Sexism alive and kicking the bejesus out of Ireland!

Zulu

I never believed it before, but it appears the ladies were right. sexism is alive, well, and clearly very strong in Ireland .


I stand corrected, and I apologise to you ladies.


Can you believe that a convicted paedophile, rapist, and child abuser would only get a maximum sentence of 7 years, even though the maximum sentence for rape is life?


I guess she was lucky she wasn’t a man.

Nevyn

Yes it is sexism and that law predates us becoming a republic and has been on the books
from the time of queen victoria.
Shocking that the law reveiw comission never bother's it's arse until sometimg as awful as this happens.

Children have no rights in this country and we do not have the laws to protect them
the sooner the UN charter on the rights of the child is ratified in this country the better.
It's only been 30 years waiting for that to happen.

Zulu

Clearly it's sexism. It's a sad sad day for Ireland as a nation.

What I really want to know is: why weren't the sentences consecutive? It was clearly a work around, yet it wasn't employed.

Macha

It is really sad.

I heard a guy on Newstalk yesterday morning who said that it's common for social workers to explain away the abuse of a female. Often, when both parents are the abusers, the mother will still be allowed some access to the children, through some warped idea that she's their "natural" carer and while kids can do fine without contact with the father, they'll be totally messed up if they don't see their mother

This is one of the fundamental issues with sexism - so often it works against both genders. And of course, then there's the issue of how our child protection measures and laws are about 30 years behind the rest of Europe.

irish_bob

taconnol wrote: »

It is really sad.

I heard a guy on Newstalk yesterday morning who said that it's common for social workers to explain away the abuse of a female. Often, when both parents are the abusers, the mother will still be allowed some access to the children, through some warped idea that she's their "natural" carer and while kids can do fine without contact with the father, they'll be totally messed up if they don't see their mother

This is one of the fundamental issues with sexism - so often it works against both genders. And of course, then there's the issue of how our child protection measures and laws are about 30 years behind the rest of Europe.

its more than sexism with social workers , social workers dont believe in attributing blame , they perfer to mostly talk shop than make hard descisions

Wagon

I couldn't believe it when I heard the bitch was only getting 7 years. But there you go, women can get away with more in society. It's not suprising really. for years the male species have always been seen as the hunters and protectors, the women were seen as gatherers and mothers. In modern society, women have as much freedom as men and then some more. It's set that way because the society feels women need more protection than the lads. In most cases, that's pure bollix. Especially this one. Only one member of the social structure needs more protection than men and women and that's children. And it ****ing failed miserably here.

Sam Vimes

afaik a woman cannot legally commit rape in ireland because the definition involves penetration with a penis. That's what my mate who's studying to be a barrister said anyway

Macha

Wagon wrote: »

But there you go, women can get away with more in society.

Wagon wrote: »

In modern society, women have as much freedom as men and then some more..

While I agree with most of your post about traditional roles for the two genders in our society, I'd have to take you up on theses sentence. They're quite general and broad - would you like to expand?

K4t

taconnol wrote: »

While I agree with most of your post about traditional roles for the two genders in our society, I'd have to take you up on theses sentence. They're quite general and broad - would you like to expand?

I think they're referring to post 1 whereby the law in Ireland favours women considerably.

Macha

K4t wrote: »

I think they're referring to post 1 whereby the law in Ireland favours women considerably.

Right but my point is that those sentences are too general. You can't just say that ALL law in Ireland favours women considerably or that women "get away with more in society" without qualifying those statements.

That, ironically enough, is sexist.

johnnyskeleton

Zulu wrote: »

I never believed it before, but it appears the ladies were right. sexism is alive, well, and clearly very strong in Ireland .


I stand corrected, and I apologise to you ladies.


Can you believe that a convicted paedophile, rapist, and child abuser would only get a maximum sentence of 7 years, even though the maximum sentence for rape is life?


I guess she was lucky she wasn’t a man.

That case doesn't support your contention that sexism is still alive and kicking in Ireland. It was an old law that simply hadn't been out for a good airing in a long while. The problem has now come to light and I've no doubt the government (shambolic though they are) will take immediate steps to rectify it.

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes it is sexism and that law predates us becoming a republic and has been on the books
from the time of queen victoria.
Shocking that the law reveiw comission never bother's it's arse until sometimg as awful as this happens.

Children have no rights in this country and we do not have the laws to protect them
the sooner the UN charter on the rights of the child is ratified in this country the better.
It's only been 30 years waiting for that to happen.

Children do have rights in Ireland, derived from the constitution. To suggest that without the UN charter children don't have rights is as specious as saying that human rights were not respected in this country until we passed the European Convention on Human Rights Act a few years ago.

Children have the same personal rights as any other citizen under the constitution, but in practical terms there has to be special rules for children. We can't have 4 year olds drinking whiskey or driving cars, for example. Equally, there is a constitutional presumption that the welfare of a child is best served when the child is with its natural parents, and that only in cases of substantive neglect or abuse will they be taken into care. This is a sensible way to deal with a difficult situation, yet somehow this seems to be interpreted as children having no rights. That of course is more of a political spin than a substantive argument.

johnnyskeleton

Zulu wrote: »

Clearly it's sexism. It's a sad sad day for Ireland as a nation.

What I really want to know is: why weren't the sentences consecutive? It was clearly a work around, yet it wasn't employed.

Would be reduced by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It would effectively be the judge acting contrary to the legislation, which she cannot do. The problem is with the failure to update the law, not with the Judge, if that's what you're suggesting.

johnnyskeleton

Sam Vimes wrote: »

afaik a woman cannot legally commit rape in ireland because the definition involves penetration with a penis. That's what my mate who's studying to be a barrister said anyway

They can commit s.4 rape by using an object, and they can commit sexual assault the same as a man can.

Therefore, the only gaps in the legislation are:

a) if a woman uses threats, violence or drugs to force a man to have sex with her, it is a less serious, but still serious, offence than a man forcing a woman to have sex with him; and

b) forced cunnilingus is a lesser offence than forced fellatio.

Pardon my spelling.

hot2def

Wagon wrote: »

In modern society, women have as much freedom as men and then some more.

I especially enjoy our freedom to earn 1/3 less for the same job.


that's a great one.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Children do have rights in Ireland, derived from the constitution. To suggest that without the UN charter children don't have rights is as specious as saying that human rights were not respected in this country until we passed the European Convention on Human Rights Act a few years ago.

Children have the same personal rights as any other citizen under the constitution, but in practical terms there has to be special rules for children. We can't have 4 year olds drinking whiskey or driving cars, for example. Equally, there is a constitutional presumption that the welfare of a child is best served when the child is with its natural parents, and that only in cases of substantive neglect or abuse will they be taken into care. This is a sensible way to deal with a difficult situation, yet somehow this seems to be interpreted as children having no rights. That of course is more of a political spin than a substantive argument.

Sorry but your argument is totally wrong. Children do have rights but our catholic-influenced constitution means that children's rights are always assumed to be best served by protecting the family.

Time and again, it has been proven that the best interests of children are not always served by the family. I am not just talking about abuse cases, I'm also talking about the fact that in Ireland it is not possible to adopt a child whose natural parents are still married. So there are children in this country, whose natural, married parents don't want them and it is illegal for their foster parents to adopt them. Then we see the case of Baby Ann, where her best interests were considered subordinate to the rights of her "family" and she was thus returned to her natural parents. The judge in the case complained that he was not able to consider the rights of Baby Ann as separate from the rights of her family, according to the constitution.

This is why we need the children's referendum and for children's rights to be explicit in the constitution, rather than implied. Surprisingly enough, this is exactly what the Children's Ombudsman also thinks:

There is a lack of clarity about the content and status of the unenumerated children’s rights listed above. In addition – these rights can be subordinated by “family” rights. For example, in what is known as the PKU case (the heel prick case), any (unenumerated) right to bodily integrity the child may have had was superseded by the constitutional presumption that the child’s welfare is best met within, and via decisions made by the marital family.

The deficiencies in constitutional protection for children were acknowledged by An Taoiseach when he stated “It appears increasingly clear that the inadequate recognition in our constitutional law of the rights of children as individuals has to be addressed. That is an essential first step in creating a new culture of respect for the rights of the child.”

http://www.oco.ie/whatsNew/advice_to_government.aspx

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but your argument is totally wrong. Children do have rights but our catholic-influenced constitution means that children's rights are always assumed to be best served by protecting the family.

