Unfit? Alrighty Then.

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/08/ny-dad-deemed-unfit-for-not-taking-son-to-mcdonald/

If he had taken Junior to MickeyD's, they would have charged Dad with Child Abuse/Neglect.

 

[single317dad]

This is what happens when parents put their own interests above the children's in a divorce. I didn't see any mention of how the judge ruled after hearing the statement from the shrink, but I hope he saw right through it.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/08/ny-dad-deemed-unfit-for-not-taking-son-to-mcdonald/

If he had taken Junior to MickeyD's, they would have charged Dad with Child Abuse/Neglect.

I think this is a story that has been sensationalized a bit. In reading it my impression is that the issue was dad not controlling the child and not feeding the child at all.

I also think its pretty bad when a court appointed counselor can be sued for defamation for their opinion of someone as a parent. It defeats the entire purpose of appointing a counselor.

Here is an article that is a little more in depth..

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/dad-sues-shrink-son-mcdonald-article-1.1509669

 

[Zigner]

I don't think the dad did anything wrong in this incident. I can't speak to anything else about their situation of course.

 

[single317dad]

I think this is a story that has been sensationalized a bit. In reading it my impression is that the issue was dad not controlling the child and not feeding the child at all.

I agree that not feeding the child at all was a bad move on Dad's part. He would have been better off buying the kid a healthy meal and letting it sit and get cold than failing to provide any meal. However, the child was offered food and refused, and I believe that satisfies Dad's responsibility.

I also think its pretty bad when a court appointed counselor can be sued for defamation for their opinion of someone as a parent. It defeats the entire purpose of appointing a counselor.

To be fair, the counselor's opinion was pretty much crap. What if a counselor's opinion of you was that you were totally nuts, and were an imminent risk to go on a killing spree, when that is clearly untrue? What if that opinion negatively affected your custody case and your reputation? You'd want to sue him, that's what.

 

[TheGeekess]

I agree that not feeding the child at all was a bod move on Dad's part. He would have been better off buying the kid a healthy meal and letting it sit and get cold than failing to provide any meal. However, the child was offered food and refused, and I believe that satisfies Dad's responsibility.



To be fair, the counselor's opinion was pretty much crap. What if a counselor's opinion of you was that you were totally nuts, and were an imminent risk to go on a killing spree, when that is clearly untrue? What if that opinion negatively affected your custody case and your reputation? You'd want to sue him, that's what.

At our house, if you didn't like what was presented for supper, there was peanut butter. Or you could choose not to eat.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't think the dad did anything wrong in this incident. I can't speak to anything else about their situation of course.

I waffle a bit about sending a child to bed without food. My family tends towards mild hypoglycemia (which according to my doctor is more common than people realize). We get awful, nauseous headaches if we go a long period without eating. Therefore, I would never send a child to bed without food. I know that there are lots of children out there who wouldn't be negatively affected by going to bed without dinner, but its just not something I would have done.

I also don't think that I would have given a 4 year old the choice of anything but McDonald's, or nothing. I might do that with a bit older child, but not a 4 year old. I would have just given the child whatever I thought that the child should eat, and then would have sat there with the child until they ate it.

In the article I linked even dad's mother yelled at him about it, because she thought it was a stupid thing to do in the middle of a hostile divorce/custody case.

 

[Zigner]

I waffle a bit about sending a child to bed without food.

Dad didn't send kiddo to bed without dinner. Dad sent kiddo home without dinner.

In the article I linked even dad's mother yelled at him about it, because she thought it was a stupid thing to do in the middle of a hostile divorce/custody case.

That was stupidity on his part...nothing illegal though.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree that not feeding the child at all was a bad move on Dad's part. He would have been better off buying the kid a healthy meal and letting it sit and get cold than failing to provide any meal. However, the child was offered food and refused, and I believe that satisfies Dad's responsibility.



To be fair, the counselor's opinion was pretty much crap. What if a counselor's opinion of you was that you were totally nuts, and were an imminent risk to go on a killing spree, when that is clearly untrue? What if that opinion negatively affected your custody case and your reputation? You'd want to sue him, that's what.

