Children's Referendum - Why You Should Vote No

freedomtoday · 03-11-2012 8:08pm #1

Why should you vote No on Nov 10?

I) NO MENTION OF THE FAMILY: The Article doesn’t mention the family once. This marks a significant departure from the norm. “Parents” are mentioned a dismal 3 times. The family? 0 times. The first reason to vote no.

II) MARITAL STATUS IRRELEVANT: The very first subsection declares that the State can exercise its power whether the parents are married are not. This is a significant provision. At the very least, it casts a shadow over the value of marriage. It also makes the traditional family unit of a married couple with children less autonomous.

III) ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS: For the first time, adoption of children will be promoted in the Constitution. Adoption of children who already have a mother and a father, that is. Section 42A.2 states that “provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.” In other words, the State will have a right to remove children from their parents, and will be safeguarded by the Constitution in doing the same.

IV) INTRODUCTION OF CHILDREN’S VIEWS: In any adoption proceedings, the State can now use the child’s “views” to support its case. In other words, it can ask the child what he or she would like. This is extremely worrying for two reasons. Firstly, the provision is not tempered by any mention of the parent’s views. Secondly, the provision could easily lead to a culture of child-manipulation on the part of the State to support its cause (as is rife in other jurisdictions).

V) STATE INTERVENTION MAXIMIZED: The intervention of the State in family affairs is maximized by the new article. The existing article 42.5 provides that the State may intervene “where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children.” The new article provides, however, that the State may intervene where the parents “fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected.” This maximizes State intervention because the focus is shifted from the parents (existing article) to the children (new article). The State is granted sweeping powers to access children because the focus is shifted from where it should be – the parents’ responsibility – to where the State wants it to be – a vague reference to child’s safety and welfare.

Keep Children Safe, and Vote No on Nov 10th.

bbam · 03-11-2012 8:37pm

freedomtoday wrote: »

I) NO MENTION OF THE FAMILY: The Article doesn’t mention the family once. This marks a significant departure from the norm. “Parents” are mentioned a dismal 3 times. The family? 0 times. The first reason to vote no.

It mentions Parents & it mentions children... Children+Parents = A FAMILY. Arguing this point is just being pedantic.

freedomtoday wrote: »

II) MARITAL STATUS IRRELEVANT: The very first subsection declares that the State can exercise its power whether the parents are married are not. This is a significant provision. At the very least, it casts a shadow over the value of marriage. It also makes the traditional family unit of a married couple with children less autonomous.

Marital status is absolutely irrelevant regarding the welfare of children. The same standards should be applied to any case no matter if the parents are married or not. If a child is being damaged or abused what difference if the parents are married or not.

freedomtoday wrote: »

III) ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS: For the first time, adoption of children will be promoted in the Constitution. Adoption of children who already have a mother and a father, that is. Section 42A.2 states that “provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.” In other words, the State will have a right to remove children from their parents, and will be safeguarded by the Constitution in doing the same.
.

Rightly so... If parents have failed children to the extent that they are not fit parents any more then why shouldn't a child be afforded the oppertunity to be adopted into a proper loving family. There has been far to long an attitude in this country that children are better off with birth parents no matter what happens, its just not the case.
This will also help the many, many children in long term foster families, why shouldn't the arrangement be made permanent.

freedomtoday wrote: »

IV) INTRODUCTION OF CHILDREN’S VIEWS: In any adoption proceedings, the State can now use the child’s “views” to support its case. In other words, it can ask the child what he or she would like. This is extremely worrying for two reasons. Firstly, the provision is not tempered by any mention of the parent’s views. Secondly, the provision could easily lead to a culture of child-manipulation on the part of the State to support its cause (as is rife in other jurisdictions).