Have we had this argument before? Do you not understand that if there is a presumption that the child's best interests are best served by keeping the child in the family that that in no way suggests that children don't have rights? I said children do have rights, and you say that they do have rights. Therefore I am not wrong.

taconnol wrote: »

Time and again, it has been proven that the best interests of children are not always served by the family.

I think you'll find that in the vast majority of cases, the child's best interests are served by keeping them in the family rather than having the state take them away. Think of all the people you know who have been raised by their natural parents/other family members. Compare this to the people that you know who have been fostered or put into care. Now, can you honestly say that the children in state care have had a better upbringing than the children who have grown up in a normal family environment?

When the best interests of the child are not served by keeping them with the family e.g. abuse/neglect situations, there are mechanisms in place for the children to be put into care.

taconnol wrote: »

I am not just talking about abuse cases, I'm also talking about the fact that in Ireland it is not possible to adopt a child whose natural parents are still married. So there are children in this country, whose natural, married parents don't want them and it is illegal for their foster parents to adopt them.

Completely and separate issues. If you want to debate them on a different thread, you can do so, but let's not go down this road again. I've offered to discuss this with you before, but you declined:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055411061

To suggest that child abuse/neglect and adoption are in any way related does a disservice to adopted children.

taconnol wrote: »

Then we see the case of Baby Ann, where her best interests were considered subordinate to the rights of her "family" and she was thus returned to her natural parents. The judge in the case complained that he was not able to consider the rights of Baby Ann as separate from the rights of her family, according to the constitution.

As I've said before, that is the media spin on the judgement and it is incorrect. The judge you refer to was actually a she, Mrs. Justice McGuinness (unless you are referring to McMenamin's HC judgement, which received little media attention), and you are really skewing the point to suit your own purposes. McGuinness' point was that all things being equal, the constitution presumes that the child is better off with his/her natural parents than with adopted parents. This stands to reason. I've said this before, and you haven't engaged with the point.

taconnol wrote: »

This is why we need the children's referendum and for children's rights to be explicit in the constitution, rather than implied. Surprisingly enough, this is exactly what the Children's Ombudsman also thinks:

http://www.oco.ie/whatsNew/advice_to_government.aspx

I have no problem with children having constitutional rights, the problem I have with the proposed change is that they have tacked on so many illusory and unfair provisions that it is no longer about the rights of children and much more about politics. Again, I'll gladly debate it with you in another thread, but the fact remains that Children have the same personal rights as any other citizen, it's just a question of how to achieve those rights.

The piece you cite has two problems:

1) it suggests that the state should have more of a say in whether medical treatments be given to children or not. I don't agree with this.

2) it suggests that because the Taoiseach at the time said a referendum was needed, then a referendum was needed. Not only do I repeat what I said before about this being a purely political and superficial referendum, but given what we have seen happen, do you really trust Bertie's word as gospel?

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Have we had this argument before? Do you not understand that if there is a presumption that the child's best interests are best served by keeping the child in the family that that in no way suggests that children don't have rights? I said children do have rights, and you say that they do have rights. Therefore I am not wrong.

Look, you're putting words in my mouth. If you just read the part of my post that you quoted, you'll see I said that children do have rights!!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think you'll find that in the vast majority of cases, the child's best interests are served by keeping them in the family rather than having the state take them away. Think of all the people you know who have been raised by their natural parents/other family members. Compare this to the people that you know who have been fostered or put into care. Now, can you honestly say that the children in state care have had a better upbringing than the children who have grown up in a normal family environment?

When the best interests of the child are not served by keeping them with the family e.g. abuse/neglect situations, there are mechanisms in place for the children to be put into care.

The point is that the assumption is a false one. THe constitution assumes that the child's best interests are served by keeping them in the family and this is not always the case. Therefore the assumption is false.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Completely and separate issues. If you want to debate them on a different thread, you can do so, but let's not go down this road again. I've offered to discuss this with you before, but you declined:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055411061

That's a 15-page thread. You'll have to be more specific.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To suggest that child abuse/neglect and adoption are in any way related does a disservice to adopted children.

More words in my mouth - total rubbish again.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As I've said before, that is the media spin on the judgement and it is incorrect. The judge you refer to was actually a she, Mrs. Justice McGuinness (unless you are referring to McMenamin's HC judgement, which received little media attention), and you are really skewing the point to suit your own purposes. McGuinness' point was that all things being equal, the constitution presumes that the child is better off with his/her natural parents than with adopted parents. This stands to reason. I've said this before, and you haven't engaged with the point.

And again, I have made the point that this is a false assumption.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I have no problem with children having constitutional rights, the problem I have with the proposed change is that they have tacked on so many illusory and unfair provisions that it is no longer about the rights of children and much more about politics. Again, I'll gladly debate it with you in another thread, but the fact remains that Children have the same personal rights as any other citizen, it's just a question of how to achieve those rights.

No they don't, as you've just stated, their rights are considered subordinate to the rights of the family, because of a false assumption in the constitution.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) it suggests that the state should have more of a say in whether medical treatments be given to children or not. I don't agree with this.

So you're happy with Jehovah Witness children being refused blood transfusions because their parents don't agree?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) it suggests that because the Taoiseach at the time said a referendum was needed, then a referendum was needed. Not only do I repeat what I said before about this being a purely political and superficial referendum, but given what we have seen happen, do you really trust Bertie's word as gospel?

Whatever Bertie said or didn't say is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

Mods - you can separate this out into a separate thread if you like so johnnyskeleton can stop carrying on like a duelling knight.

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

Look, you're putting words in my mouth. If you just read the part of my post that you quoted, you'll see I said that children do have rights!!

I know, but you said that I was wrong for saying that children had rights, and then went on to say that they do have rights. I know you meant to say that the rights are interpreted with the presumption of retaining family unity, but that is what I said, so effectively I was not wrong.

taconnol wrote: »

The point is that the assumption is a false one. THe constitution assumes that the child's best interests are served by keeping them in the family and this is not always the case. Therefore the assumption is false.

It is not an assumption it is a presumption, and like all presumptions (such as the presumption of innocence) it can be rebutted by evidence. Where there is sufficient evidence that the child's best interests are served outside the family then the courts will remove the child from the family. However, faced with two alternatives of equal value, one to keep the child in the family the other to have the child removed, the courts will always keep the child with the family because it is presumed that that is the best place for him/her. This stands to reason, no?

taconnol wrote: »

That's a 15-page thread. You'll have to be more specific.

We had the same argument there, which started with you saying that I know nothing about Irish law, and then, after the contrary being proved, that my legal mumbo jumbo did not change your mind.

taconnol wrote: »

More words in my mouth - total rubbish again.

You conflated the two issues but they are separate. You said "Time and again, it has been proven that the best interests of children are not always served by the family. I am not just talking about abuse cases, I'm also talking about the fact that in Ireland it is not possible to adopt a child whose natural parents are still married". Therefore, you used the issue of adoption as evidence that the best interests of the child are not served by the family. I've offered before to discuss adoption, but it is entirely separate to situations of abuse/neglect like the present one.

taconnol wrote: »

And again, I have made the point that this is a false assumption.

It's a presumption. When faced with the issue of whether child A should live with it's natural parents or an absolutely identical adoptive family, are you saying it is false to presume that the child would be better off with their natural parents. Because that goes against common sense and what little I know about child psychology. If child A's best interests are served outside the family home because of, for example, abuse, then the presumption is rebutted. But what you are advocating is almost a system whereby children are plucked from the less well off homes for no reason and deposited in better off homes because, looked at objectively, the child will be better off in the richer home. However, they are presumed quite rightly to be better off with their natural parents and a mere issue of more money is not sufficient to alter that.

taconnol wrote: »

No they don't, as you've just stated, their rights are considered subordinate to the rights of the family, because of a false assumption in the constitution.

Where did I say that? You are not understanding these fairly basic concepts and instead choosing your own tunnel vision view of the issues. A child's rights are not subordinate to the rights of the family, a child's rights are interpreted in the context of the presumption in favour of the natural family. The family of a child have no rights over the child, rather the child has the right to remain in the family.

taconnol wrote: »

So you're happy with Jehovah Witness children being refused blood transfusions because their parents don't agree?

