Ok everybody, I have a curious MORAL (FOOD) DILEMMA for you and I want to know what you think: In the USA a court-appointed psychologist has labelled a father as an ‘unfit parent’ because he chose to deny his son’s request to eat Macdonalds. The man was visiting his son (custody battle with his ex-wife) and had planned to eat at their usual Tuesday night restaurant. Apparently the child threw a huge tantrum because he wanted to eat Maccas, but the Dad said he can either choose another restaurant or go without dinner. Not exactly a strange parenting tactic. The child chose nothing, so no dinner was had. As you would expect, the child told mum and mum told court-appointed psychologist Marilyn Schiller. Schiller immediately filed a report labelling the Dad “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and requesting his visitation rights to be revoked. Now this Dad was trying to avoid rewarding bad behaviour, and was in a way doing his son a huge favour by not feeding him McDonalds. To be honest, if this is being an unfit parent, then I am very unfit!! There are many reasons why children feel it is their right to eat Maccas- marketing, toys, the playground; even the sugar content is addictive. This type of food and eating experience has become as regular as using a mobile phone. And I feel its a major contributor to the childhood obesity epidemic that is upon us. So I wanted to ask you readers for your thoughts. Is this Dad an unfit parent? Are his methods of discipline acceptable? What should the court’s decision be?
Posted on: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:31:12 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015