Visitors Counter


Random Quotes

The quickest way for a parent to get a child's attention is to sit down and look comfortable. ~Lane Olinghouse


Do you think the rules/laws are applied to Fathers more stringently as compared to Mothers?

Resources & Useful links



Bookmark us With

RedditDel.icio.usGet more widgets at VivoCiti.comDiggGoogleHuggReddot@eShiok!LiveFacebookSlashdotNetscapeTechnoratiStumbleUponSpurlWistsSimpyNewsvineBlinklistFurlFarkBlogmarksYahooSmarkingNetvouzShadowsRawSugarMa.gnoliaPlugIMSquidooco.mmentsBlogMemesFeedMeLinksBlinkBitsTailranklinkaGoGo
Module is designed by

Certificate of Appreciation

Click to see PDF

Our Friends

Mynation Foundation

YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin

AllVideos Reloaded

Give kids in custody battles a voice PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by NG SHU TSUNG   

IT is heartbreaking to read the parents’ continued squabble with little regard to the emotional state of the child suffering from terminal cancer (“Let children speak and be heard” – Sunday Star, April 17).

While there is no such thing as a happy divorce, it has been rightly pointed out that the wishes of the child must be seriously taken into consideration.

It is the parents’ duty to understand that their children must never be blamed for their separation, although practically, and in reality, children, especially those not yet in their teens, often blame themselves for things that they are unable to understand.

All children must be made to understand as far as possible why mummy and daddy are no longer going to stay together.

Ideally, it is the duty of each parent to shield their offspring mentally and emotionally whatever the reasons for the divorce.

The children must never be used as pawns in the tussle between the parents. The emotional trauma of the separation and court tussle most often will have an adverse emotional effect on the children, even many years into adulthood. Some even can’t get over it for the rest of their lives.

Parental Alienation: Prevention is the key PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D.   


Parental alienation is a set of strategies that parents use to undermine and interfere with a child's relationship with his or her other parent. This often but not always happens when parents are engaged in a custody battle over the children. 

There is no one definitive set of behaviors that constitute parental alienation but research with both parents and children has revealed a core set of 17 primary parental alienation strategies, including bad-mouthing the other parent, limiting contact with that parent, erasing the other parent from the life and mind of the child (forbidding discussion and pictures of the other parent), forcing child to reject the other parent, creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous, forcing the child to choose, and belittling and limiting contact with the extended family of the targeted parent. 

Taken together, these 17 parental alienation strategies work to create psychological distance between the child and the targeted parent such that the relationship becomes conflict ridden and eventually non-existent, as the child is empowered to cut that parent off completely. Each of these strategies serve to A) further the child's cohesion and alignment with the alienating parent; B) create psychological distance between the child and the targeted parent; C) intensify the targeted parent'sanger and hurt over the child's behavior; and D) incite conflict between the child and the targeted parent should the targeted parent challenge or react to the child's behavior.

Parents who try to alienate their child from his or her other parent convey a three-part message to the child: (1) I am the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself, (2) the other parent is dangerous and unavailable, and (3) pursuing a relationship with that parent jeopardizes your relationship with me.

Children who succumb to the pressure and ally themselves with one parent against the other often exhibit a set of behaviors that have become known as parental alienation syndrome: 
(1) The first manifestation is a campaign of denigration against the targeted parent. The child becomes obsessed with hatred of the targeted parent (in the absence of actual abuse or neglect that would explain such negative attitudes). 
(2) Weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations for the depreciation of the targeted parent. The objections made in the campaign of denigration are often not of the magnitude that would lead a child to hate a parent, such as slurping soup or serving spicy food. 
(3) Lack of ambivalence about the alienating parent. The child expresses no ambivalence about the alienating parent, demonstrating an automatic, reflexive, idealized support of him or her. 
(4) The child strongly asserts that the decision to reject the other parent is her own. This is what is known as the "Independent Thinker" phenomenon. 
(5) Absence of guilt about the treatment of the targeted parent. Alienated children will make statements such as, "He doesn't deserve to see me." 
(6) Reflexive support for the alienating parent in the parental conflict. There is no willingness or attempt to be impartial when faced with inter-parental conflicts. 
(7) Use of borrowed scenarios. These children often make accusations towards the targeted parent that utilize phrases and ideas adopted wholesale from the alienating parent. And, finally, 
(8) The hatred of the targeted parent spreads to his or her extended family. Not only is the targeted parent denigrated, despised, and avoided but so too are his/her entire family. Formerly beloved grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are suddenly avoided and rejected. When children exhibit these 8 behaviors the most likely explanation is the manipulation of the favored parent.