That's a different issue, decided on a case by case basis. I don't think the state should be able to require medical treatments off any of its citizens. When it comes to children, the fundamental issue is what is in the best interests of the child. If we have a situation where the state wants to force a child to undergo medical treatment and the child does not want it or it is not in the child's best welfare, then the state shouldn't be able to force the child to undergo that treatment. How the courts decide what is in the best interests of the child turns on the specific circumstances, and in the case of Jehovahs Witnesses seeking to refuse a transfusion to their children (who cannot express their own views) and the medical evidence is that the child will die if they do not get the transfusion, the courts tend in favour of allowing the transfusion. In the case of a child who can express their views and for whom the transfusion is not needed to save their life, it's a different equation entirely.

taconnol wrote: »

Whatever Bertie said or didn't say is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

Glad we agree on something!

taconnol wrote: »

Mods - you can separate this out into a separate thread if you like so johnnyskeleton can stop carrying on like a duelling knight.

Hey now, you were the one who said that I was wrong, am I not entitled to put my views across without being called names?

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is not an assumption it is a presumption, and like all presumptions (such as the presumption of innocence) it can be rebutted by evidence. Where there is sufficient evidence that the child's best interests are served outside the family then the courts will remove the child from the family. However, faced with two alternatives of equal value, one to keep the child in the family the other to have the child removed, the courts will always keep the child with the family because it is presumed that that is the best place for him/her. This stands to reason, no?

But this is not what's happening. Take the baby Ann case. She could either stay with her foster parents, who had provided her with a caring environment for the first 2 years of her life, or be given back to her natural parents. The natural parents were extremely young, had cancelled their wedding twice and had given away their child for adoption. It was only once they had married that the court considered there to be a miraculous "metamorphosis" in their situation. Basically, the mere fact that they signed a piece of paper automatically meant that they were considered to be the better couple - not out of consideration for the welfare of the child but out of consideration for the traditional family unit. IN addition, the court observed that because her natural parents were now married, it was a legal impossibility for Baby Ann ever to be adopted without their permission.

It is so blindly obvious that her rights her superceded by the rights of the family. When it's the Child Vs Family, the family wins out every time.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

We had the same argument there, which started with you saying that I know nothing about Irish law, and then, after the contrary being proved, that my legal mumbo jumbo did not change your mind.

If you think that the rights of the child are sufficiently protected under current Irish law, then yes in my opinion your grasp of Irish law is seriously lacking.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You conflated the two issues but they are separate. You said "Time and again, it has been proven that the best interests of children are not always served by the family. I am not just talking about abuse cases, I'm also talking about the fact that in Ireland it is not possible to adopt a child whose natural parents are still married". Therefore, you used the issue of adoption as evidence that the best interests of the child are not served by the family. I've offered before to discuss adoption, but it is entirely separate to situations of abuse/neglect like the present one.

I was giving another example. I did not conflate the two and totally reject this accusation.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's a presumption. When faced with the issue of whether child A should live with it's natural parents or an absolutely identical adoptive family, are you saying it is false to presume that the child would be better off with their natural parents. Because that goes against common sense and what little I know about child psychology. If child A's best interests are served outside the family home because of, for example, abuse, then the presumption is rebutted. But what you are advocating is almost a system whereby children are plucked from the less well off homes for no reason and deposited in better off homes because, looked at objectively, the child will be better off in the richer home. However, they are presumed quite rightly to be better off with their natural parents and a mere issue of more money is not sufficient to alter that.

Yes I'm saying it's false to automatically assume that a child's interests are best served by protecting the natural family. Has the Baby Ann case not demostrated this?

I'm talking about giving judges the ability to consider the child's rights as separate to those of the family. As it stands, judges cannot do that, as the constitution presumes that by acting in the best interests of the family, we will always be acting in the best interests of the child. This is false.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where did I say that? You are not understanding these fairly basic concepts and instead choosing your own tunnel vision view of the issues. A child's rights are not subordinate to the rights of the family, a child's rights are interpreted in the context of the presumption in favour of the natural family. The family of a child have no rights over the child, rather the child has the right to remain in the family.

I'm talking about the rights of the family, not the family itself as individuals having rights over the child. I'll refer to the OCO again:

At present, children are not recognised as holding rights independent of their family or the State. This recommendation is not about taking rights away from parents. Most children in Ireland live in warm, caring environments with loving parents, but others do not. It is vital that we, as a society, recognise these vulnerable children and take steps to protect their welfare. Articles 41 and 42 of the Irish Constitution need to be amended in order to ensure that children’s rights are put on an equal footing to adults rights”, Emily told the Committee.

http://www.oco.ie/whatsNew/press_release_archive.aspx?page=4&article=481ef696-9a53-474c-8b6b-ad60eabf11fc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's a different issue, decided on a case by case basis. I don't think the state should be able to require medical treatments off any of its citizens. When it comes to children, the fundamental issue is what is in the best interests of the child. If we have a situation where the state wants to force a child to undergo medical treatment and the child does not want it or it is not in the child's best welfare, then the state shouldn't be able to force the child to undergo that treatment. How the courts decide what is in the best interests of the child turns on the specific circumstances, and in the case of Jehovahs Witnesses seeking to refuse a transfusion to their children (who cannot express their own views) and the medical evidence is that the child will die if they do not get the transfusion, the courts tend in favour of allowing the transfusion. In the case of a child who can express their views and for whom the transfusion is not needed to save their life, it's a different equation entirely.

It's not an entirely different issue at all. At the moment, the biological parents of a child can refuse medical treatment for a child precisely because "children are not recognised as holding rights independent of their family". I do not think this is an acceptable situation, nor do I think that doctors should have to go through the courts to get authorisation to give a child a blood transfusion, purely because the child's parents have some crazy ideas.

Again, the rights of the child must be considered as separate to those of the family or parents.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hey now, you were the one who said that I was wrong, am I not entitled to put my views across without being called names?

Yeah, sorry

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

But this is not what's happening. Take the baby Ann case. She could either stay with her foster parents, who had provided her with a caring environment for the first 2 years of her life, or be given back to her natural parents. The natural parents were extremely young, had cancelled their wedding twice and had given away their child for adoption. It was only once they had married that the court considered there to be a miraculous "metamorphosis" in their situation. Basically, the mere fact that they signed a piece of paper automatically meant that they were considered to be the better couple - not out of consideration for the welfare of the child but out of consideration for the traditional family unit. IN addition, the court observed that because her natural parents were now married, it was a legal impossibility for Baby Ann ever to be adopted without their permission.

The "mere fact that they had signed a peice of paper?" Is it really that mere? It is a legally binding for LIFE contract with serious implications. PErhaps it was done to show the judge they had converted from their fickle natures to a will to commit.

I dont quite buy into this concept that the rights of the child are not tied into the rights of the family. Hurt one, you hurt all, help one you help all.

Do you advocate for a more "behavioral assessment of parental rights?" LIke in the G case, he acted like a father therefore he was one, rather than it being judged exclusively on biology?

taconnol wrote: »

It is so blindly obvious that her rights her superceded by the rights of the family. When it's the Child Vs Family, the family wins out every time.

Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes I'm saying it's false to automatically assume that a child's interests are best served by protecting the natural family. Has the Baby Ann case not demostrated this?

How is baby ann now? How is she worse off? Do you know? Because I have no idea.

taconnol wrote: »

It's not an entirely different issue at all. At the moment, the biological parents of a child can refuse medical treatment for a child precisely because "children are not recognised as holding rights independent of their family". I do not think this is an acceptable situation, nor do I think that doctors should have to go through the courts to get authorisation to give a child a blood transfusion, purely because the child's parents have some crazy ideas.

You want the state to make these decisions? In the US up until not too long ago it was a crazy idea not to have your child circumsized. You think this the state should have had to right to force this? How about vaccinations? Where do you draw the line on medical procedures?

taconnol wrote: »

Again, the rights of the child must be considered as separate to those of the family or parents.

The child has a right to his or her parents. It cannot be considered separately.

What I find odd about this case is there is no question of where the father is or implications for his neglect.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

The "mere fact that they had signed a peice of paper?" Is it really that mere? It is a legally binding for LIFE contract with serious implications. PErhaps it was done to show the judge they had converted from their fickle natures to a will to commit.

