Sentences with phrase «child psychological harm»

This type of behavior can cause your child psychological harm that may be irreversible.

Not exact matches

They do not cause any long - term psychological harm to the children that experience them - phew!

Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child... Increased duration of breastfeeding confers significant health and developmental benefits for the child and the mother... There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychological or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer.»

They don't cause any long - term psychological harm to your child.

can make your child feel shamed, which can cause lasting psychological harm over time.

The Academy was an anchor organization on an amicus brief for the case signed by child health and education organizations, outlining harms to children whose parents face deportation and arguing that lifting the circuit's injunction would provide millions of children with the family stability and security essential to their psychological, physical and emotional well - being.

The team reports that educating youngsters about the risks in an non-patronizing way as well as teaching them about respect and having an open anti-bullying approach to relationships is vital to reduce the risk of children and teens being exposed to potential harm, whether physical or psychological, originating online.

We all want to keep our kids from harm, but child psychologist David Elkind explains that sheltering them from every problem and minor injury has lifelong psychological implications.

Even if an abuser never lays hands on them, children who witness domestic abuse often face long - term psychological harm as a result.

As a mother myself the thought of a child with psychological issues strong enough to want to harm their mother is downright scary.

I've noticed they cause psychological harm to their own children (without admitting it) bec of their psychotic narcissistic condition — which is one of those conditions almost impossible to overcome bec in their view nothing is ever wrong with them, it's always something wrong with other people.

(i) Whether or not there is a risk that the child would be subject to the words and deeds, such as physical violence, which would cause physical or psychological harm (referred to as «violence, etc.» in the following item) by the petitioner, in the state of habitual residence;

More troubling was her behaviour and the psychological harm she was causing the children.

(ii) Whether or not there is a risk that the respondent would be subject to violence, etc. by the petitioner in such a manner as to cause psychological harm to the child, if the respondent and the child entered into the state of habitual residence;

Hurtful words directed at a child, for example, may have emotional or psychological effects that can harm a child as seriously — or even more seriously — than some incidences of physical or sexual abuse.

If your child has suffered from a form of emotional or psychological abuse, you may be entitled to compensation for the harm sustained by your child.

But child abuse does happen and in many cases, it results in long - lasting physical, psychological, and emotional harm to the child.

In two cases decided in the last two months, the litigants have argued that return of the child to the child's country of habitual residence would subject the child to grave risk of harm not because of any specific psychological or physical harm directed at the specific child, but because of the civil unrest in the country.

It has stated that it is U.S. policy to «deter child abductions» and that «the Convention's purpose [is] to prevent harms resulting from abductions,» which «can have devastating consequences for a child» and may be «one of the worst forms of child abuse» that «can cause psychological problems ranging from depression and acute stress disorder to posttraumatic stress disorder and identity formation issues» and lead to a child's experiencing «loss of community and stability, leading to loneliness, anger, and fear of abandonment» and «may prevent the child from forming a relationship with the left - behind parent, impairing the child's ability to mature.»

A legal defense in Hague Convention child abduction cases when defending against lawsuit for the return a minor child to the child's state of habitual residence because the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or placed in an intolerable situation.

The children's mother opposed the application, relying on the Article 13 (b) defence of the Convention, setting out that there was a grave risk that the children's return to the USA would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation.

In this case, where a father seeks the return of his son to his country of habitual residence (Bulgaria), the main issues for determination under Article 13 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 are whether a return of the child (L) to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation and whether L objects to returning to Bulgaria, and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which his views should be taken into accChild Abduction 1980 are whether a return of the child (L) to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation and whether L objects to returning to Bulgaria, and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which his views should be taken into accchild (L) to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation and whether L objects to returning to Bulgaria, and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which his views should be taken into account.

While it is not possible or appropriate to avoid litigation in every divorce or dissolution, children are much less likely to suffer long - term emotional or psychological harm when an out - of - court solution can be reached.

In my own case, having researched the matter very carefully, and having unearthed a great deal of contemporary & corroborating psychological and sociological scientific evidence demonstrating the harm caused to children as a result of overseas parental separation, I felt that I had an absolute duty to my children to fight the application.

The court held that the applications judge should have assumed jurisdiction over the custody issue in light of the serious psychological harm that the children would suffer if ordered to return to Egypt.

A dog bite can cause physical harm, pain, and psychological damage where people especially children feel vulnerable and insecure in their place of residence and neighborhood.

«Domestic violence can also include threats to harm children, other members of a family, pets and property... Domestic violence can also take the form of psychological / emotional abuse, verbal abuse, and economic / financial abuse.»

