Let me preface this rant by stating that I don't know the entire
story behind this article. I have no idea if other factors besides
the one mentioned in the above article are in play with the divorce
case. I do know from personal experience with a friend of mine long
passed that divorces can get extremely ugly especially when children
are involved. Children are often used as weapons against the
opposing parent either directly or indirectly as part of the horrific
battles that divorces can become. All I can go by at this point is
the subject and information portrayed in the above article and my own
opinions about all of it.
So a Father refuses to allow his young son to eat at McDonalds
because he feels the child has been eating too much fast food. He
tells the kid that he can eat Anywhere he wishes as long as it is not
McDonalds. Kid objects loudly and defiantly so the Father does the
21st Century version of going to bed without his supper. Now, a
pyscologist and the Mother are using this bit of parenting to limit
if not curtail the Father's time with the child because they view it
as a form of child abuse.
Now on the surface, this seems like an utterly stupid argument. The
kid was exhibiting very bratty behavior that in my day would have
earned him a few swats on the bottom. The father was apparently
trying to help the kid eat a little better, which in this day and age
of childhood obesity should be viewed as good as a good thing. It
seems obvious that the mother and the doctor are trying to turn what
should have been a non-event into something way more serious.
Course, on the flip, an argument can be made that...well it was just
one trip to McDonalds and that the child's bad behavior only occurred
after his request to go there was refused. I know a woman who's son
would only eat chicken nuggets (any nuggets from a chicken would do,
not just the Mckind.) for a very long time. Kid was well behaved and
very active besides this odd little fioble, so his mother allowed his
odd dietary fetish. As fat as I know, the boy turned out healthy and
happy and the last time I heard had started eating other types of
food. With the strain of the divorce ongoing, one could argue that
putting even more stress on the child could be bad for him. Time
enough for parental discipline once the mess was over.
In truth, I have no real answer to this one even as my own opinion.
Are the lawyer and Mother over reacting, maybe even exaggerating the
situation to gain advantages in the divorce case. Most certainly.
Could the Father have handled the situation better and avoided the
mess all together? Prolly could have. I think my own personal
reaction to the son's demands would have been based off the kid's
previous behavior. If the son had been a “good” boy up until
that point and behaved himself regularly, I would have probably
allowed him to eat at McDonalds. On the other hand, if the kid had
been a true brat on previous ocassions and constantly fighting and
whining, then I would have probably not allowed him to eat there.
On the other hand, I would not have allowed him to go without eating
either. I have found from many years of dealing with young children
that if you put food in front of them, they will oftentimes eat it
even it is not what they wanted. Sure the kid wanted MacDs, but I am
betting if you had taken him to another place and put similar food
down, he would have prolly scarfed it up in no time.
But all of these musings do not take away from the sheer silliness of
trying to portray the Father as a poor parent because he refused to
cave into his cranky kid's desire. I seriously doubt that any kid
has been permanently scarred because his parent refused to feed him
chicken nuggets. The scarring IMNSHO comes from two parents who
can't make nice with each other even long enough to get unhitched.
Come on, guys. You are supposed to be the adults here!
End of Rant
No comments:
Post a Comment