Once children exhibit these behaviors much of the damage is done. Prevention is critical as it is easier to stop children from becoming alienated than it is to undo the alienation once the children have adopted false ideas and feelings about the rejected parent. For this reason, parents who are concerned about the use of alienation strategies on the part of the other parent should become educated as quickly as possible about different options for responding to parental alienation. 

Resources for targeted parents are available at

This is a first - Mom Arrested PDF Print E-mail
(1 Vote)
Written by Deseret News - Associated Press   

Police say girl deliberately abused in Utah County custody dispute

PROVO — A Provo woman has been arrested on suspicion of sexually abusing her young daughter as a tactic in a custody dispute.

The Daily Herald of Provo reports Tiffany Petrossi was booked Thursday on charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and giving false or inconsistent material statements.

According to a police affidavit, she admitted using a jagged fingernail to injure her daughter in 2009. But at the time, she accused the child's father, Jesse Huffaker, of committing the sexual abuse.

The affidavit states the case against Huffaker was dismissed after investigators performed an analysis of the evidence and found no male DNA.

In March, the father approached police and expressed his suspicion that the woman had committed the abuse in order to influence their custody dispute.


MISS MOM - Raising a kid 'single'-handedly PDF Print E-mail
(1 Vote)
Written by Mailtoday   

MISS MOM - Raising a kid 'single'-handedly

Natalie Portman's appearance at the Oscars looking happily pregnant has triggered the debate once again on whether a dad is necessary to raise a kid…

REPUBLICAN Mike Huckabee, who is likely to run for the White House, is eating his words after blaming Oscar winner Natalie Portman for glamourising out-of-wedlock pregnancy and single motherhood. It has evoked a huge debate in the US, but is it an issue at all in India?


1 in 5 US moms have kids with multiple dads, study say PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by Linda Carroll : contributor   

Poverty, lack of education and divorce perpetuate lack of opportunities

One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men. 

“To put it in perspective, this is similar to the number of American adults with a college degree,” says the study’s author, Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at theUniversity of Michigan Institute for Social Research. “It’s pervasive.” 
Dorius’ study, which was presented Friday at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, examined data from nearly 4,000 U.S. women who had been interviewed more than 20 times over a 27-year period. 
This phenomenon is important to study, Dorius says, because there are consequences to both the mom and her children. Women with children from multiple fathers tend to be disadvantaged compared to other moms. “They are more likely to be under-employed, to have lower incomes, and to be less educated,” Dorius says. 
Further, this type of family structure can lead to a lot more stress for everyone involved, in part because the women need to juggle the demands and needs of more than one dad.  
Commentary: 'Baby daddy' study may draw unfair spotlight on black women
“Everyday decisions are more complex and family rules are more ambiguous,” Dorius says. “Families need to figure out who lives with whom and when, who pays for things like clothing, who is responsible for child support.”

Earlier studies that looked at women with children from different dads focused only on young or inner-city mothers. 
The new data, pulled from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, shows that this kind of family structure is found at all levels of income and education. And it’s frequently tied to divorce and remarriage, not just to single motherhood, Dorius says. Forty-three percent of the women with kids with multiple dads were married when their first babies were born.
Dorius found that a multiple-father type of family structure was more common among minority women, with 59 percent of African-American mothers, 35 percent of Hispanic mothers and 22 percent of white mothers reporting children with more than one father. 
Women with low income and little education were also more likely to have children with different birth fathers.
An important message that doesn’t appear to be getting through is just how hard it is to raise a child as a single parent.
"While these women tended to be poorer than others to begin with, their whole lifetimes continue to be disadvantaged," she said.
Dorius’ findings dovetail with some other recent research, says Katherine Stamps Mitchell, an assistant professor of human ecology and sociology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. 
Studies have shown that, increasingly, young women are choosing to become moms before they are committing to marriage, Mitchell says. 
What we don’t yet know is the long-term impact of that choice on the kids and the moms, Mitchell says. 
“This area of research is pretty new,” she adds. “It’s possible that some of these kids will be multiply disadvantaged.”
Mitchell suspects that women would be less likely to choose early and single motherhood if they thought they would have more options in the future. 
“Certainly we know that women with higher education are delaying both marriage and childbearing for their careers,” she says. “Women with lower expectations for education and career don’t see that they will be in a significantly different place in 10 years. So there’s no reason to wait to have kids.”

