The Children's Bill 2010

Lenny Lovett

So they are going to be busy debating the Childern's Referendum this coming month. Is this referendum not a complete waste of time and resources given that Children's rights are well protected within the current Constitution anyway. Surely, enforcing those provisions by the relevant authorities would be more sensible at this time rather than rewriting a perfectly "fit for purpose" piece of legislation?

I suppose they could hold the outstanding By Elections at the same time as the referendum though...

Einhard

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So they are going to be busy debating the Childern's Referendum this coming month. Is this referendum not a complete waste of time and resources given that Children's rights are well protected within the current Constitution anyway. Surely, enforcing those provisions by the relevant authorities would be more sensible at this time rather than rewriting a perfectly "fit for purpose" piece of legislation?

I suppose they could hold the outstanding By Elections at the same time as the referendum though...

Actually, children aren't well protected under our Constitution. Precedence is given to the "family" rather than to any individual therein, which has tended to mean that the protection of the integrity of the family unit has been given priority in situations when protection of children would have warranted their immediate removal. One only has to look at the recent rape/incest/physical abuse case in Galway, the report on which came out during the week, to see that childrens' rights are too often subsumed within those of the family unit. In one instance, the HSE applied to have the children removed from the custody of their parents, only for that order to be quashed on Constitutional grounds when the mother, with the aid of a prominent member of the Christian right, challenged the order. Anyone could see that the removal of the children was the correct course of action, but this could not be reconciled with the tenets of the Constitution.

Essexboy

Einhard wrote: »

Actually, children aren't well protected under our Constitution. Precedence is given to the "family" rather than to any individual therein, which has tended to mean that the protection of the integrity of the family unit has been given priority in situations when protection of children would have warranted their immediate removal. One only has to look at the recent rape/incest/physical abuse case in Galway, the report on which came out during the week, to see that childrens' rights are too often subsumed within those of the family unit. In one instance, the HSE applied to have the children removed from the custody of their parents, only for that order to be quashed on Constitutional grounds when the mother, with the aid of a prominent member of the Christian right, challenged the order. Anyone could see that the removal of the children was the correct course of action, but this could not be reconciled with the tenets of the Constitution.

It was in Roscommon, not Galway, although if the Sunday Tribune is correct abuse in Galway has eclipsed that in Roscommon.

The High Court did not stop the children being taken into care. To quote the Law Agent "It didn’t say you can’t go for an order under the Child Care
Act, it didn’t say you can’t make them a ward of court, it didn’t say anything
specific except we couldn’t remove them into the custody.”
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/RoscommonChildCareCase.pdf

The Health Board could have challenged the High Court decision (they were not represented in the court when the Order was made), or gone to the District Court anyway but the social workers did nothing! Did not seek legal advice or refer it to senior management.
But there is a cultural presumption in favour of "the family" as you say and this influences court decisions.

One question which the report does not answer is how did these lowlives come into contact with the Catholic* group? They were hardly pillars of the Church.
(*are they really Catholic or are they followers of Marcel Lefebvre?)

Manach

Offhand, the strength of the relevant protection given to family in Article 41 is a defence of the family unit as a whole, and not just its individual parts.
One consequence of this a bulwark against State actions such as forced medical treatments to children who are healthy (North Western Health Board v HW [2001] 3 IR 622) against parental wishes.

Einhard

Manach wrote: »

One consequence of this a bulwark against State actions such as forced medical treatments to children who are healthy (North Western Health Board v HW [2001] 3 IR 622) against parental wishes.

That's a good thing, surely?