The counselor's opinion might be garbage if that was the only issue that the opinion was based on. I question whether or not that is true since the story seems a bit sensationalized to me. I still do have a problem with someone being able to sue anyone for defamation who evaluates them in a custody case, for ANY reason. If the evaluation is bad or biased, you challenge the evaluation and the counselor in court...you get the report/evaluation thrown out.

I think it completely undermines the role of a counselor/evaluator (even a GAL for that matter) if they can be sued for defamation.

 

[Ohiogal]

The counselor's opinion might be garbage if that was the only issue that the opinion was based on. I question whether or not that is true since the story seems a bit sensationalized to me. I still do have a problem with someone being able to sue anyone for defamation who evaluates them in a custody case, for ANY reason. If the evaluation is bad or biased, you challenge the evaluation and the counselor in court...you get the report/evaluation thrown out.

I think it completely undermines the role of a counselor/evaluator (even a GAL for that matter) if they can be sued for defamation.

A counselor who is not treating the parent should not be making assumptions/diagnoses about the parent. And in Ohio, at least, counselors are not allowed to make visitation suggestions. That is outside the scope of what they do. They can state whether it could be detrimental for the child to see the parent but not say that dad should or should not see junior. Note: I didn't read the article yet.

A GAL is completely different and is working for the court -- as such a GAL has immunity for what they state in court.

ETA: the counselor was in the wrong if she did not interview dad about the incident and then criticized dad's parenting for the incident. That could be malpractice.

 

[LdiJ]

A counselor who is not treating the parent should not be making assumptions/diagnoses about the parent. And in Ohio, at least, counselors are not allowed to make visitation suggestions. That is outside the scope of what they do. They can state whether it could be detrimental for the child to see the parent but not say that dad should or should not see junior. Note: I didn't read the article yet.

A GAL is completely different and is working for the court -- as such a GAL has immunity for what they state in court.

ETA: the counselor was in the wrong if she did not interview dad about the incident and then criticized dad's parenting for the incident. That could be malpractice.

Read the second article on the subject that I gave the link to. The Counselor reported to the judge, so it appears that she is a court appointed psychologist.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Probably because she was not able to get a real job in the business where the clients had a choice of seeing her.

Read the second article on the subject that I gave the link to. The Counselor reported to the judge, so it appears that she is a court appointed psychologist.

 

[cbg]

I have a feeling that if the kid was hypoglycemic and needed to eat at regular intervals, the dad would know about it.

Yes, I am hypoglycemic and so is my mother and so is one of my brothers.

 

[stealth2]

"Every so often I usually take him to McDonald’s,”

So which is it - every so often, or usually?

 

[gam]

I waffle a bit about sending a child to bed without food. My family tends towards mild hypoglycemia (which according to my doctor is more common than people realize). We get awful, nauseous headaches if we go a long period without eating. Therefore, I would never send a child to bed without food. I know that there are lots of children out there who wouldn't be negatively affected by going to bed without dinner, but its just not something I would have done.

I also don't think that I would have given a 4 year old the choice of anything but McDonald's, or nothing. I might do that with a bit older child, but not a 4 year old. I would have just given the child whatever I thought that the child should eat, and then would have sat there with the child until they ate it.

In the article I linked even dad's mother yelled at him about it, because she thought it was a stupid thing to do in the middle of a hostile divorce/custody case.

You would be sitting there all night with my grandson(4 next month). While I have done exactly that with other children, it does not work for all. Could be dad knows his kid and that the choices dad made were based on that kid. A 4 year old is old enough to get the point of this after 1 or 2 times of going hungry.

Might have been stupid to do in the middle of his case, however we don't have all the facts to that case either. There is another reason why my daughter would choose(I babysit him often and I follow her rules)to give her child the choice of choosing anything but McDonald's or nothing. It has to do with the other parent and his parenting ways. If the child threw a fit about not getting McDonald's with dad, the result would be far worse for the child then getting nothing to eat at all. Now pointing it back to this case, since mom ran the child right out to McDonald's not the same reason for dad as in my daughters case. But perhaps dad is being a bit tough, because mom gives into the child at every turn.

If you ask me that counselor should have laid into mom for giving into the child and starting the child on the road of playing one parent against the other. If mom was that concerned about the child going without a meal, she could have chosen numerous other things to feed that kid, but nope she ran right out to McDonalds to show the kid, look how horrible dad is and how great mom is.