Why I Can’t See my Children PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by Jeremy Swanson - Fathers and Men’s Rights Activist   

Right up front the most important thing to know is this:

 I was an excellent Father and I love my children deeply. And they in turn love their Father.  We were very close and they knew I loved them. There was only love in our home for our children and they were happy children in every respect. I was and still am immensely proud of them.

 When they were little Susan Swanson's elder sister did exactly the same thing to her husband. The whole works you know--the changed locks the accusations. She even went into a shelter. Susan herself was horrified The children of that marriage were mortified and suffered very badly. I watched it all happening and I witnessed their pain. So did my children-their cousins.

 At the time I remember saying to Susan that I could and would never put my children through the same experience because of all of the hurt and pain that they would have to witness and bear. I did not and cannot still see the reason why children have to experience this. But I swore that I could not let them suffer this fate-even measured against the sense of loss they would have to experience with the loss of their father. It would have to be a calculated and selfless decision for them. And so it was.

 Initially as you all know things went well and I have a whole email history of co-operation on my past and a little from Susan. But largely it was a mass of angry emails back and forth because Susan did not want to be co-operative--OR she was being counseled not to be. Or both. So while I was being the good Father Susan attempted to make things as difficult as possible for me with respect to the children and my relationship with them. She refused to send money with them even when I was starving and unable to feed them.

 And then she changed the rules as to the timing of when I saw the children. First it was every week. Then it was every second week. Then it was every third week. And suddenly I would have to come and fetch them myself--by bus.  An hour long journey there and back in dreadful weather conditions in a staggered bus connection situation which would have given me 20 minutes with them before having to take them back again. And there was to be "waiting time" at one of the bus-stops that only saw one bus an hour coming through. In the freezing cold of winter and no place to stand out of the weather--remember I was "banned" from the house-and the stifling humidity of summer it would not have been long before the children started to associate the "visits" with discomfort and their Father with a loss of that. Susan had the van and the resources I didn't even HAVE bus-fare.

 And then there was the gun-seizure and all of what transpired with the police. And then this Father would have had to walk down that same road through those neighbours with their nudges and whispered indictments of me. Just imagine it "there goes that crazy dangerous guy with the guns"? No one would ever have told them the truth. All they had was the experience of seeing the police invading my home and then getting Susan's version of events. How could I have faced that? AND then gone to pick up my children who had to be witnesses to that and their resulting trauma. In their eyes I had embarrassed and hurt them. I knew it. I heard it in my son's voice when he told me how it happened 6 months after it did.

 You just can't imagine how painful this all was and still is. My view is why should I have to put the children through what their cousins went through and then let them watch the fireworks between their parents take root. I tried so hard to have a relatively normal communicative relationship with Susan. I really did but there was nothing but negativity and aggravation from her and her lawyers side-especially when I decided to seek my rights as a Father in this divorce. Then it just got worse. Especially when I exercised my rights with respect to the College of Psychologists and their errant members. The gun issue and the appearance in Court 2 years afterwards sealed the nightmare as far as the children were concerned. Who do you know could possibly act normally and continue a loving and continuous relationship with their children when full of fear and angst and anger--and tears?

 And again: I don't see them because I love them so deeply. It is NOT an easy decision and it has counted against me in Court. I know this. But it’s my resistance to the "system" that defines to a man how or when and where a Father can see his own children. I think that is wrong. A man should never be restricted by law to seeing his children every second day at the minimum. I will not subscribe to the system--even at the cost of losing my babies. I am basically a “14 percenter” (percent of 100 the time a Father gets to be a Father) and I refused to be one. Fathers are 100% (or 50 %) parents or not at all is my credo I would not put my children through any more stress--or more Psychologists.