It allows in cases where appropriate that the child's view be taken into account. If they are deemed to have a decent opinion it should be heard. It doesn't mean that the outcome will be swayed by the opinion, just that it will be taken into account..
Also your notion of the state manipulating children into giving particular views is just crazy, bordering on paranoid.

freedomtoday wrote: »

V) STATE INTERVENTION MAXIMIZED: The intervention of the State in family affairs is maximized by the new article. The existing article 42.5 provides that the State may intervene “where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children.” The new article provides, however, that the State may intervene where the parents “fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected.” This maximizes State intervention because the focus is shifted from the parents (existing article) to the children (new article). The State is granted sweeping powers to access children because the focus is shifted from where it should be – the parents’ responsibility – to where the State wants it to be – a vague reference to child’s safety and welfare.

.

So your worried about the focus being shifted from the parents to the children. You say its the parents responsibility, indeed a child's welfare is the parents responsibility. However this constitutional change allows the state step in where it has deemed the parents to have failed in their responsibility.
Face facts, some parents do not have their child's best interest to the fore when making decisions, children are neglected, beaten, abused, starved, denied education, tortured, demeaned.... all by their parents, its time the state had the ability to step in and stop this happening.

There has been far too much rubbish talked about the state twisting and lieing, social workers going out of their way to take children from good homes.. This is all scaremongering..

The only people with a reason to vote no on this are those with something to hide... anyone else voting no is just not facing up to the terrible things that a tiny minority of parents inflict on their children, its a shame on those not voting yes...

Annasopra · 03-11-2012 8:55pm

I stopped reading at family....

Anyone who knows they are talking about would know that article 41 of the constitution is the part referring to the family.

fisgon · 03-11-2012 9:32pm

bbam wrote: »

There has been far too much rubbish talked about the state twisting and lieing, social workers going out of their way to take children from good homes.. This is all scaremongering..

.

Scaremongering, exactly. There has been a lot of this, as usual, during this campaign. And as usual, it is coming from one particular direction, which the OP has all the hallmarks of, namely that paranoid conglomeration of YOuth Defence, the Iona Institute, Coir, Alive and John Waters.

In the OP there is the usual guff about the sacredness of "The Family", again as if "The FAmily" were somehow perfect and unchallengeable and inviolable. The usual adherence to the importance of Marital Status, as if being married makes people any better parents. There is nothing new here, no insight, only adherence to the tired old truisms of old Ireland, truisms that have failed again and again. The OP reeks of the delusion that if we only went back to traditional old 1950s Ireland, everything would be ok.

fisgon · 03-11-2012 9:34pm

Oh yeah, and the user name, "Freedomtoday"? Give me a break.

the groutch · 03-11-2012 9:37pm

I'm voting YES just to spite the OP

Gerry T · 03-11-2012 10:03pm

IS there any other reasons to vote no, the only point I would make is the state failed miseraboy when they had the management of children during the clerical abuse cases so will the state step up to the plate and actually defend children that need help. If its only the points raised above then it really is a simple decision on this one !

queen of Umaill · 04-11-2012 1:11am

Do we truly trust the people in power not to abuse the power over our family units.
Personally i don't.
I haven't decided what way to vote yet however have to give it a good read this week and Google every clause and every legality in it.

freedomtoday · 04-11-2012 1:24am

Those who really care about the welfare of children should know better than to vote yes. One look at the horrific record of the state should make up anyone's mind.

queen of Umaill · 04-11-2012 1:31am

freedomtoday wrote: »

Those who really care about the welfare of children should know better than to vote yes. One look at the horrific record of the state should make up anyone's mind.

That is what scares me to be honest.I dont trust them to be in working in best interests of our families or children.
In one breath he says,the children are the most important people in this country,and with other hand he takes away what children need in school and in life.
They dont concentrate on the mental health of children or their physical health.And cut and cut and cut on families which effects children.Funny they dont get effected.They dont have strict laws or jail sentences for murderers of children or for pedophiles etc.. to protect our children.
So many other things they could be fixing,but instead they are having a dip into family units.
So yes you may be right they are doing nothing in best interests of children in Ireland.
Just a small observation.