Last time I checked, divorce was legal in Ireland.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont quite buy into this concept that the rights of the child are not tied into the rights of the family. Hurt one, you hurt all, help one you help all.

Do you advocate for a more "behavioral assessment of parental rights?" LIke in the G case, he acted like a father therefore he was one, rather than it being judged exclusively on biology?

Yes, I don't think that biology is an automatic indication of good parents.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

Sometimes they are: that's the point.

metrovelvet wrote: »

How is baby ann now? How is she worse off? Do you know? Because I have no idea.

Neither do I but the judge noted that the judgment was made despite the expert medical witnesses “all agreeing that an immediate or summary change of custody is virtually certain to cause severe psychological damage to the child… I remain uncertain and apprehensive about the effects of a transfer of Ann’s custody, and about her future in general.”

The issue here is that the judge was not able to consider her rights in the case. The case was not about what was best for her, but a fight between the legal entitlements of the two sets of parents. This is wrong.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You want the state to make these decisions? In the US up until not too long ago it was a crazy idea not to have your child circumsized. You think this the state should have had to right to force this? How about vaccinations? Where do you draw the line on medical procedures?

Look, this should be open for debate - I don't know the answer to where the line should be drawn. All I'm saying is that at the moment, the interests of children cannot be taken into consideration in legal cases (heck, kids can't even act was witnesses) and if a redrawing of the line between parents and the state is required then so be it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

The child has a right to his or her parents. It cannot be considered separately

I completely disagree. Why does the fact that the child has parents, mean that his/her rights cannot be considered as separate to those of hisher parents? Arguments such as "they always act in their child's best interests" have been proven wrong again and again. Why do we hold onto this fallacy?

metrovelvet wrote: »

What I find odd about this case is there is no question of where the father is or implications for his neglect.

I think the father was out of the picture - maybe the mother had full custody. But I don't know - good question.

The Corinthian

hot2def wrote: »

I especially enjoy our freedom to earn 1/3 less for the same job.

That's illegal to begin with. In addition to that you would really have to give some proof of this occurring.

And when I say proof, I don't mean those surveys that do things such as comparing part-time with full-time salaries to get the desired pro-Feminist result. I mean two people in the same job.

As to the original discussion: The present state of inequality that in many cases - in particular law - favours women is as a result of historical reasons. Feminism naturally and rightly sought to redress those inequities that disadvantaged women, however those that advantaged them were not a concern and so they remained the same.

I won't claim that women are not still victims of inequality, however attitudes and law have changed to the point that the gap is actually quite small now. It is in this context that the reverse - those advantages that create inequalities against men - that are beginning to be recognised.

It is sad that it took such a high profile case for people to notice, and decide to do something about, one of these inequalities, but in reality there are hundreds of other social and legal inequalities out there. I would hope that we seek to rectify them without having to wait for a landmark case for each individual one to jolt us into action.

,8,1

I especially enjoy our freedom to earn 1/3 less for the same job.

Women in their 20s outearn or equal men's pay.

Young Single Childless Women earn 117% of Young Single Childless Men [US stats, applicable to similar economies]. So women make more money than men - when they work. That's a fact.

Well done for demonstrating your ability to lie.

Funny how the Feminists who (half-heartedly) acknowledge this blatant case of sexism, think the solution is more Statism in the form of Charters from the world's leading Feminist organisation, the United Nations.

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

Last time I checked, divorce was legal in Ireland.

But a decree of divorce is not final, so you could argue that it has life long repercussions.

taconnol wrote: »

Neither do I but the judge noted that the judgment was made despite the expert medical witnesses “all agreeing that an immediate or summary change of custody is virtually certain to cause severe psychological damage to the child… I remain uncertain and apprehensive about the effects of a transfer of Ann’s custody, and about her future in general.”

The issue here is that the judge was not able to consider her rights in the case. The case was not about what was best for her, but a fight between the legal entitlements of the two sets of parents. This is wrong.

You really are putting a spin on the case. I've tried to explain to you before but you don't seem to want to listen. Just because one of the judges (I mean really, first you were referring to a male judge making the comments, and now you are implying that there was only one judge in the case - have you actually read the judgements?) said that she was uncertain about her future does not mean that she was saying that the best interests of the child would be if she were kept with her mother. The point (and you will call this legal mumbo jumbo but it is highly significant) was that there were not compelling reasons to suggest that the child's welfare could not be achieved in the custody of her natural parents. The court considered the impact of the change but equally considered the impact of growing up with a foster family and having regular contact with your natural family (indeed, this was the agreement that the natural mother had made all along). In essence we don't know what the future holds. Have you considered the possibility that she could have grown up resenting the fact that she didn't live with her natural parents? We just don't know. So in the absence of any concrete evidence one way or another, we must presume that her natural family is better than another family.

taconnol wrote: »

Look, this should be open for debate - I don't know the answer to where the line should be drawn. All I'm saying is that at the moment, the interests of children cannot be taken into consideration in legal cases (heck, kids can't even act was witnesses) and if a redrawing of the line between parents and the state is required then so be it.

It can, and regularly is. Under the guardianship of infants and other legislation the welfare of the child is paramount. You point to the Baby Anne case and suggest that because of that the courts are precluded from considering the welfare of the child. The Baby Anne case was an extremely unusual one, both in terms of the facts and the legal mechanism by which it came to court.

taconnol wrote: »

I completely disagree. Why does the fact that the child has parents, mean that his/her rights cannot be considered as separate to those of hisher parents? Arguments such as "they always act in their child's best interests" have been proven wrong again and again. Why do we hold onto this fallacy?

It is never argued that parents always act in the child's best interests. Where it is proven wrong, the courts will take the child into care. But there is a high standard to be reached before the courts will take a child from their parents. Otherwise what happens? A child didn't get sweets - taken into care. A child is unhappy - taken into care. Both the child's parents work so the child is sent to a creche - taken into care. No, only where there are compelling reasons should a child be taken away from it's natural parents. Have you ever stopped to consider that the child might actually WANT to live with his or her natural parents?

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But a decree of divorce is not final, so you could argue that it has life long repercussions.

You're clutching at straws. The fact remains that simply because the biological parents got married, all of a sudden they were assumed to be the rightful parents.The motives for the parent's swift marriage is also clear:

Towards the end of 2005 the applicants received legal advice that their legal position would be enhanced if they were married. On the 2nd December 2005 Catherine signed the requisite document whereby Brian became a guardian of Ann. On 8th December Brian made a telephone call to the District Registrar’s office for births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships for Derry City Council. He later submitted two completed marriage notice application forms by fax. While Catherine said that a reason for having the marriage in Derry was that it was near to her family home, it seems undoubted that the basic reason was that the notice period for marriage in Northern Ireland was fourteen days rather than the three months required in this jurisdiction. Arrangements for the marriage were made for 22nd December but were cancelled at very short notice. A further arrangement was made for 3rd January and again cancelled at very short notice. The marriage actually took place in the Civil Registry in Derry on the 9th January 2006. The parties arrived alone and it was necessary for the couple to ask two total strangers to witness the ceremony. This was despite the fact that evidence was given that both Catherine’s parents and a personal friend of hers were in Derry at the time.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/076DD22DC168C5A2802572250052F57F?opendocument

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You really are putting a spin on the case. I've tried to explain to you before but you don't seem to want to listen.

Not agreeing with you does not equal not listening. Try to cut out the condescending remarks - they do you no favours.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just because one of the judges (I mean really, first you were referring to a male judge making the comments, and now you are implying that there was only one judge in the case - have you actually read the judgements?) said that she was uncertain about her future does not mean that she was saying that the best interests of the child would be if she were kept with her mother.

You are, quite conveniently, ignoring the other part of what the judge said:

expert medical witnesses “all agreeing that an immediate or summary change of custody is virtually certain to cause severe psychological damage to the child

Why don't you comment on this part of my quote, rather than ignoring it, picking up on more abstract statement that comes afterwards (the meaning of which, however, is totally clear when read in the context of the above quote) and attacking it in isolation. Poor debating technique, tbh.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The point (and you will call this legal mumbo jumbo but it is highly significant) was that there were not compelling reasons to suggest that the child's welfare could not be achieved in the custody of her natural parents.

