Psychologist Deems Dad Unfit Parent For Not Feeding McDonald’s To 5-Yr-Old

You’d think that most parents would be applauded for not giving in to their kids’ demands for fast food, but a court-appointed psychologist in New York City (New York City?!?) has reportedly decided that one father is an unfit parent because he failed to feed his 5-year-old son’s craving for McDonald’s.

According to the NY Post, the youngster recently threw a tantrum when pops decided to take him to dinner at a restaurant instead of the Golden Arches.

He claims that he doesn’t normally deny his kid’s fast food requests, but decided at the time that the boy had been eating too much of it. Also, after the child threw a tantrum, he says he did not want to reward his son’s bad behavior by giving into the McDonald’s demand.

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.

When news of the incident got back to the man’s ex-wife, with whom he is involved in a custody battle, that’s when things apparently got really hairy.

The dad says that his ex contacted the court-appointed psychologist in their custody case and reported the to-do over the McDonald’s demands, and that the doctor only interviewed the mom and the boy before determining that the father should lose weekend visitation rights because he was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son.”

If taking your kid for fast food is a hallmark of good parenting, then my otherwise neglectful dad would have won Father of the Year for most of the ’80s.

Read Comments14

Edit Your Comment

  1. SMeierOH says:

    You have got to be kidding me?

    He loses visitation for trying to prevent eating junk food?

    Maybe it was more for the no dinner part of the deal.

    • IMakeMyOwnSnarkAtHome says:

      I’m assuming here, but perhaps the interview went like this “My ex husband refused to feed our son when all he requested was a simple cheeseburger from mcdonalds. Instead my ex husband denied him of dinner and my son did not eat that night”

      Technically true, morally deceptive.

      • EducationalGeek says:

        While possibly true it was presented that way, unless the court could prove the boy was malnourished then it should have no say. I’ve used that exact tactic when my child will not eat the food provided him. It works. Sadly rights of parents are slowly being stripped away. I hope that they are going to take on the bills of raising kids since they’re not letting parents do it.

  2. AMysteriousStranger says:

    I feel like there’s probably more to this story than the face-value of “No McDonald’s? No child”.

    Being that the dad only had weekend visitation to begin with, the courts had clearly previously decided he was not fit to be the primary caregiver. There was no split 50/50 time, it says weekends only…

    Probably over-hyping this situation.

    • CommonC3nts says:

      The women always gets the primary custody even if the father is the more fit parent. That is the way it goes. Men dont ever win in divorces.

      • theoriginalcatastrophegirl says:

        depends on the state. my friend moved his family from nevada to florida when it seemed like divorce was going to be a probable future. it happened and under florida law the custody was automatically 50/50, as opposed to nevada’s preference for primary custody to the mom.

  3. Mala says:

    IMO, the father should file a complaint against this so-called psychologist.
    Absolutely ridiculous…

  4. CommonC3nts says:

    The mom should lose all her rights for lying to the psychologist. Lie once and your rights should be taken away.
    There is obvioiusly more to the story, but I would say most likely the mom is lying about what happened and the kid is lying because the mom coached the kid.
    The mom probably just said that the dad refused to feed the kid anything at all.

  5. Erlebnistypus says:

    I really think this is the case of poor journalism. They are drumming up a sensation story without all of the facts and before the case is actually presented in court. The psychologist is quoted as saying “I am conducting a forensic evaluation on this matter.” which means that she the evaluation in not yet finished. Yet, this story reads as if the psychologist came to a final opinion already.

    I really doubt that any licensed psychologist (btw she’s not a psychiatrist) would ever submit an evaluation bases solely on hearsay. Even if she did, there is no way an attorney would accept a report like that. Why would either professionals risk their livelihood on something like this.

    With all due respect, I’m getting tired of Consumerist posting junk stories like this.

  6. charmander says:

    Oh my god, that is horrifying. The man should be lauded for his GOOD parenting skills. What is wrong with the doctor in this story?????

  7. Reimu says:

    Only in America.

  8. FusioptimaSX says:

    Something doesn’t seem right here. We are missing a few important details. For one, wasn’t the father allowed to tell his side of the story? Two, if my parents said no to McDonalds and said I could eat anywhere else, I would have said Red Lobster! (Not knowing yet that it would have been better justice against my parents to demand a high end steakhouse instead.)