Resolving a Legal Dispute: How to Deal With an Indignant Father - A Guide for Attorneys

Summary

This article looks at a legal case involving an indignant father, Mr. Prince, who sues a restaurant for false advertising after a meal gone wrong. Mr. Prince and his son had ordered a burger and shake from the restaurant, which then charged them for two additional burgers and shakes that they had not ordered. After being treated rudely by the restaurant manager, and with no resolution in sight, Mr. Prince brought a lawsuit against the restaurant for false advertising.


The case brings to light the importance of proper customer service and accurate advertising. Mr. Prince was able to successfully argue that the restaurant had misled him into believing they were offering a reasonable price for a meal, when, in reality, they had charged him for two additional burgers and shakes. The lawsuit also highlighted the importance of taking the time to listen to customer complaints and provide quality customer service.

In the end, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Prince, awarding him $1,000 in damages and legal fees. The court determined that the restaurant had acted negligently by not providing accurate and honest advertising and by not taking the time to address Mr. Prince's complaint. The restaurant was also ordered to pay him the money he had spent on the two additional burgers and shakes.

This case serves as an important reminder of the power of accurate advertising and prompt and polite customer service. Companies should take the time to ensure that their products and services are accurately represented and that their customers are treated with respect. Additionally, businesses should not ignore customer complaints, as this can lead to expensive lawsuits. By following these basic rules, companies can ensure that they operate ethically and protect their bottom line.
 

The Case of The Indignant Dad

In 1997, John Doe's son ran away from home. After searching for two days, Doe tracked down his son to a friend's house. When Doe arrived to pick up his son, the friend refused to release him and instead called the police.

John Doe was indignant about the situation, and proceeded to demand that officers of the law take him to his son immediately. He was arrested on the spot for disorderly conduct, and taken to the local police station.

At the station, the police officers refused to grant John Doe access to his son, and instead took his fingerprints, mug shots, and personal information. Doe had to remain in the police station for several hours before he was allowed to leave.

Upon his release, John Doe retained the services of an experienced criminal attorney. The attorney asked Doe to explain the details of the incident. Doe described how he had arrived at the friend's house to collect his son, and was immediately arrested without being clarified the reasoning.

According to John Doe's attorney, he was likely arrested due to the fact that he had showed "disrespectful and disruptive behaviour" in public. The lawyer also stated that the police officers at the scene were within their rights to arrest Doe, even though he was the parent of the runaway child.

The angry plaintiff is Daniel Crowley, the divorced father of Daniel, 9, and daughter Kelli, 8. The fed-up defendant is Donald McKinney, principal of Hiawatha Elementary School in Berwyn, Ill. Crowley is sore because he believes he got no respect as a father. McKinney is irked because Crowley is irked. Such litigants might better be named Legion. Believe me, they are many.

This is the story: The Crowleys had a serious falling-out. As a key part of their divorce settlement in 1998, the children's mother won "the sole care, custody, control and education" of the children. The decree provided, however, that the parents would have equal access to school records and events of concern to the children. Time passed. Young Daniel and Kelli trotted off to Hiawatha Elementary.

It was not a happy experience. Eventually the indignant dad would complain that the school never kept him informed about the children's travails. He was not told of an incident involving a gun found at school. Young Daniel's schoolmates twice beat him up in playground squabbles. Crowley learned of the second fracas and went to the playground to see for himself how well the children were supervised. He was ordered to leave. He volunteered to serve as a playground monitor himself. The principal turned him down.

Crowley became such a nuisance that when the school staged a book fair, he was denied admittance. He complained at public meetings of the school's "leadership and direction." He complained that he was not receiving the same mailings that went to his ex. An inference may be fairly drawn that some teachers fled when they saw him coming.

It will surprise no one in our litigious society that in 2002 Crowley sued the school district for emotional distress under what is known as "Section 1983," a catch-all civil rights act dating from Reconstruction days. U.S. District Judge Charles P. Kocoras dismissed Crowley's complaint. He appealed.

On March 11, a divided panel of the 7th Circuit ruled that a divorced non-custodial parent has no federal due process right to unlimited participation in his children's public school education. At the same time, the court restored Crowley's right to sue on the grounds that he had been denied equal protection of the law — that is, that just about everyone at Hiawatha School was nice to other parents but not nice to him.

Circuit Judge Richard Posner, one of the nation's most respected appellate judges, was not much impressed by Crowley's complaint. Judge Terence T. Evans joined him in ruling that as a non-custodial parent, Crowley had no standing to demand much of anything beyond equal access to the children's academic records. He could not sit in on their classes in order personally to appraise a teacher's performance. Crowley had no constitutional right, for example, to be a playground monitor. Schools, said Posner, have a "valid interest" in limiting parental presence. How could a school function otherwise?

A principal's everyday problems with parents, the judge mused, are compounded by the factor of divorce. School administrators are ill-equipped to interpret each parent's rights. When they try to do so, they risk being entangled in suits, like this one, "when wrathful parents are rebuffed in their efforts to superintend their children's education." The prospect of such litigation "would be bound to interfere with the school's educational mission."

In the case at hand, said Judge Posner, Crowley is trying "to fasten a constitutional albatross to the neck of a public school." In attempting "to micromanage" the children's education, he has exceeded his authority. "We gravely doubt that a non-custodial divorced parent has a federal constitutional right to participate in his children's education at the level of detail claimed by the plaintiff."

Judge Diane P. Wood, dissenting, sharply defended a father's "constitutional right to participate meaningfully in the upbringing of his children." Crowley's interests "are no less significant than those of other parents."

J. Brett Busby, counsel for the father, tells me the next steps are uncertain. The panel's decision could be appealed, or the parties could go to trial on grounds of free speech and equal protection. I infer that Angry Father and Fed-Up Principal are still sore. You kind of wonder what the children think.

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.