LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     23 September 2010

SC judgement on Visitation rights

I am not sure if this judgement has been posted earlier. If yes, apologies. if no, it is a recent one and may be a relevant one for many. 



Bench: G Singhvi, A K Ganguly



Supreme court Judgement 


(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19935/2009) Vikram Vir Vohra ..Appellant(s) Versus

Shalini Bhalla ..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T



1. Leave granted.


2. This appeal by the husband, impugns the judgment and order dated 27.07.09 of Delhi High Court which upheld the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge passed in relation to applications filed by both the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter "the Act"). The impugned judgment 1

permitted the respondent-wife to take the child with her to Australia.

3. The material facts of the case are that the parties to the present appeal were married as per the Hindu rites on 10.12.2000. A child, Master Shivam, was born to them on 05.08.02. In view of irreconcilable differences between the parties they had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act and filed a petition to that effect and on 05.09.06 a decree of divorce on mutual consent was passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

4. As regards the custody of the child there was some settlement between the parties and according to the appellant the same was incorporated in paras 7 and 9 of the petition filed under Section 13-B (2) of the Act. Those paragraphs are as under:

"The parties have agreed that the custody of the minor son Master Shivam shall remain with the mother, petitioner No.1 who being the natural mother is also the guardian of the son Master Shivam as per law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. It is, however, agreed that the father petitioner shall have right of 2

visitation only to the extent that the child Master Shivam shall be with the father, petitioner No.2, once in a fortnight from 10 AM to 6.30 PM on a Saturday. Petitioner No.2 shall collect the child Master Shivam from WZ-64, 2nd Floor Shiv Nagar Lane No.4, New Delhi-58 at 10 AM on a Saturday where the child is with his mother. And on the same day at by 6.30 PM, the petitioner No.2 would leave the child back at the same place with the mother i.e. petitioner No.1 and in case he does not do so petitioner No.1 the mother shall collect the child from petitioner No.2 on the same day. Both parties undertake before this Hon'ble Court that they would not create any obstruction in implementation of this arrangement.

The petitioner No.1 shall take adequate care of the child in respect of health, education etc., at her own cost. In case the petitioner No.1 changes her address or takes the child outside Delhi, she shall keep petitioner No.2 informed one week in advance about the address and telephone nos. and the place where the child would be staying with the mother, to enable the petitioner No.2 to remain in touch with the child.

The petitioner No.1 has received all her Stridhan and other valuables, articles and other possessions, and nothing remains due to her from the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 and the child Shivam has no claim to any property or financial commitment from petitioner No.2 and all her claims are settled fully and finally".


5. Thereafter the respondent-wife filed applications dated 07.11.06 and 9.05.08 and the 3

appellant-husband also filed applications dated 17.11.07 and 16.02.09 under Section 26 of the Act seeking modification of those terms and conditions about the custody of the child.

6. The respondent was basing her claim on the fact that she wanted to take the child with her to Australia where she was employed for gain with a request to revoke the visitation rights granted to the appellant for meeting the child. This she felt will be conducive to the paramount interest and welfare of the child. The appellant on the other hand sought permanent custody of the child under the changed circumstances alleging that it is not in the interest of the child to leave India permanently.


7. The Trial Court vide its order dated 06.04.09 took notice of the fact that in the joint petition of divorce, parties voluntarily agreed that the custody of the child shall remain with the mother and father shall have only visiting rights, in the manner indicated in the mutual divorce decree. The Court modified the terms and 4

conditions of the custody and visitation rights of the appellant about the minor child. By its order the Trial Court had allowed the respondent to take the child with her to Australia but also directed her to bring the child back to India for allowing the father visitation rights twice in a year i.e. for two terms - between 18th of December to 26th of January and then from 26th of June to 11th of July.


8. Being aggrieved by that order of the Trial Court, the appellant appealed to the High Court. It was argued by the appellant since no decree was passed by the Court while granting mutual divorce, an application under Section 26 of the Act does not lie and in the absence of specific provision in the decree regarding the custody and visitation rights of the child, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition afresh after passing of the decree.

9. The High Court took into consideration the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and was of the view that the aforesaid provision is 5

intended to enable the Court to pass suitable orders from time to time to protect the interest of minor children. However, the High Court held that after the final order is passed in original petition of divorce for the custody of the minor child, the other party cannot file any number of fresh petitions ignoring the earlier order passed by the Court.


