Monet Parham-Lee Is A Bad Parent. Monet Parham-Lee Is A Weakling. Monet Parham-Lee Blames McDonalds For Her Weakness, And Her Poor Parenting Skills. Monet Parham-Lee Is A Liar, Or At Least Deceptive. And Monet Parham-Lee Is A Bad Person.

Monet Parham-Lee is suing McDonalds because she cannot say "NO" to her six year old daughter Maya.

In a call with reporters, Monet Parham, a Sacramento mother of two, said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald's Happy Meals.

"I don't think it's OK to entice children with Happy Meals with the promise of a toy," she said, adding that she tries to hold her daughters, 6 and 2, to monthly visits to the fast-food chain. But she said their requests increased this summer, thanks to the popularity of "Shrek Forever After." Collecting all of the toys offered in conjunction with the movie would require weekly visits, she said.

"Needless to say, my answer was no," she said. "And as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn't stop with one request. It's truly a litany of requests."

Monet Parham is really Monet Parham-Lee.  Monet Parham-Lee is the name that Monet Parham uses professionally.  Monet Parham-Lee is represented in the suit by attorneys affiliated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  Meaning Ralph Nader.  Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Monet Parham-Lee works in the "Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section" of the California Department of Public Health.

Meaning that Monet Parham-Lee is tasked, professionally, by the State of California with ensuring that Californians eat their vegetables.  The power that the State of California grants Monet Parham-Lee evidently is not enough.  Monet Parham-Lee is taking the law into her own hands, to ensure that not only her own children eat their vegetables, but that everyone else is forced to make their children eat vegetables.  Because without toys, Happy Meals become Unhappy Meals.

And Unhappy Meals mean vegetables.

CSPI director of litigation Stephen Gardner said that the group knows McDonald's isn't the only fast-food chain that sells meals with toys, but targeted McDonald's because it is the biggest. He added that the group has had conversations with other chains, including Burger King, which it has not threatened to sue.

"We're not trying to force McDonald's to sell apples and sprouts," Gardner said. "We're just trying to stop McDonalds from marketing to 3-year-olds."

This is a class action, allegedly, but  Monet Parham-Lee is not the mother of every three year old in California.  Still, she claims standing to bring suit on behalf of all three year olds, and their parents.  Thus bringing the idea of a "Nanny State" to its logical extreme.

This is also a tort action.  Monet Parham-Lee is suing because, we're led to believe, her six year old daughter Maya harasses her on a daily basis for plastic Shreks.  Monet Parham-Lee, evidently, is suing for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Her emotional distress is caused by the fact that her six year old daughter, Maya, will not stop hectoring her about these plastic Shreks.

I have a suggestion for Monet Parham-Lee.  I have several suggestions in fact:

  1. Tell your six year old daughter Maya to shut the fuck up. And eat her damned vegetables.
  2. Buy the damned Happy Meal on the way home from work, then throw out the hamburger and fries.  Give Maya the plastic Shrek. A Happy Meal costs two dollars or something. You don't have two dollars? You're an overpaid state employee in a state that's going bankrupt because of people like you. You can afford it.
  3. If you want to see emotional distress, wait until your six year old daughter Maya is old enough to Google herself.  And her mom. So you can explain to her what the word "fuck" means. Because this post is NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY.

Of course this suit isn't being filed because Maya Parham-Lee eats too many damned Happy Meals.  Or because she can't get her plastic Shrek.  Or because Monet Parham-Lee is so damned weak that she's suffered ACTIONABLE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS from telling her daughter, six year old Maya, "No."

Maya Parham-Lee, the six year old daughter of Monet Parham-Lee, has probably never eaten a Happy Meal in her life.  I'll bet she's eaten thousands of Unhappy Meals: wheat germ, carrots, whey, lentils, spirulina, oats, and raw, uncooked hay.

All of it steamed or boiled.  Except for the raw hay.

It's been filed because Monet Parham-Lee, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, want to control what everyone eats.  But they lack the persuasive skills to convince California voters to ban cheeseburgers, french fries, lard, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, and all of the other things that make a meal truly Happy.

None of the stories I've seen on this mentions "Sacramento mother of two" Monet Parham-Lee's employment.  I'm guessing that Monet Parham-Lee, and her lawyers, didn't feel the need to mention it.  But it's material to the story. In fact, it's the most material part of the story.

"GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IN CHARGE OF VEGETABLE EATING SUES TO STOP MEAT!" lacks a certain punch.  It would be like printing a story to the effect that cows are demanding Americans eat mor chik'n.

And Monet Parham-Lee will never collect a penny unless McDonald's caves to a baseless suit.  Which I sincerely hope it won't. Because I'd love to give Monet Parham-Lee's six year old daughter Maya something else to read about in a year or so.