Article 13 provides three exceptions to the requirement that a child be returned, including where there is a «grave risk» that the child would be exposed to «physical or psychological harm» or placed in «an intolerable situation».

The Appellant alleged several grounds of appeal, including that the judge erred in his analysis of the child's habitual residence, in concluding that the Respondent had not acquiesced in the child's relocation, in failing to respect an order of the Montana court that it had no jurisdiction over the child's custody, and in failing to give effect to Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention, which allows a court to refuse to return a child where there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

The order authorizes the apprehension, by a guardian or police officer, and the confinement in a protective safe house, of a child whose use of alcohol and / or drugs has or may cause significant psychological or social harm to the child, or physical harm to the child or others.

The mechanism is subject to four discretionary exceptions: a time limitation; lack of custody rights or acquiescence in the removal or retention of a parent; grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child; and the «voice, not a veto» right of a child to express its objection to a return order.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has previously held, the threshold of harm to a child (both physical or psychological) is a high one, requiring that the harm would amount to an intolerable situation (Thomson, at 596).

In this Act: «abuse», of a child or young person, means -... /... (d) emotional abuse (including psychological abuse) if -(i) the child or young person has seen or heard the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child or young person has a domestic relationship, the exposure to which has caused or is causing significant harm to the wellbeing or development of the child or young person;... /...

Courts appear largely to have equated the standard of «serious harm» in s. 23 of the CLRA with the standard of «grave risk [of] expos [ing] the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise plac [ing] the child in an intolerable situation» in art. 13 (b) of The Hague Convention.

With respect to the second and third factors, the children would likely suffer serious psychological and emotional harm if now forced to return to Nigeria against their will.

Justice Laskin considered the risks of both physical and psychological harm to the Ojeikere children.

As far as the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations, they just make up whatever they want based on their own personal beliefs and inherent personal biases, they then apply some psychological constructs in entirely haphazard and idiosyncratic ways to justify whatever biased and idiosyncratic conclusion was reached, and they usually take a middle - of - the road risk - management response of recommending the status quo with the addition of «reunification therapy» and an admonishment to both parents that the degree of parental conflict is harming the child and that the parents need to co-parent better.

The risks of ordinary therapy to alienated children not only includes increasing psychological harm but may now include medical / health ramifications in the form of consequences from what is referred to as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).

Under the Hague Convention (see below), the court is not obliged to order the return if it would expose the child to physical or psychological harm, or put him / her in an intolerable situation.

It was expressed as overwhelming sadness and hopelessness, and manifest most dramatically by the high prevalence of self - harm in young mothers and psychological symptoms in their children.

Adverse childhood experiences are childhood events, varying in severity and often chronic, occurring within a child's family or social environment that cause harm or distress, thereby disrupting the child's physical or psychological health and development (Kalmakis & Chandler, 2014: p. 1495).

When the court intervenes in ways that disrupt the child's relationship with the custodial parent, serious psychological harm may occur to the child as well as the parent.»

(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

a child has been exposed or subjected, or is at risk of being exposed or subjected, to psychological harm.

(a) circumstances that give rise to a need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence;

where the child is exposed to psychological harm, including by being exposed to family violence

The second primary consideration is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

Children Who See Too Much: Lessons from the Child Witness to Violence Project (2002) Betsy McAlister Groves In this book, the author demonstrates how children understand, respond to, and are affected by violence, and that trauma created by family members can cause the most psychological harm to very young cChildren Who See Too Much: Lessons from the Child Witness to Violence Project (2002) Betsy McAlister Groves In this book, the author demonstrates how children understand, respond to, and are affected by violence, and that trauma created by family members can cause the most psychological harm to very young cchildren understand, respond to, and are affected by violence, and that trauma created by family members can cause the most psychological harm to very young childrenchildren.

The Academy was an anchor organization on an amicus brief for the case signed by child health and education organizations, outlining harms to children whose parents face deportation and arguing that lifting the circuit's injunction would provide millions of children with the family stability and security essential to their psychological, physical and emotional well - being.

To the extent that professional incompetence in diagnosing narcissistic and borderline personality processes involved in a cross-generational parent - child coalition causes developmental, emotional, and psychological harm to the child client through the loss of an affectionally bonded attachment relationship with a normal - range and affectionally available parent (i.e., the parent who is rejected by the child as a result of the undiagnosed and so untreated psychopathology and pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic / (borderline) allied and supposedly «favored» parent within the parent - child coalition), this may represent negligent professional practice that is directly responsible for causing harm to the client.