10. The Court took into consideration that even if the terms and conditions regarding the custody and visitation rights of the child are not specifically contained in the decree, they do form part of the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. It was of the view that absence of the terms and conditions in the decree does not disentitle the respondent to file an application under Section 26 of the Act seeking revocation of the visitation rights of the appellant.


11. It is important to mention here that the learned Judge of the High Court had personally interviewed the child who was about 7 years old 6

to ascertain his wishes. The child in categorical terms expressed his desire to be in the custody and guardianship of his mother, the respondent. The child appeared to be quite intelligent. The child was specifically asked if he wanted to live with his father in India but he unequivocally refused to go with or stay with him. He made it clear in his expression that he was happy with his mother and maternal grandmother and desired only to live with his mother. The aforesaid procedure was also followed by the learned Trial Court and it was also of the same view after talking with the child.


12. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court the appellant has approached this Court and hence this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.


13. We have also talked with the child in our chambers in the absence of his parents. We found him to be quite intelligent and 7

discerning. The child is in school and from the behaviour of the child, we could make out that he is well behaved and that he is receiving proper education.


14. The child categorically stated that he wants to stay with his mother. It appears to us that the child is about 8-10 years of age and is in a very formative and impressionable stage in his life. The welfare of the child is of paramount importance in matters relating to child custody and this Court has held that welfare of the child may have a primacy even over statutory provisions [See Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayant Ganguli - (2008) 7 SCC 673, para 19, page 678]. We have considered this matter in all its aspects.

15. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, the order of custody of the child and the visitation rights of the 8

appellant cannot be changed as they are not reflected in the decree of mutual divorce, is far too hyper technical an objection to be considered seriously in a custody proceeding. A child is not a chattel nor is he/she an article of personal property to be shared in equal halves.


16. In a matter relating to custody of a child, this Court must remember that it is dealing with a very sensitive issue in considering the nature of care and affection that a child requires in the growing stages of his or her life. That is why custody orders are always considered interlocutory orders and by the nature of such proceedings custody orders cannot be made rigid and final. They are capable of being altered and moulded keeping in mind the needs of the child.


17. In Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A Chakramakkal - [(1973) 1 SCC 840], a three judge Bench of 9

this Court held that all orders relating to custody of minors were considered to be temporary orders. The learned judges made it clear that with the passage of time, the Court is entitled to modify the order in the interest of the minor child. The Court went to the extent of saying that even if orders are based on consent, those orders can also be varied if the welfare of the child so demands.


18. The aforesaid principle has again been followed in Dhanwanti Joshi vs. Madhav Unde - [(1998) 1 SCC 112].

19. Even though the aforesaid principles have been laid down in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, these principles are equally applicable in dealing with the custody of a child under Section 26 of the Act since in both the situations two things are common; the first, being orders relating to custody of a growing child and 10

secondly, the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child. Such considerations are never static nor can they be squeezed in a strait jacket. Therefore, each case has to be dealt with on the basis of its peculiar facts.


20. In this connection, the principles laid down by this Court in Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpalreported in (2009) 1 SCC 42 are very pertinent. Those principles in paragraphs 42 and 43 are set out below:

"42. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for custody of children and declares that in any proceeding under the said Act, the court could make, from time to time, such interim orders as it might deem just and proper with respect to custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible.

43. The principles in relation to the custody of a minor child are well

settled. In determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the "welfare of the child" and not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force".


21. That is why this Court has all along insisted on focussing the welfare of the child and accepted it to be the paramount consideration guiding the Court's discretion in custody order. See Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka - [AIR 1982 SC 1276], para 17.


22. In the factual and legal background considered above, the objections raised by the appellant do not hold much water.

23. Now coming to the question of the child being taken to Australia and the consequent variations in the visitation rights of the father, this Court finds that the Respondent mother is getting a better job opportunity in Australia. Her autonomy on her personhood cannot be curtailed by Court on the ground of a prior order of custody of the child. Every person has a right to develop his or her potential. In fact a right to development is a basic human right. The respondent-mother cannot be asked to choose between her child 12

and her career. It is clear that the child is very dear to her and she will spare no pains to ensure that the child gets proper education and training in order to develop his faculties and ultimately to become a good citizen. If the custody of the child is denied to her, she may not be able to pursue her career in Australia and that may not be conducive either to the development of her career or to the future prospects of the child. Separating the child from his mother will be disastrous to both.


