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.


"The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the 'no dinner' option," Schorr says in the suit, according to the Post. "It was just a standoff. I’m kicking myself mightily. I wish I had taken him to McDonald's, 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."

When the boy went home hungry to mom Bari Yunis Schorr, a vice president at Rue La La, he reported the incident and went to McDonald’s with her. Then she contacted the psychiatrist, Marilyn Schiller, setting the forensic investigation in motion. Schiller, according to the Associated Press, told a judge the incident "raises concerns about the viability" of the father's weekend visits with his son and suggested they be limited or eliminated entirely.


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." Further, a court doesn't have to follow the recommendation of forensic investigators. But for Schiller to call the father "wholly incapable," the mediator notes, seems extreme based on this incident alone. "There must be more to the story," he says, adding, "Boy, this is a messy case."



SOURCE



That's some ********!

The kid was just being a brat because he didn't get his way. People get worked up over nothing, not eating dinner for one night isn't going to kill him. I've had much worse done to me when I was younger.

Rightfully so. Only a savage would deny their child the goodness that is McDonalds.

Stupid. Stupid people. This is why the newer generations are brats with no ****ing respect to elders. All of you are spoiling them. For ****'s sake the father is right.

There is no excuse not to feed your child. Don't give him the McDonalds that's fine. But MAKE him eat something.

Lol. People need to stop overreacting. The father cares for the boy's health too much to give him that crap.

He did the right thing WTF. My cousin growing up was the same way with his parents, would DEMAND pizza and if they didn't bring it he would refuse to eat, so his mom would actually get him the pizza. He becomes HUUGELY spoiled in everything in life.

At the end of the day the kid isn't going to ****in' starve himself wow this is the dumbest thing I've read.

Uh mess!

What kind of dumb bitch. Because he wouldn't let him have McDonald's?

You guys are missing the point. He isn't being reprimanded for not feeding the kid McDonalds. He's being reprimanded for not feeding the 4 year old at all. This guy sees his kid one evening a week for dinner and he can't even manage to handle that.

The kid refused to eat anything expect McDonalds, what a brat!

I would have got the wooden spoon at his age, this kid got off lucky too bad I can't say the same about his dad.

The kid is only 4 years old. The dad should have just ordered him takeout from their usual restaurant. So when the kid calmed down he could eat. Not feeding a 4 year old is abuse. It's not like this was a teenager. It was a little kid.

Yeah, he cares for his health so much that instead of giving him a healthy alternative he denies him food altogether. He's the father of the year.

This! if a father can't handle a typical 4 year old tantrum than that's a problem.

...did you not read? He said he could go ANYWHERE but McDonalds. What more alternatives do you want?

The child was being a little **** so he was punished. Some of y'alls responses is exactly why our and the next generation are such entitled little brats

No one is saying he should have bought him McDonalds. We are saying he should have bought him something to eat. The kid would have calmed down and eventually ate it.

Then why didn't he just buy him food? If the kid refuses to eat what's in front of him then it's entirely that child's fault for going to bed hungry. He's 4, of course he's gonna act like a brat, especially when it comes to food. His father handled that situation poorly. You just don't deny a child food as punishment, ever.

Y'all are ignoring the fact that the parents are getting divorced, that's the ONLY reason why this is being seen as an issue. The father could've bought that kid a 3 course meal and the mother would've still took this to the courts as the child would've still went back to her house hungry. When fighting over custody it's a case of "The father allowed the kid to fall and scrape his knee! If that's not child abuse I don't know what is."

You just know that 90% of the people defending the child in here would be in another thread about childhood obesity statistics blaming the parents for allowing their child junk food whenever they demanded it.