The judge's statement above would suggest otherwise. Moreover, other parts of other judgements by the 5 judges (yes, who would have thought I knew there were 5 judges involved??). I'll provide a quote below:

Justice McGuinness:

It is perhaps striking that the one person whose particular rights and interests, constitutional and otherwise, were not separately represented, whether by solicitor and counsel or through a guardian ad litem, was the child herself. No doubt this was, in part at least, due to the form of the proceedings, where the issue to be decided by the court was whether Mr and Mrs Doyle’s present custody of the child was lawful. In my personal view, however, and bearing in mind the terms of such international instruments as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or EU Regulation 2201/Nov. 2003 (Brussels 2 bis), this situation should at the very least give pause for thought.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/076DD22DC168C5A2802572250052F57F?opendocument

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The court considered the impact of the change but equally considered the impact of growing up with a foster family and having regular contact with your natural family (indeed, this was the agreement that the natural mother had made all along). In essence we don't know what the future holds. Have you considered the possibility that she could have grown up resenting the fact that she didn't live with her natural parents? We just don't know. So in the absence of any concrete evidence one way or another, we must presume that her natural family is better than another family.

Again, that is the exact presumption I am saying is wrong! you're using circular logic!

Saying that you don't know what will happen in the future is not a good enough argument for our consitution to hold onto the existing presumption. I could equally use that logic to argue that we don't know how happy she would be with her natural family and so she should stay with her foster parents. In fact, the medical expert witnesses all testified (without contradiciton) that Baby Ann would definitely suffer psychological trauma if she were transferred to her natural parents. So we're going to ignore that part of the future that we definitely know, in favour of some blind faith that she might possibly be happier with her natural parents.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It can, and regularly is.

Such as? When was the last time?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Under the guardianship of infants and other legislation the welfare of the child is paramount.

My whole point is that this is not true. In fact see below quote from a High Court judge Lynch:

Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 provides that in deciding any question relating to the custody of the child I must regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.
In the context of this case, and bearing in mind the secure and happy home which the child at present enjoys, I think that I can best give effect to that section by asking and answering the question: ‘Is there anything really worthwhile to be gained for the child by transferring her from the adopting parents to the parents?’ Dealing with the problem in this way is to look at it from the child’s point of view as required by section 3 of the Act of 1964.

If one looks at the claim to custody through the eyes of the parents they have a very strong case to be awarded custody of the child. If, on the other hand, one looks at the claim to custody through the eyes of the adopting parents they also have a very strong case to be awarded the custody of a child. That is why it is so very important in the circumstances of this particular case to look at it through the eyes, or from the point of view, of the child and the best way of doing so is, in my view, by posing and answering the question which I have already put above.

I have come to the conclusion that the answer to my question is that there is not anything really worthwhile to be gained for the child by transferring her from the adopting parents to the parents. If custody were changed I think that the risk of long term psychological harm, and therefore of unhappiness, is sufficiently proximate to outweigh the contrary factors referred to above.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You point to the Baby Anne case and suggest that because of that the courts are precluded from considering the welfare of the child.

You keep twisting what I say. I said they are not able to consider the welfare of the child as separate to that of the family.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is never argued that parents always act in the child's best interests. Where it is proven wrong, the courts will take the child into care. But there is a high standard to be reached before the courts will take a child from their parents. Otherwise what happens? A child didn't get sweets - taken into care. A child is unhappy - taken into care. Both the child's parents work so the child is sent to a creche - taken into care. No, only where there are compelling reasons should a child be taken away from it's natural parents. Have you ever stopped to consider that the child might actually WANT to live with his or her natural parents?

It's very easy to attack an argument when you take the extreme standpoint. I am not talking about taking kids away for getting sweets or being unhappy or being put in a creche. You are using extreme and emotive images, rather than arguing the facts.

All I am saying is that the rights of child need to be recognised in our consitution as independent of the rights of the parents of family.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Then we see the case of Baby Ann, where her best interests were considered subordinate to the rights of her "family" and she was thus returned to her natural parents. The judge in the case complained that he was not able to consider the rights of Baby Ann as separate from the rights of her family, according to the constitution.

T]

How were her eing returned to her biological parentsnot in her best interests?

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

How were her eing returned to her biological parentsnot in her best interests?

This is a quote from the judgement of Justice Geoghegan, (one of the 5 Supreme Court judges that heard the case), who in turn is quoting Lynch, J:

While no doubt in this particular area of child psychology as in any other area of psychology whether child or otherwise new insights tend to emerge each year and possibly new appraisals made, having closely studied the judgments of Lynch J. in the High Court in the JH case, I am not satisfied that knowledge of the effect of bonding of a small infant and the risks attached to transfers of custody have sufficiently changed, if at all, so as to render redundant the view adopted by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Finlay C.J. It should be recalled that originally in the High Court when dealing with the custody issue, Lynch J. had more or less balanced the merits or otherwise of retaining the child with the adoptive parents or handing the child over to the natural parents who had married. For this purpose, the learned High Court judge invented a test which he adopted. That test was as follows:


“Is there anything really worthwhile to be gained for the child by transferring her from the adopting parents to the parents?

The judge then went on to observe that dealing with the problem in that way was to look at it from the child’s point of view as required by section 3 of the Act of 1964. The judge answered his own rhetorical question in the negative. What he said has huge resonance in this particular case. I think it apt to quote the following passage from the judgment of Lynch J. at p. 388 of the report.


“I regard as very important evidence relevant to the issue now arising as to the general custody of the child the uncontradicted evidence of the two psychiatrists as to the effect on the child of transferring her from the custody of the adopting parents to the custody of the parents. On that evidence, which I accept, I am satisfied that there is an appreciable risk of long term psychological harm to the child by such transfer. The evidence did not however indicate whether it is more or less probable that such long term harm may occur but it did establish to my satisfaction that the risk of such harm is sufficiently proximate that considerable weight must be given to that risk in deciding these claims and counterclaims for custody of the child. There would of course be an immediate upset for the child from whom she would probably recover within a relatively short time, but while not ignoring such short time distress, it is the risk of long term detrimental effects that is more important and to be taken into account in deciding the question of custody.”

Later on the judge said the following:

“The child is clearly bonded to the adopting parents and the boy as though they were her own parents and brother respectively. Any sundering of these relationships will cause considerable immediate suffering to the child and a real possibility, if not a probability, which it is impossible to say one way or another of long term serious harm.”

These observations were all based on the evidence of two of Dublin’s best known child psychiatrists at the time Dr. Paul McQuaid and Dr. Gerrard Byrne. That judgment of Lynch J. was before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that the test applied by Lynch J. was not correct having regard to the constitutional presumption that where the parents are married the welfare of the child is best served by being in their custody unless there are compelling reasons or a failure of duty as explained. Having so laid down that principle, the court sent the case back to Lynch J. who in the course of his judgment in relation to this stage said the following:


“I remain uncertain and apprehensive regarding the medium and long term effects of a transfer of custody now. Nevertheless, such transfers do occur from time to time in society, owing to some calamity such as the death of both parents in an accident, or more rarely the death of both due to illness and, indeed, occasionally owing to their incapacity without death due to illness and especially mental illness. There appear to be no studies to show what are the effects of the transfer of children in such cases to the good homes of uncles or aunts, or even in the case of the death of the parents to the good homes of strangers by adoption.

I am satisfied that the parents can and will provide a good home for the child if it is transferred to them. I do not think that such adverse affects as may result from such transfer have been sufficiently established to such a degree as to rebut the constitutional presumption that the welfare of the child is to be found within its constitutional family or amount to compelling reasons why this cannot be achieved.”

Lynch J. then went on to award custody of the child to the natural parents.

There are a number of observations to be made. First of all, the earlier judgment of Lynch J. was before the Supreme Court and fully considered. The Supreme Court was well aware, therefore, of the evidence relating to bonding which appears not to have been all that different from the evidence in this case. Secondly, it is important to emphasise that the constitutional presumption that the welfare of the child is best served by being with his married parents is not some kind of artificial presumption. It is clearly based on the perceived wisdom at the time that the Constitution was enacted and, I have no particular reason to believe that it is not still the perceived wisdom even if not wholly approved of in some quarters. The importance of family and marriage and quite frankly also the biological link should not be minimised. It is common knowledge that in the case of so many adoptions, the adopted children at some stage want to see their real parents. Many people, I suspect, would consider that there is an appreciable advantage for a child to be reared within a natural family and having real parents and real aunts and uncles.