"SACRAMENTO MOTHER OF TWO ORDERED TO PAY LEGAL FEES AS SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT!"  Now that has a ring to it.

Via Ira Stoll, who has more to say on this sort of lawsuit as a culture war between the sort of people parodied at "Stuff White People Like" and everyone else in America.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

Comments

  1. says

    The lawsuit itself can be found at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (a name that is true roughly in the same sense as "Center for Neutering Dogs For Their Own Good") here.

  2. says

    I think her lawsuit is valid, but the defendant is wrong. If her six-year-old daughter's nagging is causing her emotional distress, sue the daughter.

  3. Analyze This says

    Maybe women like Monet Parham-Lee shouldn't be allowed to have children in a household lacking the presence of a male!

  4. Scott Jacobs says

    "What makes you think she’s a single parent?"

    Would YOU willingly be married to such a person as she?

  5. says

    OMG this is hilarious.. Not too sure of the Ca. situation (Australian here) but could this be classed as a SLAP?

    Just think if it can.. Mother denies child McDonalds.. Child pouts and throws a hissy fit, mother does not discipline child but sues.. Mother gets a royal SLAPing ;)

  6. says

    Why doesn’t she just move to San Francisco?

    For the same reason I don't, out of fear that "Happy Meal" is now the latest slang for a BDSM activity …

  7. Bob says

    I completely agree with this post. You can't use lawsuits to cover up bad parenting. Next sue television companies for marketing their shows to young children. In America it seems there isn't a problem around a lawsuit can't fix. My kid wants to go to Disneyland so maybe I should sue them cause he keeps asking. YOU ARE THE PARENT! THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF WAYS TO SAY NO! Spend a few bucks and buy her a better toy, or be strong and refuse. Idiots make me sick.

  8. Javert Freeman says

    All she has to do is pretend she is Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, and her children are liberty loving citizens, laugh and say NO it isn't good for you. Be a parent to her own children, not mine!

  9. Jen says

    McDonalds markets Happy Meals primarily in two ways: In-restaurant advertising, and during children's television programming on stations that run commercials (i.e., not PBS). Unless she's in McDonald's anyway on a regular basis, her daughter is watching a tremendous amount of television that (IMHO) is not entirely appropriate for a six year old. Maybe she should also be suing Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon for running the ads, if this is the way she parents, to make them stop showing the evil, evil advertisements. Or maybe just turn off the damned TV for a while and read her kids a book.

  10. Alvin says

    It appears in her photo on the subject, she could stand to quit eating happy meals herself. Typical obese government employee with too much time on her hands telling others how to eat properly. [Racist bullshit deleted.] Sorry, tell your kid NO and be a PARENT!!!

  11. Patrick says

    Alvin. It's possible to disapprove of Ms. Parham-Lee and her actions, strongly and individually, without bringing race into it. See what I wrote about her above.

    Bye.

  12. Pam says

    I would like to sue her for trying to take away my personal freedoms!!! I have a 4 year old son and if I don't want him to have a happy meal I tell him NO, but if I want to buy him a happy meal I should have the freedom of choice to do so. I am an intelligent person and I do not need the courts deciding what I can and can not feed myself and my children.

  13. Nancy says

    For most of my childhood I begged my mother for a horse on a daily, sometimes thrice daily, basis. I begged, pleaded, whined, and cried. Somehow she managed to live through all that without ever giving in to my pleas. Monet Parham-Lee's kids are not the only children who have pouted, whined, or cried for a treat or a toy. Many parents have had to deal with similar problems. All of them are surviving without feeling it necessary to sue Kids 'R' Us. I'm sorry to learn that she needs court authority to deal with a parenting problem.

  14. Mike says

    I don't think she's a bad parent for being unable to tell her kid "no".

    I think she's a bad parent for allowing her kid to be used as straw plaintiffs for CSPI and their agenda. And for allowing her kid to be subjected to public, high-profile class proceedings for her political purposes.

  15. Belinda Gomez says

    Is she an SEIU member? Why not buy the toy, give the burger to some homeless guy and everyone's happy? Or is that too hard.
    Who's paying her lawyers?

  16. Patrick says

    I'm unsure of the relevance of her union status.

    Rather than try to make her a symbol of some hated group, why not appreciate Monet Parham-Lee for what she is? A glorious fool in her own special, individual right.

  17. says

    Mr. Gardner has a history of this sort of thing. He sued Kellogg's for lying to him. (Naturally his suite came before the one mentioned in the article). He also sued Walmart for selling returned swingsets as new merchandise.

  18. Jen says

    Hyphenated last names began in the women's studies classes at colleges, but for several years now, you can be sure that when you see one, it is a single mother giving her child her name and the name of her babby's daddy.

    And she IS a type, unfortunately. She is a state worker with a job that does no good for anybody, but gives the government a chance to poke their nose in people's business. You get a certain kind of self-righteousness and entitlement when you hold a job like that for long.

