The father is fighting back against Dr. Schiller for defaming his character.
On October 30, 2013 father and son were preparing to go out for dinner. The son demanded McDonald's and the father said no. According to reports that son then "threw a temper tantrum" for being denied the Golden Arches. The fathers reasoning for refusal was that he felt his son had been eating too much junk food. So like any good parent he offered his son two options -
1. Pick another restaurant
2. No dinner at all
His son chose the latter and upon retuning back to his mother told on his dad. The mom promptly told Dr. Marilyn Schiller who in turn reported this incident to the presiding judge. Dr. Schiller made the recommendation of having the fathers visitation time reduced. Refusing a child McDonald's must be like burning a child with a cigarette, abusing a child or some other life altering event - at least according to Dr. Schiller.
Who is right here? The father for trying to be a good parent and not giving into the demands of a child and "exercising reasonable parental prerogatives"? Or the court appointed psychologist for recommending a more restricted visitation schedule as a result of not giving into the demands of a 4-year old? If the court appointed psychologist is right in her reasoning that denying McDonald's will cause so much harm to this child that the father's time needs to be restricted then many who are reading this have been hurt by our parents refusal to take us to McDonald's when young. What does it say about the Mayor of New York - Bloomberg - who is trying to curb the unhealthy eating choices that New Yorkers make - like McDonald's and other artery clogging eating establishments - that he is so much against. Would Bloomberg be considered a bad parent?
Although this is an extreme example of what is wrong with the family court system (the divorce industry, Guardians ad litem and other family court leaches) it does call into question about who really knows what is best for our children. In this case it appears Dr. Schiller and the mom knows what is best (sarcasm intended) - by giving into the demands of a 4-year old. The father does not (again sarcasm intended) because he refused as a parent to give in to his son, his child. What is the lesson that we can take away from this - that as a parent you do what your child wants - no matter how much it goes against your core values as a person or parent. Because if you don't the courts will take what is precious to you as they know what is best (sarcasm intended).
By the way - the mother took her son to McDonald's - reinforcing her son's bad behavior and the opinion of Dr. Schiller.
For support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
For further reading on this case:
NY Daily News