What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

Gloomtastic!

Another year, another government and still no wording for the Children's Referendum.

I don't really understand why they want it changed but:

What is the problem?
Is it going to start costing the state more money if it's amended?
In whose interest is it for the current wording to remain unchanged?

Mark200

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Another year, another government and still no wording for the Children's Referendum.

I don't really understand why they want it changed but:

What is the problem?
Is it going to start costing the state more money if it's amended?
In whose interest is it for the current wording to remain unchanged?

The biggest complication with the wording will be how it defines "the child's best interest"

Morag

It needs to be amended to that we can finally ratify the UN convention on the Rights of the Child which the UN adopted 1989. What has stopped it so far is the how the churches have had a grip on the education system
and that the parental rights of married parents are enshrined in such away that the children of married parents
can not be adopted.

This is about given children rights sorely needed in a country which for decades allowed children to be abused by those who were their care givers.

http://www.childrensrights.ie/childrens-rights-ireland/un-convention-rights-child
Reply

steddyeddy

Currently the family unit is put above the needs of a child. This needs to change. The state has a horrbile attitude to children in our history and even more recently. The lack of political will is the proble. Mary Harney for example didnt answer one question regarding children in care in her time in dail.

Nodin

....theres probably a dread they'll be legally obligating themselves to provide proper services. I am a cynic, however.

christmas2012

between the hse and the daa there is a fvck up in irish politics on the whole i doubt they will get this fully sorted..

later12

The Children's Referendum is an enormous issue, covering a wide breadth of topics from adoption to child protection to various other, more controversial rights that relate to the child's identity as an individual, which may be somewhat contentious depending on one's ideology.

The people who are likely to have a problem with the latter aspect of the Referedum are religious groups and perhaps those generally skeptical of the wisdom of allowing the state to interfere with the family, and the private lives of individuals. If we were to be a little bit reckless with our terminology, we might somewhat bluntly call them "the right wingers".

The reason why the religious are particularly concerned is they fear a diminution of the perpetuation of their faith and/ or moral philosophy by diminishing the freedom of parents to influence, educate and raise their children as they personally see fit. They fear that the Children's Rights Referendum would bestow a level of 'individuality' or independence on children which would allow the state to step in and impose its own values or morality in the place of that of parents.

Below is the 2010 Cross Party committee's proposal for the amendment to the constitution. In all likelihood, this is going to more or less be the amendment that is put to the electorate later this year.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/proposalforanamendmenttotheconstitution/#d.en.1552

Gloomtastic!

So the wording is there but, once again, we have the government acting subservient to the religious. When will we ever be free from these parasites?

SocSocPol

Biggest problem is defining the "Child", as currently the Irish constitution recognises(argueably) the unborn as a "Child" but places the rights of the mothers life above that of the unborn child,
This proposed referendum could open a whole can of political worms that our cowardly politicans dont want to face.
This referendum could well end out being more about access to the civil right that is abortion , than the rights of actual children.

later12

No I don't think there is a legitimate argument that the Children's Rights referendum would negatively affect the right to life of the unborn.

The right to life of the unborn as affirmed by the eighth amendment to the constitution comes under Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution. That article will remain in place in spite of any amendment to Article 42, which is the article being examined in the context of the Children's Rights Referendum.

I'm finding it hard to imagine how the pro life movement could possibly fit an abortion argument into voting No to the amendment.

Their argument in the context of this referendum will largely & essentially be that children ought have less rights (so-called 'choice' rights), not more. So it's hard to see abortion becoming more than an obscure side issue.

RDM_83 again

Just took a quick through the link Later12 gave of the proposed ammendment and this stood out

7. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social

What do you think is meant by a minimum 'moral' education

later12

That is open to interpretation, but it should be pointed out that the named provision is already extant in Bunreacht na hEireann as article 42.3.1 & 2. It was re-drafted into the committee's proposed amendment under a different paragraph number, but the wording is unchanged.

conorhal

The real problem as I see it, is that this referendum is not about the rights of a child, it's about the rights of the state and how much control it is entitled to wrest from parents.