I miss them so much. I am ashamed and scared to stand in front of them because of what has happened to me. I don't want to embarrass them any more either. I have failed them and I will always feel that profound guilt.How could I be a Father in these circumstances? My thought patterns would be filled with the pain of it all the time they were with me. at least this way I spare them the pain and myself as well.


Things should be normal between a Father and his children. When a Father becomes a 'visitor' to his children he ceases to be a proper parent. That is abnormal in this society. Time will prove me right. Remember me when Canadians all say collectively "how is it possible that we could have treated our Canadian Fathers AND their children that way?"  And as I said it will happen but I will be a statistic by then--or dead. Or both. And to see them even now I would have to submit them to a Psychologist AGAIN. And myself. Why? Because the law says so. Do I need a Psychologist to love and nurture my children? Do I need a judge I don't even know to tell me what to do with my children and how many times I should see them? Of course not? Why should I? Because they are all part of the divorce industry and they feed off one another. This is how it all works. Surely you can see this? Its an industry. Ask Dave Brown of The Citizen. The men here in the YMCA-those who have also disengaged- know it full well. Thousands of distraught Fathers I meet on the internet and in person every week know it extremely well. And WE are just expected to "deal with" the assaults on our characters by our ex-wives as if its the most normal thing on earth? Well it isn't normal. And it will never be normal until divorce becomes non-adversarial and the shared parenting and custody of children becomes automatic in law. There is the main problem. And none of what is happening now would have to have happened if my wife and I were on plain speaking terms. None of it. Yet the lawyers feed the flames and we fathers lose every time.


I would love to. I don't see them because I love them so deeply. it is NOT an easy decision and it has counted against me in Court. But it’s my resistance to the "system" that defines to a man how or when and where a Father can see his own children. I think that is wrong. A man should never be restricted by law to seeing his children every second day at the minimum. I will not subscribe to the system--even at the cost of losing my babies. And I will not put them through any more stress--or any more Psychologists. I miss them so much. I am ashamed and scared to stand in front of them because of what has happened to me. I don't want to embarrass them any more either. I have failed them and I will always feel that guilt profoundly. I wear it every day

Jeremy Swanson

March 2010

HC grants estranged wife access to son PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by Swati Deshpande, TNN   
MUMBAI: When access to her two-year-old toddler even by webcam as ordered by the Royal Courts of Justice, Family Court Division of the high court inLondon was denied for two years, a young estranged mother launched a legal battle in India in March 2009. Two years later, the Bombay high court has given her and others like her who are caught in inter-country child custody battles, a reason to smile.

The high court upheld an August 2009 consent term order of the family court in Mumbai granting the mother access to her now six-year-old son. "There is no failure of justice by virtue of exercise of territorial jurisdiction of the family court or by submission to such jurisdiction by the (NRI) husband," said Justice Roshan Dalvi. 

The case that made Justice Dalvi dismiss a father's challenge to a 2009 access order, for being "misconceived as well as mischievous" involved a young Gujarati couple. Dipti and Sandip Shah (names changed) married in September 2004, lived in Sandip's UK home since and had a child a year later. 

"Continuous disputes" led to a short-lived marriage that ended with an order by consent passed by the UK court in 2007. The court gave the child's custody to the father, but access to Dipti in Sandip's house in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The court also ordered Sandip to "to fund the mother's to and fro Mumbai-London travelling and accommodation for one 16-day period of child contact once a year", give her "access through webcam facilities" at mutually fixed times, and once-a-year access in India where she resided. 

"There was no access in England, none on webcam, not even a telephone chat," said Dipti when she moved the Mumbai court. The family court made them meet a marriage counsellor. It led to consent terms regarding access as agreed before the UK court. But within minutes of signing the consent terms in Mumbai, Sandip filed a part typewritten-part handwritten copy seeking dismissal of his wife's custody plea. 

That and a letter written by Sandip later to say that "by pretending to agree for access" he obtained a passage to England and had signed the consent since he was leaving for London the same day, showed "his scant regard not only for his wife, the counsellor's effort but the court itself," said Justice Dalvi. 

Sandip continued to breach even the Mumbai court order, but justified it by saying the Indian court lacked jurisdiction. However, the high court noted that Sandip had submitted to the Mumbai court's jurisdiction, signed consent terms—a breach of which is contempt of court—and only much later, in July 2010, questioned the jurisdiction when faced with contempt plea. 

Anusuya Dutt represented Dipti in her court battle. 