Curly Judge · 04-11-2012 1:43am

In a crisis situation who should decide what is to be done with the children?
The abusive parents?
The parish priest?
I'm far from being a fan of state intervention but when the chips are down someone has to step in and take authorative action.
We have to get away from the idea that children are the property of their parents.
Responsibility yes , property no.

queen of Umaill · 04-11-2012 1:48am

Curly Judge wrote: »

In a crisis situation who should decide what is to be done with the children?
The abusive parents?
The parish priest?
I'm far from being a fan of state intervention but when the chips are down someone has to step in and take authorative action.
We have to get away from the idea that children are the property of their parents.
Responsibility yes , property no.

And again you trust this state and social workers and judges to make the correct decision for the children?The very same ones who made decisions on sentences for pedos rapists and murderers leaving children with junkie parents to fend for themselves and wander the streets and social workers who chase down innocent families?And a government well what more can you say about government that hasnt been said before that proves point.You honestly trust them?

What country have you been living?

Just a thought.Instead of just jumping on band wagon thinking this is right weight up pros and cons of both maybe?

TheIrishGrover · 04-11-2012 1:50am

Even if I hadn't read the booklet (which I have) my mind was made up:

ISPCC, Bernardos etc all asking us to vote "Yes"

Conservative catholic priests of the most throw-back type (Alive rag) and christian right-wingers and "parent" groups asking us to vote "No"

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Toughie

"Oh, it doesn't protect the family"

No...... Just the children!

Curly Judge · 04-11-2012 1:53am

queen of Umaill wrote: »

And again you trust this state and social workers and judges to make the correct decision for the children?The very same ones who made decisions on sentences for pedos rapists and murderers leaving children with junkie parents to fend for themselves and wander the streets and social workers who chase down innocent families?And a government well what more can you say about government that hasnt been said before that proves point.You honestly trust them?

What country have you been living?

Just a thought.Instead of just jumping on band wagon thinking this is right weight up pros and cons of both maybe?

In a crisis situation who should be empowered to make the decision?
I ask again, who should make the call?
Do you have an answer?

queen of Umaill · 04-11-2012 1:57am

Curly Judge wrote: »

In a crisis situation who should be empowered to make the decision?
I ask again, who should make the call?
Do you have an answer?

Just because we haven't got that answer doesn't mean giving more power to people who have already failed so many children should be given more.
The adoption thing is one i agree with though.
Perhaps barnardos and saint vincent de paul people.The ones who work tirelessly going into these house to feed and help these kids and their families get better?
I personally know they are having to stop the reading help with kids in barnardos. So again you trust the government who are causing such knock on effects?

queen of Umaill · 04-11-2012 2:03am

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Even if I hadn't read the booklet (which I have) my mind was made up:

ISPCC, Bernardos etc all asking us to vote "Yes"

Conservative catholic priests of the most throw-back type (Alive rag) and christian right-wingers and "parent" groups asking us to vote "No"

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Toughie

"Oh, it doesn't protect the family"

No...... Just the children!

Question who protects the children from them?

southsiderosie · 04-11-2012 2:25am

freedomtoday wrote: »

Those who really care about the welfare of children should know better than to vote yes. One look at the horrific record of the state should make up anyone's mind.

MOD NOTE:

freedomtoday, this is a discussion board, not a blog or a campaign site. If you are not willing to engage in discussion and debate with other posters - and just stating that people should vote no without responding to issues that other posters have raised does not constitute debate - then don't bother posting in this forum again.

Cedrus · 04-11-2012 3:22am

freedomtoday wrote: »

II) MARITAL STATUS IRRELEVANT: The very first subsection declares that the State can exercise its power whether the parents are married are not. This is a significant provision. At the very least, it casts a shadow over the value of marriage. It also makes the traditional family unit of a married couple with children less autonomous.