The bold is where I, the Ombudsman for Children, the Childrens Rights Alliance, Barnardos, the UN and many others disagree with the judge. Basically, he is echoing the presumption in the Constitution that the child's rights are automatically better served within the environs of his natural parents. While in most cases this is true, sometimes it is not, therefore the presumption should not be made.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2006/S60.html#Geoghegan

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

This is a quote from the judgement of Justice Geoghegan, (one of the 5 Supreme Court judges that heard the case), who in turn is quoting Lynch, J:



The bold is where I, the Ombudsman for Children, the Childrens Rights Alliance, Barnardos, the UN and many others disagree with the judge. Basically, he is echoing the presumption in the Constitution that the child's rights are automatically better served within the environs of his natural parents. While in most cases this is true, sometimes it is not, therefore the presumption should not be made.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2006/S60.html#Geoghegan

This is a momentus occasion - I think we might have a meeting of the minds.

We both agree that in most cases the child's welfare is best served with the natural parents. We both also agree that sometimes it is not.

Where there seems to be some disagreement (or perhaps misunderstanding) is how the presumption operates. A presumption is a legal mechanism whereby if there are two possibilities of similar or equal plausibility, the presumption will favour one over the other. A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. If the evidence suggests that he might or might not have done it, the presumption means that a jury errs on the side of acquittal. A child born in wedlock is presumed to be the child of the husband. In the absence of any hard evidence to suggest otherwise, it is presumed that the husband (and not the local milkman) is the father.

In situations where the welfare of the child is in issue, where there are two equally good ways of securing their rights, the presumption means that the courts will choose the way of the natural family over the equally good way of the non-natural family. If there is evidence to suggest that the welfare of the child is not served within the family, then the presumption is rebutted. That's all the presumption does. In the vast majority of situations that come before the court where the child's welfare is infringed, evidence will be adduced about that infringement and if sufficiently serious, the child will be taken into care or other steps will be taken to secure the welfare of the child. But where there is nothing but idle speculation about the ability of the parents to provide for the welfare of the child, the courts will not interfere. In practical terms this is both fair and just.

What we should both be looking at is how I said of the cases that come to court. The real problem is not the law or the constitution, but the underfunded social services in this country. They are simply understaffed, underpaid and overworked. Surely we should demand government to take action on this, but instead we get fobbed off on this notion of the referendum, the significance of which is marginal at best, and a complete mess at worst.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is a momentus occasion - I think we might have a meeting of the minds.

We both agree that in most cases the child's welfare is best served with the natural parents. We both also agree that sometimes it is not.

:D:D

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In situations where the welfare of the child is in issue, where there are two equally good ways of securing their rights, the presumption means that the courts will choose the way of the natural family over the equally good way of the non-natural family. If there is evidence to suggest that the welfare of the child is not served within the family, then the presumption is rebutted. That's all the presumption does. In the vast majority of situations that come before the court where the child's welfare is infringed, evidence will be adduced about that infringement and if sufficiently serious, the child will be taken into care or other steps will be taken to secure the welfare of the child. But where there is nothing but idle speculation about the ability of the parents to provide for the welfare of the child, the courts will not interfere. In practical terms this is both fair and just.

OK, yes I see what you mean. My argument would be this: in this case, there was considerable evidence from psychologists that the child would suffer psychological trauma by being given to her natural parents. So it wasn't a case of two equal options. On the contrary, the option of returning her to her natural parents almost certainly would be detrimental to her mental well-being.

So for me, this was a case where the courts actually ruled against what would have been in her best interests, because according to the constitution, they had to consider the rights of the biological family.

I totally agree with you that when there are two equal choices, the natural parents should win out but this was not one of those cases. There were clear and definite disadvantages for the child being returned to her biological parents.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What we should both be looking at is how I said of the cases that come to court. The real problem is not the law or the constitution, but the underfunded social services in this country. They are simply understaffed, underpaid and overworked. Surely we should demand government to take action on this, but instead we get fobbed off on this notion of the referendum, the significance of which is marginal at best, and a complete mess at worst.

Well, I still don't agree with you that there's no problems with the constitution or that the referendum is marginal.

But you're totally right that the social services are seriously lacking in this country. In the UK, a social worker is considered overworked if they have 15 cases. Here, the standard is 45 cases at any one time. We have one of the lowest rates of social spending per capita in Europe and there's no such thing as a free lunch!

metrovelvet

Basically the reservations were concerning removing the infant from the couple with whom it had bonded? It wasnt questioning the capability of the natural parents. Is that correct?

Perhaps if a more gradual transfer was made, would you find that more appropriate?

I may start a thread on the adoption boards asking those who have been adopted how they would feel if their natural parents changed their minds during their infancy, wanted them back, but a judge refused to restore custody.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Basically the reservations were concerning removing the infant from the couple with whom it had bonded? It wasnt questioning the capability of the natural parents. Is that correct?

Well,yes. The major reservations were over removing the infant from the couple that it had bonded with and effectively giving it to two strangers (from her point of view).

However, a few laws came into play that I consider unfair:
- the natural parents werw advised that getting married would help their case, and so that's exactly what they did.
- once they were married, the poption of the infant's foster parents adopting her became a legal impossibility.
-most importantly, "due to the absence of constitutional recognition for children’s rights the judges were not permitted to take the child’s best interest into consideration in their judgment". Instead, they considered the rights of the family as paramount.

http://www.childrensrights.ie/files/BabyAnnJudgRefNeeded131106.pdf

metrovelvet wrote: »

Perhaps if a more gradual transfer was made, would you find that more appropriate?

Most definitely, and that's what the judges advised. However, the psychologists noted that there could still be some unavoidable permanent long-term psychological harm to the girl.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I may start a thread on the adoption boards asking those who have been adopted how they would feel if their natural parents changed their minds during their infancy, wanted them back, but a judge refused to restore custody.

That would be really interesting.

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

OK, yes I see what you mean. My argument would be this: in this case, there was considerable evidence from psychologists that the child would suffer psychological trauma by being given to her natural parents. So it wasn't a case of two equal options. On the contrary, the option of returning her to her natural parents almost certainly would be detrimental to her mental well-being.

So for me, this was a case where the courts actually ruled against what would have been in her best interests, because according to the constitution, they had to consider the rights of the biological family.

I think it may have been the case that you actually have to hear the evidence. McMenamin in the HC certainly felt the same way as you. However, the evidence wasn't all one way and there was evidence that the child remaining with the foster parents could be equally damaging as she would grow up in a situation where she lived with one family but was the child of another. This duality could cause greater problems down the line, and perhaps the media latched onto the immediate problems without referring to the more long term consequences of the decision.

The SC took a stance based on the law and on an interpertation of the facts. You will note that I have not said anything about whether I think their interpretation of the facts was correct or not, but they did assess the law correctly and the law in itself does not create an injustice to the child. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing is that the evidence was not presented first hand to the supreme court, but that's another story. I can't help wonder as well whether if they had upheld the HC decision the same papers would have run a sensationalist "Supreme Court took my baby" story, and the Baby Anne case would be famous for entirely different reasons.

taconnol wrote: »

Well, I still don't agree with you that there's no problems with the constitution or that the referendum is marginal.

Perhaps a matter for another thread but essentially:
1) I believe the exact same practical ends can be met with legislation rather than constitutional amendment (based on In Re: Adoption Bill 1987 & on the provisions of the Guardianship of infants act). Certainly the government should try to address any percieved discrepancy with legislation and if it doesn't work then look to changing the constitution.

2) I believe that only a statement of the principle should be put into the constitution, not all the extra unnessesary stuff that has been proposed. This makes for a messy constituion and will cause more harm than good.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Well,yes. The major reservations were over removing the infant from the couple that it had bonded with and effectively giving it to two strangers (from her point of view).

This is not uncommon though. Many absent parents who walk into a child's life and who for all intents and purposes strangers to the child, will get some form of access or custody.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it may have been the case that you actually have to hear the evidence. McMenamin in the HC certainly felt the same way as you. However, the evidence wasn't all one way and there was evidence that the child remaining with the foster parents could be equally damaging as she would grow up in a situation where she lived with one family but was the child of another. This duality could cause greater problems down the line, and perhaps the media latched onto the immediate problems without referring to the more long term consequences of the decision.