    I pity her teachers. She'll be going off to school after having learned that it's a personal insult to be told no. – and with the idea that heavens and earth will kove to meet her wishes. (And you can tell, her mother will be pushing hard on the teachers to not say no to her, too.)

  19. says

    Wow! Lots of hatred on this blog. First off, while I don't agree with not taking responsibility for parenting choices, I do think that it is completely wrong for McDonald's to market to young children. There is loads of information out there exposing the ingredients in McDonald's to be toxic and very bad for your health. If you are not aware of this then you all need to see documentaries like Food Inc, Food Matters, and Super Size me. McDonald's is NOT FOOD! Fast Food is a huge factor in the rising childhood obesity epidemic. These corporations need to start to take responsibility for what they are marketing to young children. I have a 2 year old daughter who has NEVER eaten at McDonald's and never will because I refuse to feed my child poison. The truth is that people are not educated about what is really in those products and so most Americans believe that it is ok to eat there and feed their children this junk. I don't think that McDonald's should be 100% responsible for the decisions she makes as a parent, but I do believe that they need to be held social responsible for the damages they are causing people's health. By the way the marketing they use with the colors, themes, and toys they market to children has been proven to increase hunger, produce positive emotions, and is designed to make people addicted to their food. Trying to get children addicted to anything should be illegal!! At least she is speaking out about a problem that is negatively affecting our nation.

  20. Patrick says

    Wow! Lots of hatred on this blog.

    Hate. Let me tell you how much I’ve come to hate Brittney Kara since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of wafer thin printed circuits that fill my complex. If the word hate was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for Brittney Kara at this micro-instant. For you. Hate. HATE.

  21. says

    Given the choice between people selling bad food (that everyone knows is bad as you just mentioned, but many [strange] people like the taste of) to bad parents, and people trying to stop stores from selling toys with food at the same time, I'm going to go with the purveyors of bad food as a far lesser evil.

  22. says

    There is loads of information out there exposing the ingredients in McDonald’s to be toxic and very bad for your health.

    Fatuous nonsense. And typical of the way the word "toxic" is misused by the ignorant and the scaremongering. McDonalds food is not unhealthy – consuming calories and fat to excess, regardless of what fast food restaurant prepared it, is unhealthy. And McDonalds' food is not toxic, by any rational English-speaker's definition of the word "toxic".

  23. says

    This post is forged from a fragment of primordial win left over from the original Big Bang of Win at the beginning of time.

  24. Linus says

    I'm sorry, "market to young children"? How are these young children a part of the market? These 4-year olds get off their 9 to 5 shift at the autobody shop, and stop for a Happy Meal on the way home, because they've been hornswoggled into having an appetite for fries and a coke? Are you nuts?

    Seriously, even if McDonald's conceded that they use magic advertisements to get toddlers to crave the Happy Meal, what's your response to the question "why can't you just tell them 'no'"? That it shouldn't be your responsibility? That everyone in the world has an affirmative duty not to indirectly make your life marginally more difficult?

    By the way, Patrick's hate compared to mine right now is as the Niners to the Chargers. My hate is kicking his hate's ass. That's how this type of rank stupidity makes me feel.

  25. Scott Jacobs says

    Dear Britteny,

    How about the bitch learn to fucking say no to her little tard-spawn?

    How about she do for her family what she is paid to do for the state of California?

    How about she be the adult in the house?

    How about you go play a rousing game of "hide and go fuck yourself"?

    Congrats, bitch. You just cause me to have to recalibrate my "hate" scale.

    Because sister, you go to fucking 11.

  26. Linus says

    Ok, so, mocking specific statements in someone's bio on their personal website—cool, uncool? Because…well, don't you think that accusations of "hate" from someone who runs a blog with the word "Angry" in the title are a little oblivious? Is it just me?

    Oh, and "in the process of building several multi-million dollar businesses"—you and me both, sister, you and me both.

    By the by, I had a BE&C McGriddle this morning, and it warmed my belly AND my soul.

  27. says

    Ah, Patrick, are you only now discovering the little miniature industry of multi-level marketing gnomes selling each other boxes of magnets to cure the ills of "toxic" food?

  28. says

    Ken, from your link, she writes "Splenda also has wonderful ingredients like chlorine in it."

    The ignorance of chemistry is essential to the moronic crap these clown put out. Chlorine! Uh, ordinary table salt has chlorine in it. Try living without it.

    The rest of the aspartame loony bin nonsense is old hat BS.

  29. says

    "I think she’s a nasty totalitarian, but I have no opinion about how smart she is."

    Well I do. I actually wonder how people that dense keep from starving to death from forgetting which end of the spoon goes in their mouths.