Incorrect. it allows state agencies to intervene in child abuses cases without wasting valuable time on constitutional court challenges by the bat**** brigade. It allows a rational approach to child protection which is a massive improvement on the "She's an unmarried hoor and all her children will be the same unless they're sent to the laundry" style approach of our far too recent past

freedomtoday wrote: »

III) ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS: For the first time, adoption of children will be promoted in the Constitution. Adoption of children who already have a mother and a father, that is. Section 42A.2 states that “provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.” In other words, the State will have a right to remove children from their parents, and will be safeguarded by the Constitution in doing the same.

In other words the state will have the ability to rehome abused children in safe caring homes, without the continued abuse of parents sometimes estranged or even unknowing being able to effectively veto their childrens chances of protection. happiness or even sometimes their sanity.

POI - ALL children have parents, it's a biological necessity, some parents are better than others and their marital status has nothing to do with that.

However we're talking about a constitutional amendment here not a budget and there is no mention yet how this will be resourced when translated into law.

Bohemian1890 · 04-11-2012 3:37am

As Luke 'Ming' Flanagan said, if this referendom goes through we'll have kids going to bed hungry at night, ''with rights'', how great

It's just a smokescreen to guide people away from seeing how bad this government is

Cedrus · 04-11-2012 3:53am

Bohemian1890 wrote: »

As Luke 'Ming' Flanagan said, if this referendom goes through we'll have kids going to bed hungry at night, ''with rights'', how great

It's just a smokescreen to guide people away from seeing how bad this government is

In your own words

Bohemian1890 wrote: »

haw haw haw

Based on your 13 comments so far I don't have any reason to think your comment here has any value, political or otherwise

Curly Judge · 04-11-2012 10:23am

Let us paint a little picture:
Little Jamie was born to an alcholic mother and a come aday, go aday father.
After several attempts to remedy the situation this baby is placed with a loving, capable family and bonds with them and his adoptive siblings.
The mother, who has always put the child second to her thirst for drink and liking for a wide choice of partners, one day has a change of heart and decides she wants the child back. This change of direction for her has more to do with the realization that she is losing certain benifits than any real sense of responcibility for the child.
Under the present law the courts have little option but to wrench the child from it's adoptive home and return it to the Oliver Twist envoirnment of the birth mother.
I have always thought this to be an abomination!
The needs and feelings of the child must have priority.
To be fair I can see a situation wher a child in short term foster care would wish to return to the mother it loves, however inadequate she may be. In these circumstances everything must be done to try to make the loved mother capable of coping and providing a home of sorts.
I think the loved mother should have priority over any other kind of mother.

ciarafem · 04-11-2012 10:26am

Couple of interesting articles in today's newspapers.

In the Sunday Times on page 13 Paul Anthony McDermott, a barrister, states

I have never come across a judge in modern times who said that something in the Irish constitution prevents the courts from placing the best interests of the child first. The fact the state has subscribed to the EU Charter of Rights and the European Convention ensures that courts have already the tools to balance competing rightsThe drafters of the Irish constitution designed a document to protect all citizens. There are no special provisions for the elderly, the sick or the disabled. They are protected simply by virtue of being citizens. By including special rights for children you upset the balance by suggesting that the constitution does not automatically protect the vulnerable, and so they therefore require special provisions

This interpretation is consistent with what Supreme Court Justice Adrian Hardiman said in the Baby Ann case, and what retired SC judge Hugh O'Flahertry said recently in his press article

Curly Judge · 04-11-2012 10:34am

queen of Umaill wrote: »

Just because we haven't got that answer doesn't mean giving more power to people who have already failed so many children should be given more.
The adoption thing is one i agree with though.
Perhaps barnardos and saint vincent de paul people.The ones who work tirelessly going into these house to feed and help these kids and their families get better?
I personally know they are having to stop the reading help with kids in barnardos. So again you trust the government who are causing such knock on effects?

I don't wish to be rude or to try to browbeat anyone but that answer is quite pathetic.

The Idyl Race · 04-11-2012 10:40am

freedomtoday wrote: »

Those who really care about the welfare of children should know better than to vote yes. One look at the horrific record of the state should make up anyone's mind.

