Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Unmarried mothers

  • 15-12-2010 1:59pm
    #1
    Kunle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭


    From next april single mothers getting the one parent family allowence will have to be seeking work to keep getting the benifit when their eldest child turns 14, most people think this is a good idea but i have a feeling its unconstitutionl, the constitution says something like the state will not require a mother to work outside the home.


Comments

  • #2
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Yeah if it's challenged the government may run into trouble.

    Article 41

    2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


  • #3
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Has that article ever actually been the main thrust of a constitutional argument?


    Personally I think it is bollocks.


  • #4
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Has that article ever actually been the main thrust of a constitutional argument?


    Personally I think it is bollocks.

    No doubt the Justices of the Supreme Court will attach great weight to that view :D


  • #5
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    k_mac wrote: »
    2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    Its not an absolute requirement to ensure that economic necessity does not oblige mothers to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


  • #6
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Has that article ever actually been the main thrust of a constitutional argument?


    Personally I think it is bollocks.

    The Constitution or the new social welfare rule?
    Reloc8 wrote: »
    Its not an absolute requirement to ensure that economic necessity does not oblige mothers to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    Yes but I think a rule which requires them to engage in labour outside the home would go against this article. No doubt the rights of the child would also be brought into any challenge.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    As a single father, I'd like to see it challenged on equality grounds.


  • #8
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    k_mac wrote: »
    The Constitution or the new social welfare rule.



    Yes but I think a rule which requires them to engage in labour outside the home would go against this article. No doubt the rights of the child would also be brought into any challenge.

    There's no stateable challenge here at all to what is proposed, under ordinary parameters of constitutional law.

    Firstly, there's no constitutional rule requiring anyone to engage in labour outside the home contemplated. The State's obligation is to endeavour to ensure that no one from economic necessity is obliged to work outside them home.

    Endeavour takes its ordinary dictionary meaning in this context - effectively to act earnestly and conscientiously so as to accomplish something. No constitutional right (aside from the right to life) is absolute.

    Further what is at issue is a money bill (i.e. one which decides how the public funds will be spent) which is not of retrospective effect. The separation of powers doctrine, more or less, prevents a court from stepping in.

    Finally the effect of the proposal is not empirically to require mothers to work outside the home to the neglect of their duties in the home. Having regard to the terms of the article the following variables arise :-

    a) Not all mothers will be 'required' from economic necessity to work outside the home. Some may of course have to do so to make ends meet. Some will choose to do so to make things financially easier. The proposal does not have the absolute effect however of a 'requirement' arising from economic necessity.

    b) Just because a mother works outside the home, whether 'required' to or not, does not mean that their 'duties in the home' are neglected, inherently. To argue the opposite is to argue that every working mother is neglecting her duties in the home. I don't think that could possibly be tenable in this day and age.

    c) What are a mother's 'duties in the home' anyway ? Yes of course they exist, but it is very difficult to establish their parameters and therefore very difficult to establish when they are being neglected. This is in fairness a secondary argument to a) and in particular b) above.

    To say 'no doubt the rights of the child would be brought into any challenge' is to add a further woolly layer to an already woolly argument.


  • #9
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    As a single father, I'd like to see it challenged on equality grounds.

    The rule or the allowance in general? Personally I think the allowance should be scrapped in favour of a widow/widower allowance and new legislation should be brought in to make it simpler for maintenance to be sought from the missing spouse.


  • #10
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    k_mac wrote: »
    The rule or the allowance in general?

    The article in the constitution.
    k_mac wrote: »
    Personally I think the allowance should be scrapped in favour of a widow/widower allowance and new legislation should be brought in to make it simpler for maintenance to be sought from the missing spouse.

    Most single parents aren't widows or widowers.
    And those who are, are going to find it very difficult to seek maintenance from a dead person.


  • #11
    GSBellew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 812 ✭✭✭GSBellew


    If there is a constitutional issue could every unemployed mother on JSA / JSB not also take a case on the grounds that they are being asked to seek employment?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    k_mac wrote: »
    The Constitution or the new social welfare rule?



    Yes but I think a rule which requires them to engage in labour outside the home would go against this article. No doubt the rights of the child would also be brought into any challenge.
    I men has that article ever been evoked before? Successfully?


  • #13
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I men has that article ever been evoked before? Successfully?

    It's come up as a way to get women out of jury service, I believe. And obviously, it influences a lot of family law in Ireland, not least judicial attitudes.
    Apparently the Greens got a concession out of Fianna Fail at their sham reprogramme for government to rewrite this clause to read parent rather than mother.
    Another broken promise from Fianna Fail there.


  • #14
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Most single parents aren't widows or widowers.
    And those who are, are going to find it very difficult to seek maintenance from a dead person.

    Widow allowance for those that are widows. Maintenance legislation for those whos partner is still alive.


  • #15
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    k_mac wrote: »
    Widow allowance for those that are widows. Maintenance legislation for those whos partner is still alive.

    Those all exist already. I don't see what difference you're proposing.


  • #16
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Those all exist already. I don't see what difference you're proposing.

    Im proposing that the state doesn't give the single parent an allowance but makes it easier for them to obtain it from the other parent.


  • #17
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    k_mac wrote: »
    Im proposing that the state doesn't give the single parent an allowance but makes it easier for them to obtain it from the other parent.

    My child's mother is unemployed, unemployable and lives in a third world country.
    She has no means to provide, which is why my child lives with me.
    I don't require maintenance from her, but if I was in need of benefits, what would you have me do?


  • #18
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,561 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    k_mac wrote: »
    Yeah if it's challenged the government may run into trouble.

    Article 41

    2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    It would be a clear interference. However, the test would be whether that interference would be disproportionate.

    Requiring a single mother to work part time when their child is 14 is hardly neglecting their duties at home. They could, for instance, work 10-2 M-F and still be able to drop them to school and collect them afterwards. They could in reality drop them to school early and collect them late (make them do extra cirricular activities until 6pm) so I really don't see any problem with making the mothers of school going age children work.


  • #19
    Kunle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭Kunle


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    It would be a clear interference. However, the test would be whether that interference would be disproportionate.

    Requiring a single mother to work part time when their child is 14 is hardly neglecting their duties at home. They could, for instance, work 10-2 M-F and still be able to drop them to school and collect them afterwards. They could in reality drop them to school early and collect them late (make them do extra cirricular activities until 6pm) so I really don't see any problem with making the mothers of school going age children work.

    But what about the long school holidays secondary kids get in this country? 3 months in the summer, one week for halloween, 2.5 weeks at christmas, one week in late feb, a couple of days for st patricks day. 2 weeks at easter.


Advertisement