Well I've read all the judgements and discussion of both short-term and long-term consequences. I can't really see any strong argument put forward for giving them back to their natural parents other than the simple fact that they are her natural parents. Indeed, most of the judges stress that they do not consider that her staying with her foster parents would have a large negative psychological impact, other than the inevitable questions when she grows older. They also stress that any such argument would bring the whole concept of adoption into question (or something to that effect - can't remember exact wording).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The SC took a stance based on the law and on an interpertation of the facts. You will note that I have not said anything about whether I think their interpretation of the facts was correct or not, but they did assess the law correctly and the law in itself does not create an injustice to the child.

Well..that's exactly the point that's being debated!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing is that the evidence was not presented first hand to the supreme court, but that's another story. I can't help wonder as well whether if they had upheld the HC decision the same papers would have run a sensationalist "Supreme Court took my baby" story, and the Baby Anne case would be famous for entirely different reasons.

The media loves a story. This case would always have been important because of its implications for the constitution.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps a matter for another thread but essentially:
1) I believe the exact same practical ends can be met with legislation rather than constitutional amendment (based on In Re: Adoption Bill 1987 & on the provisions of the Guardianship of infants act). Certainly the government should try to address any percieved discrepancy with legislation and if it doesn't work then look to changing the constitution.

I disagree. As we saw in this case, provisions in the legislation you quote were overturned because of the wording of the constitution. The judges actually explictly quote the constitution as their fundamental basis for the judgement.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) I believe that only a statement of the principle should be put into the constitution, not all the extra unnessesary stuff that has been proposed. This makes for a messy constituion and will cause more harm than good.

I don't see anything messy about the addition of the explicit rights of children, as separate to their parents or family. If it helps, there's a few things I'd like to take out to tidy it up!! (ie women's place in home blah blah..)

In my opinion, the only reason the referendum has not taken place is because the government is not popular, especially after the No to Lisbon, and it is common knowledge that people like to express their discontent through unrelated issues, such as this referendum.

metrovelvet wrote: »

This is not uncommon though. Many absent parents who walk into a child's life and who for all intents and purposes strangers to the child, will get some form of access or custody.

True, but it's out of necessity eg the original parents have died or proved they are not fit parents. Not when they are already in a perfectly good, loving environment.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

True, but it's out of necessity eg the original parents have died or proved they are not fit parents. Not when they are already in a perfectly good, loving environment.

What I was talking about was a situation in a divorce or single parenting situation where a parent has abandoned his or her child to the other parent and then returns to seek the child out. It is not unheard of for a judge to partially remove a child from its primary home to the residence of the returning parent for part time stays, bar drug abuse or sex abuse, this is quite common, even in infancy.

I know in the US in the case of adoptions, the biological parents [the mother most likely] have up to a year to change their minds. Also, its not as if the infant is taken from the biological mother fresh from the womb, she does have to spend a few weeks, at least, with the newborn before handed over to the adoptive parents.

Can you elaborate on the psychological trauma that the child would undergo from being removed - without an incremental,gradual approach, from its adoptive home to its natural one?

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

What I was talking about was a situation in a divorce or single parenting situation where a parent has abandoned his or her child to the other parent and then returns to seek the child out. It is not unheard of for a judge to partially remove a child from its primary home to the residence of the returning parent for part time stays, bar drug abuse or sex abuse, this is quite common, even in infancy.

OK - I'm not quite sure the point you're making?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I know in the US in the case of adoptions, the biological parents [the mother most likely] have up to a year to change their minds. Also, its not as if the infant is taken from the biological mother fresh from the womb, she does have to spend a few weeks, at least, with the newborn before handed over to the adoptive parents.

It is quite similar here, afaik. The mother/parents sign two declarations. The first is for an "open adoption", where the child is given up for adoption and then a second declaration that makes the adoption final. In the Baby Ann case, the parents signed the first but not the second. Anyway, their marriage effectively nullified the adoption.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the psychological trauma that the child would undergo from being removed - without an incremental,gradual approach, from its adoptive home to its natural one?

As I am not an expert on child psychology, I'll put down what was in the judgement

The experts also agreed, with varying degrees of emphasis, that a phased and gradual transfer of care, with the co-operation of the Doyles and expert support and assistance for the Byrnes, could be achieved. Such a phased and gradual transfer could take a period of up to a year. It was likely to cause some immediate suffering to Ann but the chances of long term harm would be greatly reduced, though not entirely eliminated. All four experts also relied on Bowlby as an established authority on bonding attachment and on Fahlberg (2004) as a more modern authority. All experts stressed the importance of the gradual nature of the transfer and the need for co-operation between the present carers and the new carers. They also stressed the fact that both pre and post-placement visits and contacts could be used to minimise the trauma of separation and loss to the child.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2006/S60.html

It is quite sad that the foster parents stated that this gradual move would be too painful and by rights they should have been considering what was best for the child.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

It is quite sad that the foster parents stated that this gradual move would be too painful and by rights they should have been considering what was best for the child.

Ok so the foster parents declined doing what was best for the child and the child then went directly without adjustment to the natural parents?

Is that right?

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok so the foster parents declined doing what was best for the child and the child then went directly without adjustment to the natural parents?

Is that right?

We don't know what measures were taken by both parents after the Supreme Court judgement. As far as I know, that information was not made public.

What happened was, the foster parents said that they would find it emotionally traumatic to have to give back the infant gradually. They may well have just said this in order to influence the judges' decision but agreed to it afterwards. I don't know.

Unfortunately, this case became a battle over the entitlements and rights of both sets of parents, rather than what was right for the child.

ChocolateSauce

One thing you're forgetting Zulu, is that it's...nicccee....:pac:

But seriously, yeah, very sexist. I was shocked and appalled. I don't think it was actually constitutional, so that law might be struck down some time in the future.

Nasty_Girl

How often does anyone , male or female get life for rape tho

I had a look on breakingnews.ie and I could only find one case where a guy got 20 years for repeatedly raping his daughter , but he'd also raped three of his neighbours kids.

The rest I found were all between 3 -15 years,
http://www.breakingnews.ie/Ireland/mhidsnaugboj/rss2/
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cwidsnsnsnkf/
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/?c=IRELAND&jp=kfsngbojidkf&d=2005-04-04
http://breakingnews.ie/world/mheygbojauoj/
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidcwidkfql/
www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/1029/ireland/mhidmhsnmhey/


I agree that the consitution should be ammended to change the loophole however, not disputing that at all, it's bleedin foolish to assume that there are no evil sick women like her out there.
And this consecutive sentencing??? Don't get me started :mad:
She should never see daylight again.

The Corinthian

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

I agree that the consitution should be ammended to change the loophole however, not disputing that at all, it's bleedin foolish to assume that there are no evil sick women like her out there.
And this consecutive sentencing??? Don't get me started :mad:
She should never see daylight again.

A lot of this has to do with social attitudes, which in turn are validated in law. Had this case not been one of incest, it is likely that it would never have gone anywhere or that the woman would have received no custodial sentience, as occurred with the Debra Lafave case (parodied in South Park) in the US, where a female teacher had sex with a 14-year old boy - reverse the genders and you would have been faced with a very different outcome.

There's plenty of other areas where the law blatantly (de jure or de facto) favours women to men, of course; conscription, divorce, parental / reproductive rights, insurance rates and public toilets (where it is a criminal offence for a man to go into a women's toilet, but not the reverse) - to name just a few.

K4t

The Corinthian wrote: »

public toilets (where it is a criminal offence for a man to go into a women's toilet, but not the reverse) - to name just a few.

In fairness, I wouldn't argue against that one.

The Corinthian

K4t wrote: »

In fairness, I wouldn't argue against that one.

Of course, after all all men are rapists. And if some drunk slapper in a bar or nightclub goes into the gents with her mates to check out the men at the urinals, then that's perfectly fine. Harmless fun. Those guys probably enjoy the attention...

The original point raised in this thread seems to have escaped you, I see.

Happy Monday

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes it is sexism and that law predates us becoming a republic and has been on the books from the time of queen victoria.

Begs the question of whether this is a Republic at all if our original body of law was taken from our imperial power. It should have been out with the old and in with the new at the time of independence. It wasn't because those taking over were as conservative as the previous lot if not more so.
I don't believe it is sexism - it's just that people of that time did not conceive of this happening. I mean for a long time it was legal for a man to rape his wife once married.