One look at the horrific record of Mine Bean Ui Chribin and her henchmen in Roscommon certainly made up my mind.

Teyla Emmagan · 04-11-2012 10:48am

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS: For the first time, adoption of children will be promoted in the Constitution. Adoption of children who already have a mother and a father, that is. Section 42A.2 states that “provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.” In other words, the State will have a right to remove children from their parents, and will be safeguarded by the Constitution in doing the same.

And this is exactly why I will be voting yes.

ciarafem · 04-11-2012 11:27am

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS: For the first time, adoption of children will be promoted in the Constitution. Adoption of children who already have a mother and a father, that is. Section 42A.2 states that “provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.” In other words, the State will have a right to remove children from their parents, and will be safeguarded by the Constitution in doing the same.

And this is exactly why I will be voting yes.

This is already provide for by Art. 42.5 of the Constitution, and Section 54, Subsection 2 of the 2010 Adoption Act.

I suggest you read this Irish Times opinion piece by a retired social worker who is aware of the facts http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0914/1224324008763.html

TheIrishGrover · 04-11-2012 12:04pm

queen of Umaill wrote: »

Just because we haven't got that answer doesn't mean giving more power to people who have already failed

Now, WHICH group are you on about?

johnnyskeleton · 04-11-2012 12:44pm

the groutch wrote: »

I'm voting YES just to spite the OP

I think people like that tend to crystallize the yes vote. There are reasons to be sceptical about the wording of the section, which to my mind inclines me towards voting no, but the lobby that seems to think there should be NO government intervention in the family (as opposed to highly scrutinized intervention) is somewhat worrying.

johnnyskeleton · 04-11-2012 12:47pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

Let us paint a little picture:
Little Jamie was born to an alcholic mother and a come aday, go aday father.
After several attempts to remedy the situation this baby is placed with a loving, capable family and bonds with them and his adoptive siblings.
The mother, who has always put the child second to her thirst for drink and liking for a wide choice of partners, one day has a change of heart and decides she wants the child back. This change of direction for her has more to do with the realization that she is losing certain benifits than any real sense of responcibility for the child.
Under the present law the courts have little option but to wrench the child from it's adoptive home and return it to the Oliver Twist envoirnment of the birth mother.
I have always thought this to be an abomination![/Quote

Of course that would be an abomination, but that's simply not the law and is the medias misinterpretation of the baby Anne case.

Put another way, what specific words of the new article 42a.2 that are not in the current art 42.2.5 will permit this dramatic change?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-11-2012 2:18pm

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS: For the first time, adoption of children will be promoted in the Constitution. Adoption of children who already have a mother and a father, that is. Section 42A.2 states that “provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.” In other words, the State will have a right to remove children from their parents, and will be safeguarded by the Constitution in doing the same.

And this is exactly why I will be voting yes.

Then, I'm afraid, you'll be voting yes because you don't understand the issues. Adoption is a complete red herring, as

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.... adoption of any child, whether a marital or non-marital child, by non-family members is quite a rare event these days. Just taking two recent years as a for instance there were only 190 Irish Adoption Orders in 2009, 148 of which were within families (and 140 of them were by "natural mother and her husband"). There were only 189 Irish Adoption Orders in 2010, of which 154 were within families (151 were by "natural mother and her husband"). To get a sense of context, there were more than 1,000 adoptions every year from 1964 to 1984, with the exception of 1979 when there was still a whopping 988 adoptions.

Adoption belongs back in the Jurassic period, and I don't know why folk aren't aware of its near irrelevance. It's certainly very strange to see the Government using it as a ground for changing the Constitution.

The people are being played for fools in this.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

... the lobby that seems to think there should be NO government intervention in the family (as opposed to highly scrutinized intervention) is somewhat worrying.

But, in fairness, the case for "No" is not that there should be no government intervention in the family. It's that the current Constitution allows for apporpriate intervention in the family, so no constitutional change is needed. All this amendment can do is feck things up.