There is in my opinion no requirement for the referendum, it's never been legal to physically, sexually or through neglect abuse a child.
We have a plethora of laws on the statute books that we typically never bother enforcing and if we actually enforced them and were determined fund propper care systems for children (the HSE and it's 9-5 Monday to Friday care services are a joke), 99% of the problems faced by children would dissapear overnight.
I'm pretty sure that if the referendum is passed that not a jot will change on the ground for vunerable at risk children, but, you know, a bunch of self satisfied Laborites will get to feel good about themselves.

oscarBravo

conorhal wrote: »

The real problem as I see it, is that this referendum is not about the rights of a child...

...apart from the suggested wording that "...the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration."

Maybe you can explain how that's not about the rights of the child.

gizmo555

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Is it going to start costing the state more money if it's amended?

Potentially. The last government decided against a referendum on this issue at least in part because it would give children rights that would be enforceable against the state, rather than what was really desired - as conorhal suggests - greater rights for the state to interfere in families.

Boulevardier

A referendum is needed because of the way the existing constitution, as exploited by the lady mentioned below, has permitted cruelty to Children:

Devout Catholic Mina Bean Uí Chroibín helped the parents in Roscommon ‘House of Horrors’ incest case to hold on to custody of their children.

Also this:

Over 16 years ago Judge Catherine McGuinness, as she then was, recommended a constitutional
amendment to protect the rights of children in the family. It arose from her report on the Kilkenny
incest case where a man had sexually abused his daughter over a number of years and social
services felt constrained from intervening because of protections given the family in the
Constitution.
Similarly, in the Roscommon incest case last January, it emerged that the mother in that family had
obtained an injunction restraining the health board from intervening.
In her 1993 report Judge McGuinness said “the very high emphasis on the rights of the family in the
Constitution may consciously or unconsciously be interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights
of parents than to the rights of children”.

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

A referendum is needed because of the way the existing constitution, as exploited by the lady mentioned below, has permitted cruelty to Children:

Devout Catholic Mina Bean Uí Chroibín helped the parents in Roscommon ‘House of Horrors’ incest case to hold on to custody of their children.

She did indeed help them get a High Court injunction preventing the children being taken into care - what you haven't mentioned is that the HSE didn't bother to turn up in court to contest the application.

More a case of the HSE failing to do its job with the already very extensive powers available to it than evidence of a need for constitutional change.

The HSE report is expected to look at why officials did not apply for a supervision order until 2004 despite the family being on their radar as far back as 1990.

And it will look at why officials failed to fight an injunction that stopped the children being taken into care in 2000 when right wing activist Mena Bean Ui Chribin backed their mother in the High Court.

SocSocPol

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Just took a quick through the link Later12 gave of the proposed ammendment and this stood out

7. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social

What do you think is meant by a minimum 'moral' education

Easy just replace Moral with Catholic!

jonniebgood1

Boulevardier wrote: »

A referendum is needed because of the way the existing constitution, as exploited by the lady mentioned below, has permitted cruelty to Children:

Rubbish- the case you mention was negligence by state officials who did not properly implement the law. It in no way supports the need for a referendum that is not needed.

jimmycrackcorm

SocSocPol wrote: »

Easy just replace Moral with Catholic!

Does that mean then that atheists don't have any morals?

SocSocPol

oscarBravo wrote: »

...apart from the suggested wording that "...the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration."

Maybe you can explain how that's not about the rights of the child.

Which means it will negate the X Case ruling which placed paramount consideration on the rights of the mother.
Instead of legislating for the x case ruling the Government are seeking to re-introduce the constitutional ban on abortion under the guise of a childrens rights amendment!

oscarBravo

SocSocPol wrote: »

Which means it will negate the X Case ruling which placed paramount consideration on the rights of the mother.
Instead of legislating for the x case ruling the Government are seeking to re-introduce the constitutional ban on abortion under the guise of a childrens rights amendment!

Well, no. Let's look at the rest of that clause:

In the resolution of all disputes concerning the guardianship, adoption, custody, care or upbringing of a child, the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration.

I don't think abortion has anything to do with disputes concerning guardianship, adoption, custody, care or upbringing of a child.

gizmo555

I have to say that Judge O'Flaherty's opinions only serve to confirm my view that the referendum is at best mere tokenism and a convenient distraction from the country's economic woes, and at worst an enabler for the state to interfere at will in families.

FORMER Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty today says there is no need for a new referendum to protect the rights of children.

In his new weekly column -- starting in this morning's Irish Independent -- Mr O'Flaherty says: "We need to cherish our children but we don't need a referendum to prove it."

Mr O'Flaherty said that the children's rights referendum was likely to implement the recommendations of a 2010 Oireachtas Committee.

He said these were to treat and protect all children fairly and equally; make the welfare of children a paramount consideration; extend the right to adoption where child's welfare requires; provide education, including free education at primary level; and make sure the State's laws and services match the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr O'Flaherty says: "These are very laudable precepts but . . . they are all -- or nearly all -- to be found in the existing articles of the constitution, in our ordinary legislation or in court judgments."

ciaranmac

gizmo555 wrote: »

I have to say that Judge O'Flaherty's opinions only serve to confirm my view that the referendum is at best mere tokenism and a convenient distraction from the country's economic woes, and at worst an enabler for the state to interfere at will in families.

FORMER Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty today says there is no need for a new referendum to protect the rights of children.

In his new weekly column -- starting in this morning's Irish Independent -- Mr O'Flaherty says: "We need to cherish our children but we don't need a referendum to prove it."

Mr O'Flaherty said that the children's rights referendum was likely to implement the recommendations of a 2010 Oireachtas Committee.

He said these were to treat and protect all children fairly and equally; make the welfare of children a paramount consideration; extend the right to adoption where child's welfare requires; provide education, including free education at primary level; and make sure the State's laws and services match the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr O'Flaherty says: "These are very laudable precepts but . . . they are all -- or nearly all -- to be found in the existing articles of the constitution, in our ordinary legislation or in court judgments."

Isn't he the one who resigned because he intervened to give a drunk driver early release after killing a mother who was in a car with her kids?

gizmo555

ciaranmac wrote: »

Isn't he the one who resigned because he intervened to give a drunk driver early release after killing a mother who was in a car with her kids?

(a) O'Flaherty has consistently denied he did anything wrong.

(b) Whether he did or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the points he makes in this article.

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

She did indeed help them get a High Court injunction preventing the children being taken into care - what you haven't mentioned is that the HSE didn't bother to turn up in court to contest the application.

More a case of the HSE failing to do its job with the already very extensive powers available to it than evidence of a need for constitutional change.

The HSE report is expected to look at why officials did not apply for a supervision order until 2004 despite the family being on their radar as far back as 1990.

And it will look at why officials failed to fight an injunction that stopped the children being taken into care in 2000 when right wing activist Mena Bean Ui Chribin backed their mother in the High Court.

Minster for Children, Frances Fitzgerald was challenged by Matt Cooper on his radio show this evening (19 Sep) to give just one example of a case which demonstrated the need for this constitutional amendment.

Unbelievably, this is the case she cited . . . the point cannot be overstated that while the Roscommon incest case involved appalling physical and sexual abuse of children, that abuse continued for as long as it did because the HSE didn't do its job - not because of any constitutional impediment to them acting.

Boulevardier

Gizmo, the HSE didnt do its job because they were convinced that a constitutional impediment existed, and most legal experts now agree that there was.

(I would have ignored the constitution in that case, but that's another story)

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

Gizmo, the HSE didnt do its job because they were convinced that a constitutional impediment existed

Source for this please?

(More to the point, why didn't they show up, argue their case, and let the courts do their job of adjudicating on what the constitution permits?)

Boulevardier

Sorry, I have no source to hand.

I would agree that the HSE should have gone to court and I have no idea why they did not.

However, there seems to be an almost overwhelming consensus that a referendum is necessary, particularly if we are to improve adoption opportunities.

Icepick

SocSocPol wrote: »

Easy just replace Moral with Catholic!

must be sarcasm

donaghs

oscarBravo wrote: »

...apart from the suggested wording that "...the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration."

Maybe you can explain how that's not about the rights of the child.

Perhaps he meant it was not really about the "best interests" of the child. Certainly it is related to the "rights" of the child.

I think the problem is that the "the welfare and best interests" are quite open to interpretation. e.g. the state could have made the claim in decades past that it was in the best interests of the children of a poor single parent to be removed from them and placed into the care of religious orders. And most of the society of the time would have agreed.

Can anyone give a succint outline of why we really need this referendum, as opposed to enforcing existing laws?