Zulu

Happy Monday wrote: »

....for a long time it was legal for a man to rape his wife once married.

Well, to be more accurate, it was never "legal" for a man to rape his wife, it was just couldn't happen. ie: there was no law stating it was ok for a man to rape his wife.

The Corinthian

Happy Monday wrote: »

I don't believe it is sexism - it's just that people of that time did not conceive of this happening. I mean for a long time it was legal for a man to rape his wife once married.

Sexism is prejudice based on gender, so it's still sexism even if those practising it are not aware of it. It may have been normal and accepted behaviour, but that does not make it any less sexist.

I'd be careful about bringing things like the history of marital rape into this discussion. I think it is broadly agreed that women suffered serious inequities in the past, but that's not what we're discussing and neither are we still living in the past.

The danger exists that such past equities are used by some to justify the inequities now suffered my men. Sins of the father (or grandfather), and all that.

Wagon

taconnol wrote: »

While I agree with most of your post about traditional roles for the two genders in our society, I'd have to take you up on theses sentence. They're quite general and broad - would you like to expand?

No problem, I haven't checked this thread in ages. I'll use an example:
Say there was a situation of domestic voilence where a woman is the offender on the man. These appeared on PI a few times, although these cases are rare. Many will be inclined to be more lenient with a woman in this case and offer her help and councelling. If it was a man doing the beating, then it'd be "ring the guards" and the classic "he's a sicko". Absolutely no leeway at all which is grand but there shouldn't be any leeway for a female offender either.

An argument that could pop up here is that the bloke could be weak if he isn't defending himself. but think of it logically. wife assaults husband frequently, husband defends himself eventually and gives her a black eye (not intentionally). she goes to the guards, who are they going to believe?

When I said women have more freedom, it's in the sense of having more rights in important areas. In relation to this case, they have more rights to their children and the freedom to decide what's best for them. Men don't get any rights when the couple are married, and even if they were married and got divorced it's quite minimal. It's a lopsided view on the role of men as fathers. It's just as important as having a mother.

These are two examples that stick out in my mind. And I can understand if people will disagree but that's what I've seen happen anyway. This case just highlights it. I can gaurentee that if it was a man that was doing these things to his kids, social services would have gotten the kids out years ago.

hot2def wrote: »

I especially enjoy our freedom to earn 1/3 less for the same job.


that's a great one.

Feckin hell, I didn't think that shyte went on anymore! If that happens, report it and it'll be dealt with immediatly. There is absolutely nothing in the law that says it's acceptable. Even in my own contract it says that people in this role get the correct pay regardless of race, religion or gender. Anything other than that these days will land an employer in very deep ****.

Wagon

Wagon wrote:

Feckin hell, I didn't think that shyte went on anymore! If that happens, report it and it'll be dealt with immediatly. There is absolutely nothing in the law that says it's acceptable. Even in my own contract it says that people in this role get the correct pay regardless of race, religion or gender. Anything other than that these days will land an employer in very deep ****.

I don't think it does though. At least I can't think of any industry where this is likely to occur outside of actual production/sales rates which is fair enough. There is a perception that women should have the same rights as men, but also receive the traditional "perks" of their sex. Many view the lack of these additional perks as being sexism against females. If anything employment law has swung too far, and it is the men that are being held against.

Where contracts are not in place, its just more likely that the men have negotiated better wages than the women.

I'd love to see some actual links or evidence to show where this occurs.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it does though. At least I can't think of any industry where this is likely to occur outside of actual production/sales rates which is fair enough.

It's difficult to say if it does occur, however the only thing that we can say with certainty is that it is illegal. As such the problem is with policing rather than the law.

There is a perception that women should have the same rights as men, but also receive the traditional "perks" of their sex. Many view the lack of these additional perks as being sexism against females. If anything employment law has swung too far, and it is the men that are being held against.

Because men have not campaigned, lobbied or pushed for concessions.

Where contracts are not in place, its just more likely that the men have negotiated better wages than the women.

This is true, although in my experience women are more than capable of negotiating salaries.

I'd love to see some actual links or evidence to show where this occurs.

Unfortunately most groups who bring out such evidence tend to have an agenda to push. The most common misrepresentation of data is lumping part time workers in with full time ones and as women are more likely to be part time (mothers in particular) their overall salaries will work out lower. If viewed in terms of daily or hourly rates, then it often works out higher.

Another factor is that, again due to childcare, women take career breaks. This can lead to a situation whereby a woman can be at a lower rank, and thus salary, than a man of her age.

The question is not really whether women are paid less (as it is illegal to do so) but whether they have the same rank in business that would lead to such salaries. This is a more complex question as a woman may fail to get reach a certain level in business for numerous reasons, some of which are really not men's fault and can be due to lifestyle choice.

Macha

Wagon wrote: »

When I said women have more freedom, it's in the sense of having more rights in important areas.

Well, what are and aren't "important areas" is open for debate. Yes, in the area of family law, women get more rights but the root of this stance is from the sexist viewpoint that looking after kids is wimmin's work. Whatever rights women get in the sphere of the famly are cancelled out by deficits in the sphere of work. There is little flexi-time, child-care facilities are expensive, part-time workers (mostly women) have fewer rights and lower pay. and studies clearly show active discrimination against women of a child-bearing age.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/worklifebalance.discriminationatwork

Women who work and have families have to put up with the attitude that they're "bad mothers". Similarly, men who stay at home and look after their kids are seen as being somehow feminised. It's just totally messed up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/05/women.pay

Wagon wrote: »

Men don't get any rights when the couple are married, and even if they were married and got divorced it's quite minimal.

Men don't get any rights at all? I don't think that's accurate. I fully agree that men get p1ssed all over when it comes to rights to their children but my issue with your post was that you said women have more rights, without any qualification, suggesting this was generally true in all areas, when it isn't.

You also said that women have more freedom, without explaining what you mean. Physical freedom, financial freedom?

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a perception that women should have the same rights as men, but also receive the traditional "perks" of their sex.

Who holds this view? Seriously, I know a few annoying people in LL that think that guys should always pay for dates, buy their drinks etc but I meet very few people like this in real life.

Deleted User wrote: »

Many view the lack of these additional perks as being sexism against females. If anything employment law has swung too far, and it is the men that are being held against.

Can you show proof of this anti-male discrimination in the work force? Because I really, really don't think this is true at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where contracts are not in place, its just more likely that the men have negotiated better wages than the women.

There have been studies that prove that women are actually penalised for negotiating bonuses/better wages. They are seen as aiming above their station. I'll try and find a link.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to see some actual links or evidence to show where this occurs.

Me too

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's difficult to say if it does occur, however the only thing that we can say with certainty is that it is illegal. As such the problem is with policing rather than the law.

True, although it is still happening, at least in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jan/27/pay.genderissues

A study by the commission of 870 employers, all of whom have reviewed their pay structures to check if they are paying equally, found that 16% are unlawfully discriminating against their female workers by paying them less than men to do the same job.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately most groups who bring out such evidence tend to have an agenda to push. The most common misrepresentation of data is lumping part time workers in with full time ones and as women are more likely to be part time (mothers in particular) their overall salaries will work out lower. If viewed in terms of daily or hourly rates, then it often works out higher.

Good point

The Corinthian wrote: »

Another factor is that, again due to childcare, women take career breaks. This can lead to a situation whereby a woman can be at a lower rank, and thus salary, than a man of her age.

It must also be pointed out that while women get maternity leave, men don't. Discriminiatory towards fathers, but also forces the mother to take time off when perhaps the couple would rather that the father stays at home.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question is not really whether women are paid less (as it is illegal to do so) but whether they have the same rank in business that would lead to such salaries. This is a more complex question as a woman may fail to get reach a certain level in business for numerous reasons, some of which are really not men's fault and can be due to lifestyle choice.

And then again, it's clear that very often, it's a simple matter of discrimination:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/21/gender.children

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/sep/09/workandcareers.childrensservices

Finally, people forget that up until quite recently, it was legal to pay women less for the same work. The only reason it changed in this country is because the EU forced us to. We have an inherently sexist (against both genders) constitution where the hand of the catholic church is obvious for anyone to see. Until this changes, discrimination against men and women will remain a feature of Irish society.