The reason child abuse went unchallenged in the past was because of excessive deference to State and social authorities. All this amendment can do is give a legal basis for such deference. The Constitution is meant to protect all of us, including children, from arbitrary authority. This amendment can only weaken that protection.

Plus, the stuff it includes on adoption is just weird.

Curly Judge · 04-11-2012 3:10pm

At the root of the NO campaign is a religious fundamentalism which views all this as an attack on the family.
The UN, the WHO, the EU are all out to "get" the family.
The real truth is that these organizations - while far from perfect - have driven most of the progressive legislation in the world over the last 3 decades.
But of course little old super holy catholic Ireland is having none of it!
The Crosiers are being polished as we speak, not for an all out attack, [they haven't the balls for that any more] but for a sneaky flanking manoeuvre, hiding behind but secretly supporting the usual loony malcontents.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-11-2012 3:39pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

At the root of the NO campaign is a religious fundamentalism which views all this as an attack on the family.

Not really.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1019/breaking33.html

A new group opposed to the children’s rights amendment to the Constitution was launched this morning in Dublin. <...>

The new group is made up of John Colgan, Dick Spicer and Mike McKillen, all three of whom had campaigned for the separation of Church and State in the 1980s.

At an event this morning, Mr Colgan said most of the procedures to be introduced under the amendment, such as the rights of children to be heard in court, were redundant as they were already a part of practice. Moreover, what was not already being done could be implemented through ordinary legislation, he said.

Annasopra · 04-11-2012 5:36pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not really.

That's one example of a no group.

The no campaign is supported by many many religious fundamentalist individuals and groups; Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign,

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-11-2012 7:43pm

mango salsa wrote: »

That's one example of a no group.

The no campaign is supported by many many religious fundamentalist individuals and groups; Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign,

The No campaign does feature those groups.

It also includes the secularists I mentioned above, and these folk

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1025/1224325680536.html

<...>Ray Kelly of Unmarried and Separated Families of Ireland (USFI) confirmed the referendum had prompted his group to resign from the coalition of more than 100 organisations that make up the Children’s Rights Alliance.

“The proposed amendment doesn’t go far enough. It’s a golden opportunity wasted to give children an equal right to have a father. It’s an erosion of parental rights and it’s actually putting the State in the position where it’s more powerful than the parent,” Mr Kelly said. “We don’t feel that the referendum is actually about children’s rights. Looking at the wording we don’t see anywhere it’s actually giving more rights. It’s actually an adoption referendum.”

The "it's all religious fundamentalists" line is just more spin, aimed at avoiding the need to advance any substantial reason for this referendum.

Curly Judge · 04-11-2012 10:06pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The No campaign does feature those groups.

It also includes the secularists I mentioned above, and these folkThe "it's all religious fundamentalists" line is just more spin, aimed at avoiding the need to advance any substantial reason for this referendum.

Okay, Okay, already.
Only 80% of them are of a religious bent.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-11-2012 12:08am

Curly Judge wrote: »

Okay, Okay, already.
Only 80% of them are of a religious bent.

I've no idea what percentage of potential No voters have religious motivations. Similarly, I've no idea what percentage of the Yes side have religious motivations.

I'm more interested in the substance of the case for a change to the Constitution, which is still not to be seen.

Hotblack Desiato · 05-11-2012 1:48am

mango salsa wrote: »

The no campaign is supported by many many religious fundamentalist individuals and groups; Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign,

How could any true Irish person not be convinced by the weight of evidence and logic from this side :rolleyes:

freedomtoday · 05-11-2012 7:59am

The Roscommon case and others like it were the fault of a grossly inept HSE, and government bodies who cared about nothing but their own pockets. At ant time the state could have stepped in and removed those children, even after the court order, but failed to do so. It makes no sense to give more power to the state when it failed to use the power it had to the detriment of innocent children.

