Dad Deemed Unfit for Not Taking Son to McDonalds

[Kaj392]

USA USA USA oh wait...

Only in...
I don't know, but the first thing that came to mind was Cartman from South Park >.<

Anyway; This is horrible. What is wrong with that court? Really. They should fire that court for such a dumb reason. Unfit for not going to Mcdonalds...
Excuse him for not wanting his son to get fat at such a young age.

[Rukentuts]

Only in...
I don't know, but the first thing that came to mind was Cartman from South Park >.<

Anyway; This is horrible. What is wrong with that court? Really. They should fire that court for such a dumb reason. Unfit for not going to Mcdonalds...
Excuse him for not wanting his son to get fat at such a young age.

You don't automatically become fat for eating at McD's once. Loads of soda and video games in lieu of playing games outside is what is doing it these days.

[Mayhem]

You don't automatically become fat for eating at McD's once. Loads of soda and video games in lieu of playing games outside is what is doing it these days.

true, let´s just say it´s unhealthy for a child

[Kalis]

Probably a bit liberal on the "beautiful". She just thinks she is.

She's the one on the left.

[Dabrix32]

and people are allowed to keep their kids after molesting, beating, and actually starving them. What the fuck is wrong with our courts.

[Tinykong]

Probably has more to do with the dad not giving the kid dinner than McDonalds.

[Rukentuts]

She's the one on the left.

Both of those people just look like colossal pricks.

[Pitkanen]

Given that this guy is an NYC corporate lawyer, you can just bet that he's a genuine asshole. Seems unsurprising that his ex-wife really, really hates him.

Doesn't matter. Divorce gives people new life goals and game to play... it becomes about "Winning", usually by the other person losing, rather than people's best interests.

I've seen one divorce settlement where the two agreed to pay college tuition of their children based on income at that time, she then remarried someone who made 6 figures, stopped working and stuck him with the entire bill. He on the other hand wasn't making more than 50k a year. The point is, she "Won". It is no long about fairness, or everyone's best interest... it's war.

[Kalis]

The Daily Mail's take on the story, along with a picture of the sexy psychologist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...McDonalds.html

[Mayhem]

Both of those people just look like colossal pricks.

out of couriosity but what makes someone look like a prick? i see a happy couple

[Deleted]

The Daily Mail's take on the story, along with a picture of the sexy psychologist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...McDonalds.html

yuk. the unattractiveness of the psychologist makes her findings flawed

[Tinykong]

The Daily Mail's take on the story, along with a picture of the sexy psychologist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...McDonalds.html

Clicking on link, fully expecting the "sexy" Dailymail adjective to turn into a "what has been seen cannot be unseen" photo.

Edit: Was not disappointed.

[PACOX]

Stupid baby momma drama...

Sounds like the dad didn't want to take the child to McDonalds for whatever reason, nothing wrong with that, so he gave the kid an alternative. Kid throws an a tantrum, dad puts his foot down and says that they are not having McDonalds pick something else. Kid still rages so dad is like so you're going eat nothing? Kid still rages so dad sticks to his guns. Kid doesn't eat. Kid tells mom dad that didn't feed him, mom probably fully understanding why the kid didn't eat twist the situation to make it seem like the dad was abusing the kid where the dad was simply trying to show the kid that throwing tantrums allows you to get your way. A few years ago the police would have told the woman to take that noise somewhere else the kid was understandably being disciplined, one missed meal doesn't constitute child abuse. Now the government is complacent is spoiling children and picking sides in baby momma drama.

And there is nothing wrong with taking your kid to McDonalds...just because some parents make poor decisions about feeding their kids junk all the time doesn't mean you need to demonize the whole establishment. People seem to forget that these places have been around for years but people have only recently started to spend more time there and at the same time decreasing their activity levels. People are getting fat because of laziness not from having a cheese burger from time to time.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably has more to do with the dad not giving the kid dinner than McDonalds.

You're making it sound worse than what actually took place.

[Tinykong]

You're making it sound worse than what actually took place.

That's basically what happened, if you remove the media sensationalism, right?

Kid wants McD's, Dad says it's anything but McD's or no dinner, kid says fine no dinner, dad doesn't feed kid.

Pretty sure intentionally not feeding your kid is child abuse. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Rukentuts]

That's basically what happened, if you remove the media sensationalism, right?

Kid wants McD's, Dad says it's anything but McD's or no dinner, kid says fine no dinner, dad doesn't feed kid.

Pretty sure intentionally not feeding your kid is child abuse. Maybe I'm wrong.

It's not any different than a kid starving because he didn't want to eat his veggies. It's what's for dinner. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

That "psychologist" is as stupid as she is ugly as fuck.

[rhandric]

That's basically what happened, if you remove the media sensationalism, right?

Kid wants McD's, Dad says it's anything but McD's or no dinner, kid says fine no dinner, dad doesn't feed kid.

Pretty sure intentionally not feeding your kid is child abuse. Maybe I'm wrong.

What ever happened to "you're going to eat what you're served or you're going hungry" as a viable parenting technique?

Of course, that actually requires giving the child food and letting them make that decision, instead of just not giving the child food, but still

[lockedout]

The Daily Mail's take on the story, along with a picture of the sexy psychologist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...McDonalds.html

She is hot.

[PACOX]

That's basically what happened, if you remove the media sensationalism, right?

Kid wants McD's, Dad says it's anything but McD's or no dinner, kid says fine no dinner, dad doesn't feed kid.

Pretty sure intentionally not feeding your kid is child abuse. Maybe I'm wrong.

He didn't intentionally not feed his kid, though. The father didn't withhold food from the kid, the kid was being a brat. The kid threw a tantrum because he didn't like what he was offered. When I was growing up we simply didn't have the luxury of choice like this kid because quite frankly we couldn't afford it. What was pops going to do, force feed the kid? Not over one meal.

Most psychiatrist I know would have sided with the dad if the reason why the kid didn't eat is because the kid didn't want was offered. Its horrible to a kids development to give in to tantrums.

[Tinykong]

It's not any different than a kid starving because he didn't want to eat his veggies. It's what's for dinner. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Can't really have any grey area when it comes to child abuse. Maybe I misunderstood, but it's not like he gave the kid dinner and the kid didn't eat. He intentionally did not feed him as a punishment.

- - - Updated - - -

He didn't intentionally not feed his kid, though. The father didn't withhold food from the kid, the kid was being a brat. The kid threw a tantrum because he didn't like what he was offered. When I was growing up we simply didn't have the luxury of choice like this kid because quite frankly we couldn't afford it. What was pops going to do, force feed the kid? Not over one meal.

From the article:

"And so he says he gave the child the option of dinner anywhere but McDonald’s or no dinner at all. The kid chose the no-dinner route."

I'm presuming this means the father intentionally did not feed him.

[PACOX]

From the article:

"And so he says he gave the child the option of dinner anywhere but McDonald’s or no dinner at all. The kid chose the no-dinner route."

I'm presuming this means the father intentionally did not feed him.

How is that intentionally not feeding the kid? Pops didn't withhold food from the kid, just one choice. Thats not abuse, thats the kid being a brat.