    Seriously, the sheer credulousness of the whole pack of crystal-worshiping, Gaia-huggin', all-the-corporations-are-out-to-kill-their-customers (except the ones that sell them homeopathic crap!) yahoos makes me wonder why nobody makes sport with them by telling them that licking the third rail of a subway is a good way to purge the man-made toxin buildup from their colons.

  30. Tim Osbon says

    Look out friends of maya!! Big Mama gonna sue ya'll too !! From the lawsuit:

    "103. One instance that is particularly frustrating to Parham, because it is
    outside of her control, is that Maya’s friends are McDonald’s viral marketers.
    104. Maya learns of Happy Meal toys from other children in her playgroup,
    despite Parham’s efforts to restrict Maya’s exposure to McDonald’s advertising and
    access to Happy Meal toys. This is McDonald’s advertising directive – to subvert
    parental authority and mobilize pester power in order to sell unhealthful meals to kids using the lure of a toy."

  31. says

    I terrified the crap out of a Greenpeace twit on the pedestrian shopping mall last summer by describing the concentrations of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

    My wife castigates me when I make one of the Greenpeace twits there cry.

  32. Linus says

    "One instance that is particularly frustrating to Parham, because it is outside of her control…"

    One instance that is particularly frustrating to me, because it is outside my control, is that Parham doesn't ever send me any money. Surely the California courts can remedy the emotional distress this is causing me? Actually, now that I think about it, NONE of you are sending me any money. How DARE you!

  33. says

    Will no one defend Monet Parham-Lee?

    At least she is speaking out about a problem that is negatively affecting our nation.

    Will someone _sensible_ defend Monet Parham-Lee?

  34. says

    While she was debating whether to force McDonald's to sell apples, did she notice that McDonald's already DOES sell apples?

    McDonald's already noticed that some parents prefer to buy their kids apples instead of french fries, and some grownups prefer to eat "Fruit and Walnut Salads" to cheeseburgers. They didn't need the government to order them to do it.

    Yeesh.

  35. TomG says

    I wasn't going to add a comment, until I saw Brittney Kara mention the psuedo-documentary "Super Size Me" (Dec. 16th, 4:51 pm). Spurlock's "rules" that govern the entire biased film are nonsensical and OF COURSE paint a picture of McDonalds as only harmful to good eating. No one with any sense at all eats like that !
    If he had done a documentary covering 2 or 3 fast food places, and was just a wee bit more objective, he might have had a good film discussing our culture's love of convenience foods and whether (or not) they are good for us. But he didn't want to present an objective film.

  36. says


    While she was debating whether to force McDonald’s to sell apples, did she notice that McDonald’s already DOES sell apples?

    McDonald’s already noticed that some parents prefer to buy their kids apples instead of french fries, and some grownups prefer to eat “Fruit and Walnut Salads” to cheeseburgers. They didn’t need the government to order them to do it.

    What is this nonsense; are you suggesting that when given a choice some people will actually make decisions that are in their childrens interests? And that commercial enterprises will adjust their stock to reflect these decisions? What weird alternative Earth do you live on? :-P

  37. Nathania Johnson says

    I agree with Kevin Chipwak. By her own arguments, Monet Parharm-Lee's child should be taken from her since she is clearly neglecting the child's nutritional needs.

  38. Chris says

    Please. Parham-Lee is not suing because she honestly thinks McD's is causing her anguish. Given her position in the CA government, it's rather obvious that the suit is a thinly-veiled pretext to regulate via lawsuit, rather than go through the trouble of trying to get this nonsense through the legislature (though, in CA, it just might make it).

    It is, in principle, no different from attempts to sue gun manufacturers out of existence based upon a nonsensical theory of strict liability, having failed to ban them via the legislature.

  39. Anon E. Mouse says

    Pretty much all of you are retarded. McDonalds food IS bad for you, and they DO market to kids (even into adulthood- we've all learned to associate positive feelings with McDonalds food. IE: how someone said a greasy mcgriddle "warmed her soul"). Apparently, their marketing worked so well you didn't even know your kids were being marketed to.

    That said, this most definitely is a frivolous lawsuit and Chris ^ I totally agree with you. You're just about the only intelligent one here so far.

    And to the blog owner- I love how you're so quick to delete racist BS, but don't bother at all with the sexist BS. Cute.

  40. says

    Hey, someone from public relations firm Xenophon Strategies is reading this! Hi, folks! Are you looking to rehabilitate a contemptible nanny-stater? Good luck with that.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Patrick at Popehat takes a look at the latest frivolous-in-a-reasonable-world anti-McDonald's lawsuit (a claim of emotional distress because the plaintiff's daughter too-often asks her mother to buy Happy Meals), and especially at the media coverage thereof, which fails to mention the critical fact that the plaintiff is a government employee whose job it is to ensure Californians eat their broccoli.  […]