Aswerty · 05-11-2012 9:58am

There's a big difference in the No voters. Some say these changes hurt the famly, some find the changes redundant and others don't think the changes go far enough. Bunking them all into the same bracket is a bit ridiculous especially when it is the potential harm to the family that the hard line religous are focussed on. It seems to me the groups with the most diverging opinions are both on the No side.

Also in reference to a previous poster claiming adoption doesn't have a place in this referendum I thoroughly disagree. When my mother was born she was fostered by a family (her mother was ill and died when she was very young) who within a year wanted to adopt her since they were moving to another country. Her father wouldn't allow the adoption because he didn't like the idea of having his daughter adopted. He wasn't able to care for her so she was placed in a convent where the nuns were strict but fair. Luckily in her teens she found a home in a family which I know consider my mothers family. But my point is that adoption at a very young age would by far have been the best option for her but it was her natural family that vetoed it and robbed her of a chance of having a functioning family for the best part of her youth. I'm hoping changes made in this referendum would stop something like this from happening again. I'm aware children aren't place in convents anymore but a similar case nowadays would have meant she would have ended up in a different foster home which is still not ideal.

ciarafem · 05-11-2012 10:10am

The 'voice' of the opposition is getting louder and is soundly based in legal arguments

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/experts-warn-of-national-vote-to-bash-families/?cat_orig=world

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/instead-of-lip-service-lets-act-on-failings-3281709.html

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-11-2012 10:35am

Aswerty wrote: »

<...> Also in reference to a previous poster claiming adoption doesn't have a place in this referendum I thoroughly disagree.

Grand, but I don't think you're addressing the point I've made - which is adoption outside of families is a very rare event these days. The overwhelming majority of adoptions these days are by the "natural mother and her husband". So, indeed, the set of circumstances that you relate with respect to your mother simply wouldn't replicate today. I'd even say the implicit assumption in your account - that a single father would be incompetent as a parent, where a single mother would not, - is an assumption that would have been accepted in the 1960s, but not today.

Curly Judge · 05-11-2012 5:04pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, but I don't think you're addressing the point I've made - which is adoption outside of families is a very rare event these days. The overwhelming majority of adoptions these days are by the "natural mother and her husband". So, indeed, the set of circumstances that you relate with respect to your mother simply wouldn't replicate today. I'd even say the implicit assumption in your account - that a single father would be incompetent as a parent, where a single mother would not, - is an assumption that would have been accepted in the 1960s, but not today.

The adoption of children within families is part of the problem.
Why should a baby who has spent 18 months bonding with an adoptive family - who are providing a good home and are dreading the thoughts of having to part with it - be wrenched from the stability of that home and returned to the doubtful future of a "reformed" addict.
The effect on the birth parents might be wonderful but the effect on a young child, in it's formative years, can only be imagined.
If this amendment puts the interests of that child first it will be a good days work!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-11-2012 6:34pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

The adoption of children within families is part of the problem.

Why should a baby who has spent 18 months bonding with an adoptive family - who are providing a good home and are dreading the thoughts of having to part with it - be wrenched from the stability of that home and returned to the doubtful future of a "reformed" addict.

The effect on the birth parents might be wonderful but the effect on a young child, in it's formative years, can only be imagined.

If this amendment puts the interests of that child first it will be a good days work!

I don't follow your point. Overwhelmingly, the few adoptions that we have every year are by the "natural mother and her husband". In other words, situations where a single woman has a baby and subsequently marries someone who isn't the natural father. I don't see how that relates to babies being handed back and forth between recovering addicts, and I'm currently assuming this is just the usual hyperbole that Yes voters use to hide the lack of any case for this amendment.