24. Insofar as the father is concerned, he is already established in India and he is also financially solvent. His visitation rights have been ensured in the impugned orders of the High Court. His rights have been varied but have not been totally ignored. The appellant-father, for all these years, lived without the child and got used to it. 13

25. In the application dated 9.5.2008 filed before the Additional District Judge, Delhi, the mother made it clear in paragraph 12 that she is ready to furnish any undertaking or bond in order to ensure her return to India and to make available to the father, his visitation rights subject to the education of the child. This Court finds that so far as the order which had been passed by the High Court, affirming the order of the Trial Court, the visitation rights of the appellant-father have been so structured as to be compatible with the educational career of the child. This Court finds that in this matter judicial discretion has been properly balanced between the rights of the appellant and those of the respondent.


26. In that view of the matter, this Court refuses to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed with the direction that the respondent-mother, 14

before taking the child to Australia, must file an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court of Additional District Judge-01, (West), Delhi within a period of four weeks from date. No order as to costs.





New Delhi

March 25, 2010



 9 Replies

aflatoon dash (health)     23 September 2010

I dont think this forum had this judement thanks for posting it .But I feel supreme court should come out with judement and suggestions towards shared parenting and prevention of international abduction also.Its very sad to see any parent loose achild.Parents are assets of child and no one should be allowed to deprive the child from his assets.


Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     23 September 2010

Thank you Aflatoon.  I completely  understand and appreciate your stance on  shared parenting. But while talking about it, even without ourselves being aware of it we focus on our deprivation and   forget the child in a way, though we  talk about child' s paramount interest. Now I am not advocating against shared parenting---that is what it should be. But we also have to understand the hard reality that if parents are not civil with each other even for the sake of their child, the child suffers the most. In any case the child would like to see that parents respect each other as the child's parents to make him/her feel comfortable.  If one parent spews hatred about other parent, and humiliate the other parent in front of the child, it becomes very difficult to manage the hurt of the child. As well, if the child is older,s/he has his/her own heavy study schedules, and their own social circle; so may not like to be shuttled between parents perpetually, especially if the child rejects the other man or woman in his/her parent's life. 

It is therefore very important that parents are sent for  councelling for parenting by experienced, and highly qualified professional councellors.If any one of the parents fail to understand the necessity of mutual respect for each other as parents of the child, he/she would not be fit for the joint custody to protect the best interest of the child. 


Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     23 September 2010

Apart from dealing with Child custody issue, this judgement also accepts a working mother to have both career and child custody. I do not remember one particular  judgement correctly, but it had had said that a working mother or a mother who is engaged in higher studies is not fit for child custody. 

aflatoon dash (health)     23 September 2010

As a parent   I understand parenting as a lif e long process.Its my primary duty to encourage positive relationship of my children with my spouse.If I dont do it its wrong .I am afraid that I disagree with the staemnet that Child rejects the other parent.It is obvious that the controlling parent is using the child as a pawn to hurt and damage the absent parent through childs behaviour .Child is carrying the hidden agendas of the controlling parent .Intelligent judges see this as serious deficit in parenting skills of the controlling parent and have some times fined or threatened to change  the custody of the child if the child rejects or avoids the absent(non custodial parent) and the custodial parentr sabotages the visitation.I  have no sympathy for the custodial father who do the same and brain washes the child against their absent mother.

It is very important to realize children are vulnerable and their Parents are their assests and no body should be permitted to destroy these asssets.Therefore the shared custody /joint custody should be seriously contemplated.Any spouse who engages in the competetive relationship with the absent  parent is practicing deviant parenting skills.Indian courts should openly admonish such spouse whether male or female and unfortunately its more in female gender world wide..

Yes when there is conflict in divorce  all relationships suffer Relationship of the child suffers the most..Its prime need that divorcing spouse should come to an understanding about children and try to resolve the matters but it does not happen and courts are witness to bitter fights  over children and blame game ensues.Immature spouse shows "control freak" streaks and the child and absent parent suffers and over period of time as law just does not have remedy child becomes either the "fatherless" or "motherless" in society.

How does it impact the child-It affects his "role model".It affects his trust in intimate relationship in future.It affects his self esteem as he wrongly believes either my father was bad or my mother was bad.While none may be true.He may have problem in forming trusting relatinship.He is more likely to be prone to depression .drugs,conduct problems ,underperformance in academics..Its so sad. Unfortunately this is not  realized by the controlling spouse and damage to child happens.I do agree mothers are better caregivers and caretaers of children than mazority of fathers and they have no rplacement in their childrens life but reducing the father to just a "visitor "is very very sad thing.