The Bombay high court found substance in Dipti's contention that Sandip "just does not desire to give any access to her and has continuously procrastinated by filing frivolous applications and excuses". 

"This was a fit case to pass an order of unmistakable contempt, wilfully made by the husband," the high court said. 

The Bombay HC, while calling the father's plea 'misconceived and mischievous', found substance in the woman's contention that he 'does not desire to give access to her son and has procrastinated the case by filing frivolous applications'.
Children And Divorce: Parental Alienation Syndrome – What Fathers Can Do PDF Print E-mail
(1 Vote)
Written by Pallavi Bhattacharya   
Children And Divorce: Parental Alienation Syndrome – What Fathers Can Do

Children And Divorce: Parental Alienation Syndrome – What Fathers Can Do

 Madhubanti (name changed) harbored bitter feelings against her estranged husband and continuously came up with ways to punish him. The method which seemed to work best for her was alienating her son from her husband. She misused her power as a lawyer to file a criminal case against her NRI husband, prohibiting him from entering India, where she lived with her son after the separation.

Divorced parents demand easy access to their children PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by M Zulqernain   
Lahore, Mar 6 (PTI) Divorced parents in Pakistan have protested against what they described as "unnecessary delays" in legal proceedings that result in denial of speedy access to their children.
A sizeable number of divorced parents gathered outside Lahore Press Club yesterday and demanded that authorities should put in place a legal provision for access to children while the parents are involved in legal proceedings for separation or dissolution of marriage.
Many members of civil society groups joined the parents with banners and placards that had messages like "I love my kids", "How long shall our children wait for us till a decision is arrived at by the law?" and "I have the right to be with my child".
The demonstrators, mostly single fathers, described themselves as victims at the hands of "manipulators" of the guardian or family laws of Pakistan.
They shouted slogans against the complexity of legal proceedings that impede access to children by either of the parents.
The protesters also argued that in the wake of a rising divorce rate, it is necessary for authorities to incorporate provisions in the law whereby interim joint custody of children should be announced by the court when either of the parents files a suit for separation or dissolution of marriage.
Ali Hasan, who is fighting a case for the custody of his three-year-old son Haider, said, "The legal process is expected to sort out child custody issues within three months, but it usually takes years to fight these exhaustive battles.
And even if one does get access to children, it�s only for two hours in a month".
The timeframe for dissolution of marriage cases should be fixed. On similar lines, a reasonable time frame should be fixed to sort out issues of child custody.
The protesters said the emotional, psychological and financial well-being of children has been the only point of agreement among disputing parties pursuing legal proceedings.
There should be legal indemnity that should be brought into practice so that parent-child relations do not fall victim to a "war of egos between disputing parents", they said.
This can be ensured only if the law provides for joint custody in cases where both parents have the desire to get access to their children, the protesters said.
Legal provision should be cognizant of the terms favourable to the child''s well-being, including overnight stays with both parents, they added.
"The prevailing convention is to grant custody to one parent only," said Hasan.
Another parent said, "We should empower both parents equally and in an unbiased manner".
The legal system, while deciding on child custody, should not view it as a conflict between the man and wife, but rather it should see how the children see the parents.
Who judges the justices? PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by B N Srikrishna   

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya makes a profound observation: “Just as fish moving deep under water cannot be possibly found out either as drinking or not drinking water, government servants may not be found out while taking money for themselves.” He then goes on to forebodingly remark, about the opacity in governance machinery, that “it is possible to ascertain the movement of birds flying high in the sky, but it is not possible to ascertain the movement of government servants or their hidden purposes.” But even Kautilya with his remarkable perspicacity might have been amazed by the current evens in the country.

Basically, any act of corruption in public office involves the misuse of public office for private gain. In other words, it involves a public official benefiting at the expense of either the taxpayer or an average person who has come into contact with the government machinery. It also involves violating of the human rights of those whose legitimate benefits are intercepted and misappropriated by the dishonest public official.

Four tests help to determine if there is corruption in any transaction. First: transparency. Then, accountability, and reciprocity. And finally, generalisation. When an action fails on one or more of these tests, there is sure to be corruption.