The Constitution already provides that a child must be protected from danger. There is no question of the Constitution demanding that a child be returned to a parent if that exposes the child to risk. All this is covered in the quote already provided many times to the judgement made by Hardiman J in the Baby Ann case.

freedomtoday · 05-11-2012 6:46pm

I'm seeing the Yes voters pull each other apart in front of my eyes. Proves the lack of coherency when one resorts to deception to prove their case. The Constitution already protects children from physical and moral abuse, e.g in exceptional cases. We have everything we need to protect vulnerable children. What we have seen is the failure of the State to use its powers, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to confer more power upon them by voting Yes. This amendment is concerned with pulling children from their families forever, and mentions nothing about supporting parents who are in difficulty. Furthermore, there are no safeguards to prevent a power-hungry State from abusing it's 'new powers'. For the sake of families across Ireland who need to be aided and strengthened, and not torn apart, I ask voters to put prejudice and party loyalty behind them, and come out and Vote No on Sat 10th of November.

Curly Judge · 05-11-2012 7:51pm

freedomtoday wrote: »

I'm seeing the Yes voters pull each other apart in front of my eyes. Proves the lack of coherency when one resorts to deception to prove their case. The Constitution already protects children from physical and moral abuse, e.g in exceptional cases. We have everything we need to protect vulnerable children. What we have seen is the failure of the State to use its powers, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to confer more power upon them by voting Yes. This amendment is concerned with pulling children from their families forever, and mentions nothing about supporting parents who are in difficulty. Furthermore, there are no safeguards to prevent a power-hungry State from abusing it's 'new powers'. For the sake of families across Ireland who need to be aided and strengthened, and not torn apart, I ask voters to put prejudice and party loyalty behind them, and come out and Vote No on Sat 10th of November.

A thoroughly untrue, disingenous and misleading post, if you don't mind me saying so. And even if you do mind me saying so.
On one hand you are concerned that the state will over use its powers and on the other hand you accuse the state of under using it's powers.
And you have the shameless chutzpah to refer to the YES side as lacking coherency.
You are having a laugh, aren't you?

Teyla Emmagan · 05-11-2012 9:38pm

ciarafem wrote: »

This is already provide for by Art. 42.5 of the Constitution, and Section 54, Subsection 2 of the 2010 Adoption Act.

I suggest you read this Irish Times opinion piece by a retired social worker who is aware of the facts http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0914/1224324008763.html

Ok, I'll have a look. I accept that I haven't read up on this enough, but like many people I guess I don't find either of the arguments strong enough yet. Normally I have my mind made up very clearly at this stage.

Angrybastard · 05-11-2012 11:25pm

I work with young people in care, and believe me, this referendum, when it's passed, will not change one thing in the way the state intervenes when there is a problem with the treatment of a child within a family.
The 1991 Child Care Act already provides for intervention.

The only difference I can see is the change in the criteria for adoption.
I'm not really comfortable with this aspect, but the rest of the wording is so deliberately banal, that it's difficult (for me) to see a problem with it.

I suspect they went for the least contentious wording imaginable in order to get cross party consensus.

oscarBravo · 06-11-2012 12:12am

Angrybastard wrote: »

The only difference I can see is the change in the criteria for adoption.
I'm not really comfortable with this aspect...

Why?

freedomtoday · 06-11-2012 12:50am

Plenty of information here if anyone wants it http://www.scribd.com/doc/111573063/Children-s-Referendum-Ireland-Vote-NO

All the facts you'll ever need!

Curly Judge · 06-11-2012 1:14am

ciarafem wrote: »

This is already provide for by Art. 42.5 of the Constitution, and Section 54, Subsection 2 of the 2010 Adoption Act.

I suggest you read this Irish Times opinion piece by a retired social worker who is aware of the facts http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0914/1224324008763.html[/QUOTE]

Yet another dichotomy?
The No side, who distrust the state and it's agents, request us to accept the advice of one of those very agents.

Curly Judge · 06-11-2012 1:20am

freedomtoday wrote: »

Plenty of information here if anyone wants it http://www.scribd.com/doc/111573063/Children-s-Referendum-Ireland-Vote-NO

All the facts you'll ever need!

Why is this lady using the logo of NUI GALWAY?
Does she represent the considered opinion of that organisation?
Or is it another scam by the NO side?
Some of the people on the NO side have the morals of a buck rabbit after a feed of viagra?

Children's Referendum - Why You Should Vote No

Comments