 IF Any spouse who objects to the visitation of non custodial parent or any child who refuses the visitation schedule Courts should warn the custodial spouse immidietly and order for the asessesing the parenting skill of the custodial parent  and Parental alienation syndrome in the child from an independent and court appointed psychiatrist/psychologist.All custody and visitation cases should be disposed off in 6 months just as alomony /maintenance cases  .and not  like years of battle in court.


Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     23 September 2010

Aflatoon, please read my sentence again. There seems to be a slight misunderstanding. What I have written is that especially when the child rejects the other man or women in his/her parents' life. I did not say if a child rejects either his/her mother or father. 

That said, while agreeing on the merits of the joint custody,  my emphasis remain on counceling for the parents to give up their egos post divorce to get prepared for and do justice with the joint custody. Joint custody would involve joint planning and joint discussion about the child's growth and that needs an amount of maturity on part of both the parents. Not necessarily highly educated or highly affluent parent /parents would pass this test of maturity. Hence the counceling sessions at least should bring them to the level where they can talk with each other and behave with each other in a respectful in their parental role. 

aflatoon dash (health)     23 September 2010

Yes Renuka ,I agree that mediation is important and so is the role of psychologist and psychiatrsit in the court proceedings in volving the child custody.But neither the parents have intelectual sophetication and nor the sorry to say that judges have promptness to order "evaluation" in custody/visitation cases despite evidence to contrary.

Rejection of absent parent by the child is another major phenomenon damaging the society.I dont say that several times absent parent is at fault but whenever the noncustodial parent is fighting visitation /custody his status and contribution in childs life is rduced to being a visitor only.Parental alienation Syndrome is working havoc on  the child psychology.It is raising the number of fatherless children in society.It is giving rise to single parenting which is becoming afaishon .I find it sick.

Examples of single parenting are

                    Infamous Fatherless People













other problem related to father less children are



High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.    


A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.


Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)


Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).


Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.


Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.


Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate s*x roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.


Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

 But our country has inherent problem every 4 th marriage is failing or falling and in population of 110  corores it amounts to lets say 20 corores married only then 5 corores need medation services.We have only 7-8 thousand psychiatrist and say 10 ,000 counsellars and very few in government services.To add to this we have mental barrier to spea to counsellars.Then many counsellars have no clue about PAS(parental alienation syndrome) nor any clue on Personality disorders(lyeing ,deceiving,misrepresenting,litiguous behaviour,false accusations,child kidnapping etc).

                   We just dont need counselling we need awareness and we need more of trained and perceptive professionals whether at judiciary or at health care.Just having more mediation centres will not solve the problem due to ignorance and attitudnal barriers.Conflict in couples is so high due to several undiagnosed /untreated mental/emotinal problems and children are used as pawns by influencial,more rich parents without much botheration to parenting skills.                                                                                                                                                                                         AFLATOON

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     23 September 2010

Agreeing with your post( with  reservation on single parenting being fashionable it is a heavy responsibility and joint custody should lighten it, and not accepting the study results in its entirety) I would say I did not mean mediation centres in the courts. Also, giving a frightening picture of fatherless or motherless children will not help much unless parental attitudes are corrected. As I said, joint custody involves,  joint planning and for that both parents need to be on the speaking terms, sharing trust as far as child is concerned( though it is because of lack of trust for each other or contempt for each other that the marriage would have broken down). Separated parents have to relearn trusting as far as the welfare of their children are concerned. In one of my previous threads I had supported the joint custody--who will not? but then we need to look into the problems too that would need to be sorted out in case of joint custody. These problems would not get solved automatically, because again at the risk of repeating myself, these problems surrounds around respectful way of talking between parents and  respecting each other as parents of the child and learning to trust each other ( it is a process which needs openness of minds from both sides) and that needs a realization that is child- centred and not self -centred. 

I liked your expression perceptive people. Attitudinal barriers would be solved only when there is a realisation from both sides that the child needs mutual respect between the separated parents, it is the need of the child, and child would be happy and healthy for it . Call it counselling,  awareness generation through workshops, or one to one interaction, the bottom line is ensuring  respectful  parental communication which is the bottom line of joint custody.  

Responsible parenting should also form part of the academic curriculum  at the higher secondary and college level so that our future generations are more mature, and to use your word, more perceptive to raise their children with dignity they deserve and that dignity includes giving dignity to each other as parents. 

Sorry if many things previously said are repeated here, but I felt while talking about joint custody, we necessarily have to talk about how to put the communication of mother and father on track: non blaming, non hurting, non abusive and restore trust in each other's capacities to take up shared parenting responsibilities post divorce/separation. 



1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     23 September 2010

1. The Author of this post as well as the first Replier above to this thread post do have valid points for public consumptions and I would say yes this citation was overdue in Family Law section but was hinted by me in another post just fewdays back while replying to a MCD briefs of a wife (mother) therein.

Well the shared parenting is a in-thing in Western jurisprudence and both of you might get surprised to know that in many cases it becomes so difficult to adhere to visitation and shared custody that the other ex spouse approaches court to give away the shared parenting rights.

3. Two other famous people missed by Aflatoon from the tabled list are Monica Lewinski (the famous Bill Gate perjury case one) and the unfortunate girl Scarlette (the
Goa rape and murder case one) and these are some of the childs who were also brought up as fatherless by respective single mothers. I don’t want to blame the mothers but that is the hard reality in some society whereas in Indian context our society is more harmonious bonded together compared to Western society hence shared parenting here in India is more a welcome concept than what could apply aptly for West society.

4. Well that was about what is current scenario in the Western jurisprudence. Switching to Indian context and analysing the Hon'ble SC quoted Judgment I would say that the comment of Hon'ble Lordship is not pragmatic clubbed with looking at the conducive growth of a child simple reason being a child needs both sides of parents to grow to become a humane being and depriving the child of one side of love and affection and parenting is not the right message being given by Hon'ble SC.

5. Everyone knows here what happens in custody contested cases; the custodial parent alienates the non-custodial parent from visitation and normal company of child and the case before the courts start climbing to superior courts in days to come and more alienation happens and ultimately when it reaches the highest Appellate Court the Hon'ble Lordships are left with no other option than pass a fleeting remark "we see that the child is well settled with the mother and or father hence we donot feel to intervene with the Orders of the HC.....etc.".

6. Here the issue is not that the child is well heeled or otherwise but the qualitative question is who is instrumental in such one sided bonding; in my opinion the blame rests on insensitive trial Courts which is at the bottom of all these Appeals and counters and cross cases and it is the trial courts which needs to be educated on the merits of "shared parenting" at quite early stage of the litigation when two parents are not wise enough to decide among themselves the reasonable “welfare of the child”.

7. A que. also pops up at this juncture which is to ask all those adults reading this message suppose everything is well at your home and I ask you at your this adult age a Que. and the Que. is Among your two parents whom you like to choose to stay ? Can you give me a answer being adult ? No na so how can a child at tender age be asked such un-scientific questions by Lordships when trial court has not given enough interaction to child to visit other side of the family (inl. non custodial parent) ?????

That is where the root of all lis to problems stands currently in Indian Courts !

8. However, in my opinion as soon as a custody case comes to the floor of trial court following are must;

(i) Decide the entire case in flat 2 months with everyday hearing and it is a must that both parents are present in all hearings. GWA as well as HMA as well as FCA are special Acts and does not require CPC procedural Law to follow and these three Acts ever overrides IEA so it is a lame reasoning to say that only during Evidence stage a parent need to be present ! So this 2 months time line is a doable must to follow by trial court.

(ii) From day one trial court should award su-motto minimum 2 hours visitation in neutral environs to non custodial parent and his / her side of family. here, the custodial parent should be Ordered to keep a visible distance and non hearing distance from the child during minimum 2 hrs. of visitation. Now it is upto the non custodial parent and his / her side of family to utilise the grace of the trial Court or not. The second think this suggestion brings to forte is that the verbal abuse and in-fighting / ego clashes of custodial parent with other parents are totally removed for 60 days. The last beauty of this suggestion is that non custodial parent and his/her side of family gets quite reasonable time to express / show / participate their side of love and affection and child does not become alienated and also confusion in the minds of the child is also removed for these 2 months etc.. 

We also need to understand the Myths and Facts of shared parenting merits and demerits to make a harmonious tomorrow being sensible wise parent respectively through the eyes of our CHILD.

We in India need programs such as propogated by Living Value Education lines https://www.livingvalues.net/

That is all to begin with as I am fully aware of the long march ahead for non-custodial parents be it of either gender and both Author and above Replier are on right track……….

Attached File : 16 16 sharedparentingresearch.pdf downloaded: 348 times
1 Like

Chandra (owner)     17 May 2012

Respected Sirs! Can i quote the research material that analysed fatherless parenting posted by Aflatoon in my child custody case ? If so, where I can quote it? In the Petition itself ? Or along with the citations. Plz help me with your advice.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register