Into Child Psychology: Compensating The Needs Of The Youth

It is interesting enough to work at a temporary shelter catering to less fortunate youths. The best part of it was not just by merely being part of their lives but them being part of yours. There is this certain excitement as they smile and hug and tell how their day was. However, there instances that worry takes in as to whether you are can cater to their needs and meet the demands without them telling you what about it.

At times these children are unaware of what's wrong with them.

All they can think of is how unfortunate they are.

Sad truth is we focused too much on their material needs thinking how deprived they are. Emotional needs are met through caring attention. There are however other needs that should be met in order for the child not to end up as an adult having undesirable attitudes.

Background check is not just done on children living in such institutions for the sake of learning about their families and if they really are in need of help. This is done to learn more as to why the child has a certain attitude that may bring negative results to him or her in the future.

At times we may get annoyed by the lying habits of a certain child. She may see this as somewhat a great way to cover up for mistakes. There may also be instances where she involves herself on problems that are actually not for her to divulge in. She tells this problem to the adults, or say sorry to someone instead of the co inmate who is involved. This is her way of asking for attention. There are chances that certain needs were not met as a child and that family has even exposed her to situation that made her that way. Not being able to understand this will bring her to believe even her lies.

Here's a situation: There are two girls named "Stephany" and "Gia". They are ages 13 and 5. One thing that yours truly has noticed on Gia is that she is she can't stop from eating. At the Christmas party last year, she concentrated her attention to the bowl of chips on the buffet table rather than watching the program. An older sister (co inmate) took the bowl away from her as she sees this not due right for the Gia who has eaten a lot, however Gia did follow to where the bowl was taken and ended up finishing the contents by her. Stephany on the other hand is a skinny girl who limits her food intake less than what is necessary. She at times doesn't eat snack or is choosy with the food she eats.

Both girls manifest certain traits best explained with their oral needs. Gia's oral stage was not compensated well enough thus ending her in a certain characteristic where she needs to eat and eat and eat. With Stephany, who was in the institution since she was a new born babe, grew up being compensated (and I mean well spoiled) by the people there. Her oral needs were well met. There are still reasons as to why she ended up lessening her food intake: she was conscious of her appearance. She had gained this attention to her looks due to her experiences with her mother when she was with her for summer.

They are kids that ask for attention not just because they are deprived by love and material things. Court records have files of adoption children being abandoned by their parents (sadly there are files which are also showing the darker side of youth turning into criminals due to deprivation). They are in need of guidance to face the world ahead.

Source : http://www.articlesbase.com/teenagers-articles/into-child-psychology-compensating-the-needs-of-the-youth-1957296.html

Efforts to use Columbia decision to reopen Atlantic Yards eminent domain, EIS cases rejected by Court of Appeals

They were both long-shot efforts, but attempts by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) and plaintiffs organized by DDDB to reopen two key Atlantic Yards cases have been rejected by the state Court of Appeals.

Thus the eminent domain case--but not the pending challenge to the actual condemnation--is over, as is the case challenging the environmental review.

This narrows the remaining court cases related to the project to three, though two are essentially versions of the same case.

Columbia parallel?

In both unsuccessful efforts, the appellants invoked a similar case in which the Appellate Division blocked the Empire State Development Corporation's use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion, citing, among other things, the use of "underutilization" to determine blight.

The decisions by the Court of Appeals imply that they will either overturn the lower court's decision in the Columbia case or they will overturn it on other grounds, such as the court's finding of the ESDC's bad faith in its blight finding.

Eminent domain

The plaintiffs in the eminent domain case had tried to reopen the case, citing the pending appeal in the Columbia case. It was rejected without comment on February 18.

EIS case

The plaintiffs in the case challenging the environmental impact statement (EIS) had filed a motion to renew their previous motion for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's decision rejecting an appeal of a state Supreme Court judge's decision.

Again, the Columbia case, known as Kaur, was cited. The motion stated:

The crux of Appellants’ argument can be found in a comparison of Justice [James] Catterson’s opinions in the two cases. In Develop Don’t Destroy, Justice Catterson wrote a scathing concurrence, more properly characterized as a dissent, but nevertheless concurred finding that there was sufficient evidence to defer to ESDC. However in Kaur, Justice Catterson, writing for the majority, on virtually identical facts found there was insufficient basis to support ESDC’s determination and that it was not entitled to such deference. There is no significant difference between the facts or the underlying theories in the two cases to warrant disparate results on either the law or the facts.

It was rejected without comment on February 16.

What's left?

Still pending is an unusual challenge to the condemnation effort, claiming that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) should issue a new Determination and Findings under the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law.

Justice Abraham Gerges put the condemnation on hold on January 29, but his decision is expected shortly.

A parallel lawsuit making the same claims has not yet been heard in court.

Also pending is a case challenging the ESDC's 2009 approval of the Modified General Project Plan. Justice Marcy Friedman, who heard oral arguments last month, is expected to rule within a month or two.

In case you're wondering

Why is this news late? Because Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, understandably, chose not to announce it, and the Empire State Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner, less understandably, also chose not to announce it. And I took a while to notice it.

Posted by Norman Oder at 3:20 AM
Source : http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/efforts-to-use-columbia-decision-to.html