The test of transparency fails when things are done in a covert manner without allowing the details to be disclosed to the public at large. The test of accountability fails when the person doing an act is not answerable to anyone else, or does not care to be answerable for his actions. The test of reciprocity fails if the answer to the question “Would I be hurt if others did the same thing to me?” is a yes. Finally, the test of generalisation fails when the answer to the question “Would it harm society if everyone did the same thing?” is answered positively. The first two tests are objective, while the latter two are subjective.

Corruption comes in a variety of garb. For most people, what probably occurs when they hear the word “corruption” is bribery; but other common types of corruption also exist, like fraud, nepotism and embezzlement. Each one of them is ethically negative and has a deleterious effect on society.

Going by Kautilya’s prescriptions, it would appear that corruption in public offices existed in India at least from his time. What is worrisome for us today is the blatant level to which corruption has descended. Even during the British Raj, it was acknowledged that there was corruption in the government apparatus. The innumerable laws, rules, financial manuals and accounting procedures designed by the British seem designed with an utter lack of belief in the integrity of government servants. Nonetheless, the common man was not harassed in his day-to-day transactions, as at the top there was someone with impeccable integrity and sense of justice to whom one could appeal and expect justice. Judges were also in this special category of public officers. The British practice of addressing judges of the superior courtsas “justices” evidences this widely held belief. Judges were believed to be embodiments of justice and hence addressed as justices.

Plato, in The Republic, his monumental work on government and morality, posed the crucial problem. According to Socrates, the perfect society relies on labourers, slaves and tradesmen. The guardian class is to protect the city. The question is put to Socrates: “Who will guard the guardians?” — or, “Who will protect us against the protectors?” Plato’s answer is that they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a “noble lie”. The noble lie will assure them that they are better than those they serve, and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it. What remarkable foresight! What a sense of déjà vu today!

The 1st-century Roman satirist, Juvenal, asked in a similar vein, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — “Who will guard the guards themselves?” This is the dilemma facing society today, with protectors seeming to turn predators. What was once considered the high ground of morality and ethics, untouched by the waves of venial conduct, is now lamentably and increasingly lapped by waves of corruption. The ramparts of the institution of the judiciary, once considered impregnable to the assaults of unethical behaviour, seem to be crumbling one by one. The impossible has been happening, as is suggested by the series of cases of misbehaviour by judges of the higher courts that are coming to light. The peccability even of those considered paradigms of virtue has exploded the noble lie that Socrates once assiduously advocated.

We entreat them that are placed upon the exalted seat and entrusted with the awesome power of rendering judgment over others, to reflect upon the words of the Good Book: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” About them that deviated from the narrow path of rectitude, we may sadly say with Robert Browning: “Just for a handful of silver he left us/ Just for a riband to stick in his coat —/ Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us/ Lost all the others she lets us devote.”

Corruption is condemnable — and judicial corruption doubly so, for it entails, additionally, breach of the trust that society puts in judges. Manu says that the punishment for an offence for a learned man should be double that is given to the ordinary man. Thus should the punishment be for judges who deviate from rectitude.

The purity of gold is tested by scratching, hammering and fire assay. Persons whom society places on a pedestal must also be similarly tested by fire. Guaranteeingjudicial independence without guaranteeing the quality of the judge is counterproductive. Even if the nominations are made by a judicial collegium, the nominees must be put to rigorous public scrutiny of their private and public conduct, with only those that ring true being selected. Even after selection and appointment, anyone found lacking in probity must be swiftly and condignly punished for the double offence. These are doubtless tall orders — but by no means impossible to achieve, if corruption is to be eliminated from the hallowed judicial precincts.

The happenings today must act as the wake-up call for all men and women of conscience holding positions of power. For God’s sake, betray not the trust that society has put in you. It is also time for society to resolutely say that there shall be zero tolerance towards corruption.

Depressed mums less responsive to babies' cries PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by The Times of India   

A new research has suggested that a de=ressed moth=rs show a weaker response to their babies' cries, which can negatively =ffect children's development and have long-lasting effects on mother-infant relationship. 

Brain scans at the Un=versity of Oregon revealed that their reaction to cries is much more muted =han the robust brain activity in non-depressed moms. 
Jennifer C. Ablow, professor of psychology, and her colleagues scrutinized 22 women using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how brain activity =f depressed women responded to recordings of crying infants, either their =wn or someone else's. 

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 2 of 18
YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin