should have given in? Ug. That kid is going to be pooping on cop cars before he hits puberty.

TexasDan on November 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Usually, when one sees “McDonald’s” and “New York City” in the same sentence, it is a description of the latest attack on the fast-food industry by soon-to-be-former mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The juxtaposition usually makes me think of buying a 99-cent iced tea so I can go pee.

steebo77 on November 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I smell a setup by the mom.

meci on November 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

The mother got the court to appoint the psychiatrist at a cost to the father. The psychiatrist only interviewed the child and the mother before telling the court that due at least in part to the refusal of the father to acquiesce to the child’s out-of-the-ordinary demand of McDonald’s, he should be denied his visitation rights.

Women wonder why men don’t want to get married.

Nick_Angel on November 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

The dad should use the 20 oz soda defense.

22044 on November 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Well, at least it didn’t happen in America.

Tsar of Earth on November 8, 2013 at 2:15 PM

But, but, but it’s for the children, you know.

HiJack on November 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Don’t barter with your four-year-old.

The unfit parent is the mother, who did not love her kid enough to back the Dad’s decision on discipline for the tantrum. She thinks he should have given in? Ug. That kid is going to be pooping on cop cars before he hits puberty.

TexasDan on November 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

In divorces like this, the parents act worse than children.

Bitter Clinger on November 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM

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.

Are we sure this is the actual complaint, and not just the dad’s characterization? It seems like without anyone else’s word other than the dad, it’s hard to get too worked up either way.

If I had to guess, the argument is probably not that he refused McDonald’s, but that he let the kid go without dinner rather than simply taking him someplace else anyway.

Which is still a ridiculous complaint. I guess if this went on for several days, maybe there would be a legitimate case against the dad. But declaring someone unfit for sending their kid to bed without his supper after throwing a tantrum?

Of course, for all we know, it could still be a gross mis-characterization. Is the rest of the story “…and then he took the kid home and sent him to bed without his supper with a stern lecture” or “…and then he took the kid to a strip-club before dropping him off with his pot-head uncle”?

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Don’t barter with your four-year-old.

The unfit parent is the mother, who did not love her kid enough to back the Dad’s decision on discipline for the tantrum. She thinks he should have given in? Ug. That kid is going to be pooping on cop cars before he hits puberty.

TexasDan on November 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

No, she thinks her ex should go away and die. She isn’t thinking about what’s best for her child, but how best to screw with her ex. Meanwhile, little Timmy is learning how best to exploit the vindictive behavior he is witnessing.

NotCoach on November 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Did the doctor consult with Michelle obama first?

Schadenfreude on November 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

An actual comment from liberal a site that ran this story this morning.

This is why heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise our children

The mind reels

HotAirian on November 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Take your kid to McDonald’s, for God’s sake. It’s not like they’re allowed to give him a soft drink in anything bigger than a 4oz souffle cup anyway, amirite?

The Schaef on November 8, 2013 at 2:28 PM

By the way, I’m glad I ate lunch before this post went up.

22044 on November 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM

My parents used this special way of dealing with tantrums: Open handed swat to the a$$.

This caused us not to throw Tantrums.

portlandon on November 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I will pray for the child caught in the middle of this.

Roy Rogers on November 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I pray for they children of psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Then there’s this near the end:

She recently filed motions asking the judge to punish her husband for flouting court orders and for a judgment on nonpayment of child support.

Seems like there’s at least some more backstory to this.

Also, I’m not sure I understand how this:

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.

squares with this:

He wants the shrink to return the $2,750 he paid for the evaluation.

That sounds like he paid her directly – he doesn’t seem to be talking about fees imposed by the court. Of course, I don’t know how divorce court works, so maybe this is normal to pay a court-appointed shrink directly?

I don’t disagree this is an outrage if it actually went down the way the dad says, but this has got to be some of the sloppiest reporting I’ve seen.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM

If I had to guess, the argument is probably not that he refused McDonald’s, but that he let the kid go without dinner rather than simply taking him someplace else anyway.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

That was my first thought, too. Pretty sure the problem is the no dinner, not the no McDonald’s.

Still dumb, but for a different reason.

Sockpuppet Politic on November 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I threw a temper tantrum when I was a kid…….once.

repvoter on November 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Divorces are the worst for the kid.

Case in point for a member in our family.
1. My wife buys shoes for the boy child. Gives to mother.
2. Dad gets full custody in pre-divorce hearings.
3. My wife asks mother to give shoes back. (a simple request, not a demand)
4. Mother refuses because we helped finance the fathers lawyer.

Yes, she lost, partly because we helped financially, but she would rather have her son go without shoes, as she has no use for them now other than to spite his side of the family.

Love turns to the equal amount of hate.

bbordwell on November 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM

We’re only hearing what the father has said. I advise caution before getting all outrageously outraged. I googled the parties names and they have been dragging each other into court over every stupid thing for years. They were only married for a couple of years.

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Enough of these fanatics. Let’s just nuke NYC already

DarkCurrent on November 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM

I pray for they children of psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM

If she’s anything like the man hating bull dyke janet Reno lookalike GAL my ex-wife hired, the turkey baster has long since divorced her.

Roy Rogers on November 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

The story is not about how crappy people are to each other during a divorce, hell, that’s not even a story.

It’s about how a court appointed shrink can judge someone “wholly unfit” to be a parent without ever meeting them.

She’s a quack.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

That was my first thought, too. Pretty sure the problem is the no dinner, not the no McDonald’s.

Still dumb, but for a different reason.

Sockpuppet Politic on November 8, 2013 at 2:34 PM

It was actually my second thought – my first thought was “I didn’t know Bloomberg had a son.”

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM

The story is not about how crappy people are to each other during a divorce, hell, that’s not even a story.

It’s about how a court appointed shrink can judge someone “wholly unfit” to be a parent without ever meeting them.

She’s a quack.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

What’s next is the wife and the court appointed shrink will begin to indoctrinate the child to repeat all the lies they will tell the child about the father.

The father’s only hope is an honest and understanding judge.

Roy Rogers on November 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The story is not about how crappy people are to each other during a divorce, hell, that’s not even a story.

It’s about how a court appointed shrink can judge someone “wholly unfit” to be a parent without ever meeting them.

She’s a quack.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Is she court-appointed? Has she actually never met him? The story claims this, then says later on that he’s demanding a refund of several thousand dollars. He paid this woman several thousand dollars without meeting him? How does that square with her being appointed by the court?

I’m not saying she isn’t a quack if the story is accurate (or at least, the parts of the story that aren’t inconsistent with the other parts). I’m saying it’s completely unclear whether the dad’s story, or for that matter, the reporter’s story, has any relation to what actually happened.

It’s just horrible reporting.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

The Post tried to contact the mother and her lawyer. Both refused comment.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

The story is not about how crappy people are to each other during a divorce, hell, that’s not even a story.

It’s about how a court appointed shrink can judge someone “wholly unfit” to be a parent without ever meeting them.

She’s a quack.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

No, it’s about how gullible and knee jerk people on blogs are. You only have the father’s representations. How do you know what he is saying is the truth? You don’t.

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The Post tried to contact the mother and her lawyer. Both refused comment.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Good for them. The father filed a lawsuit in which the mother will undoubtedly be a witness. This case should be tried in court — not in the tabloids — especially with a 4-5 year old involved.

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM

No, it’s about how gullible and knee jerk people on blogs are. You only have the father’s representations. How do you know what he is saying is the truth? You don’t.

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

You don’t know either. I’m just interpreting the story.

Is she court-appointed? Has she actually never met him? The story claims this, then says later on that he’s demanding a refund of several thousand dollars. He paid this woman several thousand dollars without meeting him? How does that square with her being appointed by the court?

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Again, just interpreting what I read in the story. I read about this somewhere else that said the court appointed the shrink at the mother’s request, and the court ordered the dad to pay for the shrink. The shrink talked to the boy and the mother, then without ever talking to the dad, declared him “unfit”.

That’s what was reported.

But, like everyone is saying, there’s always more to the story.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:03 PM

The psychiatrist only interviewed the child and the mother before telling the court that due at least in part to the refusal of the father to acquiesce to the child’s out-of-the-ordinary demand of McDonald’s to the father having a penis, he should be denied his visitation rights.

Let’s face it, that’s usually the reason…

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I read the article, and there seems to be a lot more going on in this case. This is just one of the issues. Wife has sued him for not exercising parenting time and for child support arrearages. We are only actually hearing his side, so there might be a lot more to the “forensic” report than just the McDonald’s issue.

melle1228 on November 8, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Again, just interpreting what I read in the story. I read about this somewhere else that said the court appointed the shrink at the mother’s request, and the court ordered the dad to pay for the shrink. The shrink talked to the boy and the mother, then without ever talking to the dad, declared him “unfit”.

That’s what was reported.

But, like everyone is saying, there’s always more to the story.

OK, that explains that part, at least. I wish these stories would at least clarify these things.

But even so, it’s hard to get upset over something like this without at the very least, some kind of formal allegations (e.g., the text of the dad’s lawsuit. Why isn’t that included in the story? Unless it’s confidential, in which case, why is he talking to the press?)

There are enough credible ridiculous stories to get upset over without jumping the gun over something that might not have even happened.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Next time take the kid to McDonalds.

Make him eat their salad.

Case closed.

Wander on November 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM

You don’t know either. I’m just interpreting the story.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I never claimed to. My comment, which you ignored in order to rant and rave was this: We’re only hearing what the father has said. I advise caution before getting all outrageously outraged. I googled the parties names and they have been dragging each other into court over every stupid thing for years.

Who cares what the story is or your interpretation of it? It’s irrelevant. The truth will come out, hopefully, when people testify under oath and are subject to cross examination.

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I smell a setup by the mom.

meci on November 8, 2013 at 2:10 PM

One of the things I thought, too.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

It’s pretty clear that the woman demanded the court appoint the psych and require the ex- to pay for it. She took the kid to the psych appointment. It’s very likely the father wasn’t even present at the hearing where the judge appointed the psych. The psych never met the dad or questioned him at all. That’s malpractice. And it’s an abuse of the courts by the mother, imho. That’s what the story is about.

GWB on November 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM

That’s what the story is about.

GWB on November 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM

That’s the point I was trying to make as well.

I never claimed to. My comment, which you ignored in order to rant and rave was this: We’re only hearing what the father has said.
Blake on November 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM

And my comment, which you chose to ignore, is that the shrink is a hack. That’s what the story is about.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

And my comment, which you chose to ignore, is that the shrink is a hack. That’s what the story is about.

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I didn’t ignore it. I dismissed it as a knee jerk and unintelligent reaction. You and others have no verifiable facts to form any intelligent opinion as to the qualification of the court appointed psych. You have no idea what she wrote in her report. But you are going to pretend that you do….

Blake on November 8, 2013 at 3:31 PM

It’s pretty clear that the woman demanded the court appoint the psych and require the ex- to pay for it. She took the kid to the psych appointment. It’s very likely the father wasn’t even present at the hearing where the judge appointed the psych. The psych never met the dad or questioned him at all. That’s malpractice. And it’s an abuse of the courts by the mother, imho. That’s what the story is about.

GWB on November 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM

That’s the thing. It’s not pretty clear at all. The text of the lawsuit is not included – not even an excerpt – and the other side of the story is not given because the case has not been heard.

How do we know the dad even gave the psychiatrist a chance to interview him? For all we know, they had an appointment to do just that and he missed it.

How do we know the dad wasn’t present at the hearing? And if not, was he supposed to be, and just didn’t show up?

My point is, we have no way to know any of these facts either way, and the reporter doesn’t seem to even want to bother to provide anything other than the absolute vaguest account of the dad’s side of things. The fact that the other party doesn’t want to talk is hardly basis for concluding anything, since most people don’t want to talk to the press in these kinds of cases – there’s basically no upside and plenty of downside, from a legal point of view.

I don’t see any basis for getting outraged over one person’s account of a two-sided custody battle without even the slightest reason to believe or disbelieve any of the facts of the case.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM

From the story above:

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.

From ABC News:

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

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM

No, it’s about how gullible and knee jerk people on blogs are. You only have the father’s representations. How do you know what he is saying is the truth? You don’t.
Blake on November 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

You’re certainly welcome to point out the lies and untruths in the story. And I expect the New York Post and Hot Air would like a heads up on the real skinny.

whatcat on November 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM

“Had I done something wrong? I did what any 43-year-old Jewish man would do — I told my mother. I said, ‘My God, did I do something wrong here?’

“Even my mother, the strictest mother in the world, said, ‘Why didn’t you just take him to McDonalds? What were you thinking? You know that this is a divorce situation.’”

There’s more than a few levels of messed up going on there. Dude might as well just hand his nutz over and be done with it.

RadClown on November 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

You figure the shrink might like to take a stab at analyzing Bloomberg?

socalcon on November 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I suspect that the father’s principal offense here is being a Male person.

slickwillie2001 on November 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM

that’s a misleading headline. there is a lot more to this story than what your headline says. i hate misleading headlines- so annoying!

Sachiko on November 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Marilyn Schiller- the doctor referenced in the law suit- is apparently a psychologist rather than a psychiatrist and is listed in neither of those professions as having a valid New York license to practice. What gives?

Mason on November 8, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I’ve heard of some nasty divorces, but this one comes very close to taking the cake.

You’ve obviously never been through a divorce.

In many cases, this would be considered civil behavior by the spouse.

sultanp on November 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I’ve heard of some nasty divorces, but this one comes very close to taking the cake.

You’ve obviously never been through a divorce.
In many cases, this would be considered civil behavior by the spouse.
sultanp on November 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM

In the really nasty cases one spouse will accuse the other of abusing a child – emotionally, physically or sexually – even if it’s not true.

whatcat on November 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM

All prominent psychiatrists and psychologists are Libtards.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

What Would Moooshelle Do??

pastselldate on November 8, 2013 at 5:13 PM

HEY GUYS, I HAVE AN IDEA

Let’s re-print one-sided allegations from a civil suit as if they were established facts.

How can you be outraged that the court made a decision without hearing the dad’s side of the story, when you are making your own judgments based on hearing ONLY the dad’s side of the story? It’s hypocritical.

kaltes on November 8, 2013 at 5:30 PM

One thing is for sure,
Be careful who you Marry,
Because Divorce sucks.

Haiku Guy on November 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

It’s hypocritical.

kaltes on November 8, 2013 at 5:30 PM

You’re so fair-minded. Was your commented directed at everbody? Tsk , tsk. Troll.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 8, 2013 at 5:50 PM

When the court appointed our mental health center to do custody evaluations, the report and testimony would have been thrown out of court if only one parent had been interviewed and evaluated. We also would never have interviewed a 4 year-old.

rlwo2008 on November 8, 2013 at 5:57 PM

“To answer before listening— that is folly and shame.” Prov. 18:13 I’m hesitant to make any points on this story since we only have the father’s side.

Imrahil on November 8, 2013 at 5:58 PM

From the story above:

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.

From ABC News:

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

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM

It’s very hard to take a story like this seriously when they won’t even quote complete sentences.

Nor do they link to the text of any relevant documents. Some of the documents (e.g. the psych report) are supposedly sealed, but I don’t understand why they can’t provide the full text of the documents they’re quoting from – either they have obtained the documents and the legal ability to reveal them, or they have not – if it’s the latter, then how are they able to give quotes in the first place?

It’s hard to escape the suspicion that the reporters are just taking things way out of context to have a story to meet their deadline.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 6:01 PM

From the story above:

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.

From ABC News:

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

BacaDog on November 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM

It’s very hard to take a story like this seriously when they won’t even quote complete sentences.
RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 6:01 PM

I’m not sure why you cited those two sources. You think they are contradictory-mutually exclusive or ?

whatcat on November 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I’m not sure why you cited those two sources. You think they are contradictory-mutually exclusive or ?

whatcat on November 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I don’t know why Bacadog cited them. I reposted them simply to point out that it’s totally unclear whether these statements are being taken out of context – they aren’t even complete sentences!

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.

They have this quote from the report, but they don’t even finish the sentence, and then say “over the greasy burger ban”, implying that that was the substance of her complaint – that he didn’t get to go to the restaurant he wanted. But no quote is offered to indicate that that was actually the content of the complaint; for all we know, she was simply complaining that the kid hadn’t been fed, and might even have been disputing the dad’s account.

Then likewise, with this:

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

What are we supposed to make of this? They’re willing to quote the phrase “raises concerns about the viability” but can’t just give the whole sentence? What is the subject of the sentence? Does she say:

“The fact he didn’t take his son to his favorite restaurant raises concerns…”?

Or, “The fact that my son came home without having been fed raises concerns…”?

Or, “The fact that my ex-husband refuses to pay child-support, and to top it off, did not feed the boy, raises concerns…”?

When people don’t quote sentence fragments without providing a reference to where the complete sentences come from, I don’t see why I should believe a word they say. In my experience, people who do that are usually hiding mitigating context.

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM

When people don’t quote sentence fragments

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM

The father was standing up as a parent, refusing to be held hostage by his 4-year old. The mother is trying to interfere with his parental rights, but I’m damn sure she still wants his money.

This is definitely a libtard issue = women are “good”, men are “evil”.

And I’m a woman. I would only have interfered with my ex if he was abusing our son. Denying Mickie D’s (which, btw, I had yesterday) is NOT abuse.

The psych should lose her license.

ladyingray on November 8, 2013 at 7:23 PM

RINO in Name Only on November 8, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Okay, I see where yer coming from. To me it all jives, nothing contradictory, so I have no reason to question the reporting. Others’ mileage may vary.

whatcat on November 8, 2013 at 7:55 PM

The dad should use the 20 oz soda defense.

22044 on November 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

…that’s the ticket!

KOOLAID2 on November 8, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I guess in New York City, it is now damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We’ll know for certain in December when the judge decides on the issue.

Please keep us updated on the final decision in this case.

Dollayo on November 8, 2013 at 9:23 PM

This is what you get for making divorce so easy to acquire.

Happy now?

Cleombrotus on November 8, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Hey, haven’t any of you people been divorced? This is how it works when either or both parties can call on the State to pass judgement on their stupid marital arguments for “the sake of the child”. Oh, and have some money for the system to spend for them.

The powers granted to Family Court judges is truly awe inspiring. They can order just about anything short of an execution (usually they stop at slavery and the occasional incarceration). Aided and abetted by the the lawyers, psychiatrists, social workers and other “professionals” in the “system”, the saga usually continues until all parties concerned run out of money or assets.

Then parents wind up trying to put their lives back together again, minus their life’s earnings to date. The kids wind up damaged for life or worse. And the beat goes on.

Any family court judges or lawyers in the audience wanna tell me I’m wrong?

platapapin on November 9, 2013 at 2:09 AM

“That shrink should lose their license.”

workingclass artist on November 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM

his or her license. That shrink is singular. Their is plural possessive.

thejackal on November 9, 2013 at 2:39 AM

This is what you get for making divorce so easy to acquire.

Happy now?

Cleombrotus on November 8, 2013 at 11:19 PM

+10,000

thejackal on November 9, 2013 at 2:41 AM

psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller

Psychiatry and Psychology is not a science. It’s just medical Astrology.

BDU-33 on November 9, 2013 at 7:03 AM

Both parents can probably share blame for this. No way it’s a setup from the Mom. A four-year-old wouldn’t give up dinner in order to follow a “plan” like this. But a kid who believes he can get his way with this method, is a kid who HAS gotten his way with this method, which means parents who regularly caved in to this method.

Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no, and never permit whining or tantrums to have a positive result. Then again, people who can do that are more likely to have a marriage that survives…

Freelancer on November 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

“Dad didn’t feed his kid dinner because he decided he wanted to have a pissing contest with his four year old son.”

Dad should have taken the kid to dinner. Let the kid see some food, and then see if he’s quite so stubborn.

At a minimum the dad needs some parenting lessons.

Greg Q on November 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM