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
child rights referendum's problem for parenting
Options
-
19-09-2012 12:26pm#1quote from amendment; Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
while i agree that children need to be protected and our constitution needs to be changed, i believe that the current changes are very vague, the amendment quoted above was and is already in practice in family law situations and social work.
the problem is that i can see and i am open to opionons about this, is that are we giving a child to many choices, take for example seperated parents and should a child's choice be a major factor.
example; 1 parent strong on education, good manners, respect etc, spoils when appropriate etc
parent 2, the opposite, but spoills the child
if given the choice they would presumably choose parent 2 but might later regret.
opionons welcome but please keep light
Tagged:1
Comments
-
quote from amendment; Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
while i agree that children need to be protected and our constitution needs to be changed, i believe that the current changes are very vague, the amendment quoted above was and is already in practice in family law situations and social work.
the problem is that i can see and i am open to opionons about this, is that are we giving a child to many choices, take for example seperated parents and should a child's choice be a major factor.
example; 1 parent strong on education, good manners, respect etc, spoils when appropriate etc
parent 2, the opposite, but spoills the child
if given the choice they would presumably choose parent 2 but might later regret.
opionons welcome but please keep light
I think the bit I've put in bold is key. The child won't necessarily have the final say, but their opinion will be taken into consideration. If they are considered sensible, mature etc, it will be given more weight.
I'm sure a court would not ask "who would you rather live with: Parent A or Parent B", without also asking why, and forming an opinion based on the reasons given rather than just the preference given by the child.0 -
-
At what age is a child mature enough to form this decision? In my opinion ,no child is. And should we really put this pressure on children in this situation. is it not telling them at a young age that they are making a choice that they and only them will be responsible for this choice.
as parents are we not here to make them choices for them because we have the life experiences and the maturity to decide what is best????0 -
At what age is a child mature enough to form this decision? In my opinion ,no child is.
I disagree. I lead some 14 year old scouts who are more mature and responsible than some adults I know. The child won't have the final say - he/she will have a voice and a right to be listened to. The judge will then make a decision based on all factors, including the child's opinion.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
No, it doesn't have any affect on abortion since the child is not considered a "child" until it is born. Until then it is considered "unborn".Does the wording in para 2 leave any chance of abortion being legalised here totally impossible ? After all it could be argued you are failing in your duty as a parent ?
Yes, but it's quite constitutionally limited because the constitution has always placed a lot of primacy on the importance of the family. So there have been a number of cases where the state has tried to intervene, but they've been challenged on the basis that the state is breaching the constitution by interfering with the family.Is there actually any need for any change as such , is there no child neglect legislation already ?
It's always been a bit of a vague line for the state, which has resulted in a lot of children being needlessly left in the care of downright vicious and dangerous parents.
This amendment very clearly sets out the state's ability to intervene, which strengthens their ability to fight negligent parents in court.
No. The wording is very clear that the state may only intervene and take control in "exceptional circumstances". Obviously "exceptional" is subject to opinion, but it's clear that this amendment doesn't give the state the power to intervene for no reason at all.Also what is your duty towards safety/welfare ? Could you be done for not insisting your child wears a helmet while riding a bike under this amendment ( deliberately choose that because it's a little ' off the wall ' )
They will need to show that the parents are failing to provide for the overall welfare and safety of the child, rather than specific failures to do so. I'll ignore the helmet example for the moment (since helmets are not proven to provide any benefit), and use one that has been thrown about - vaccinations. Can the state intervene if parents don't vaccinate their child? No. Because that would not be an "exceptional" circumstance.
Though in theoretical case that there's a worldwide ebola epidemic and a vaccine is available, would it give the state the right to take over and forcibly vaccinate? Possibly, but then I don't see that as a problem and in the case of a worldwide ebola epidemic society would collapse, so the constitution would be moot
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
quote from amendment; Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
while i agree that children need to be protected and our constitution needs to be changed, i believe that the current changes are very vague, the amendment quoted above was and is already in practice in family law situations and social work.
the problem is that i can see and i am open to opionons about this, is that are we giving a child to many choices, take for example seperated parents and should a child's choice be a major factor.
example; 1 parent strong on education, good manners, respect etc, spoils when appropriate etc
parent 2, the opposite, but spoills the child
if given the choice they would presumably choose parent 2 but might later regret.
opionons welcome but please keep light
eaglej13 How does one keep a topic which deals with our most precious of people, our children and our most fundamental Human Rights, as set out in our constitution, "light"?
juyst to clarify one thing; our children are already protected. Just ask Hugh O'Flaherty, a former Supreme Court Judge who has come out recently to try and put some sanity on the wave of relentless propaganda that has filled the airwaves and broadsheets on this topic. See his piece here.
In your example above the voice of the child will become a central element as to how family law cases run if the referendum is passed. The "voice of the child" is a central theme of Fergus Finlay of Barnardo's. He wants to see the Guardian Ad Litem service as mandatory in our family courts when all decisions pertaining to a child are taken, not just children that come to the attention of our social services. The Guardian Ad Litem is supposedly an independent advocate for the child's rights in the case and they are usually social worker or psychologist. The child is further represented by his/her own solicitor who speaks on behalf of the Guardain ad lietm. Instantly we can see that there is a lot of extra moola to be made here between the legal profession and the likes of Barnardo's, the largest provider of a Guardian Ad lietm service in the country. Who pays for all these extra people in family law cases, yes you have guessed it, the parents.
This is all going to be done in a country where there is no official recognition of Parental Alienation , not to mind Parental Alienation Syndrome . In this situation is very easy to see how the voice of the child will readily become the voice of the alienating parent. Pscyhologists may debate the whole theoretical basis of it but separated fathers and their extended families up and down the country know only too well the practical realities of being cut off from their children and their children being turned against them.
The Judges of course will be delighted to effectively defer the major decision making over to these wonderful child professionals who have trouble acknowledging what's before their very noses. All in all it's a splendid solution for the vested interests and a really good way of creaming more out of family cases. The losers of course will be those children, while we are all so falling over each other to vindicate "their" rights.
Add to this that these decisions will be made in secret in our family courts where there can be NO public scrutiny of the decision making process (or even the result) by independent professionals or even our own fourth estate of the media. Democracy it most certainly ain't.
From this you can readily see that whats being sought here in this referendum is for parents to essentially sign a blank check to the state to cash out in secret.
That blank check consists of your children.
Apart from the obvious problems that will be created in interpreting the "voice of the child" other elements will impact on all parents. For example the lowering of the threshold of state intervention into families will mean greater powers for social services. The government and the yes campaign have consistently maintained that the threshold for intervention has been too high to protect children. However when any of the legal cases they cite are delved into we can see that it was not the power of intervention of the state that was at fault but it was actually too little or too much intervention.
Take for example the horrific Roscommon Incest case, much cited by the yes side as a reason to amend our constitution. In this case neighbours and relatives of the children informed the HSE on at least 10 different occasions trying to make them protect those children over an 11 year period. In the end the children had to rescue themselves.
The High Court injunction is often cited by groups as demonstrating that the legal power of the family, as defined in our constitution, was at fault and meant the children remained trapped in the 'house of horrors'.However in the report carried out into this case only two legal reccommendations came out, these were:4.18.2 There should have been a much more immediate approach to the High Court to vary or vacate its original Order and, if that had been successful, an application to the District Court could then have been made.
4.18.4 The nature of the relationship between Law Agent and the Western Health Board did not promote the provision of proactive legal advice. For his part, the Law Agent clearly indicated to the Inquiry that his responsibility was to take instructions.
Nowhere in the report is the constitution cited as a reason for the monstrous failure of the state to protect those children; they had ALL the legal powers necessary to do so. Our existing article 42.5 of the constitution and generations of child protection legislation provided for it.
Our fundamental human rights as parents to vindicate the rights of our own children is no light matter. The failings of this state to look after our children should be very clear to everybody at this stage. The 196 deaths of children in state care over the past decade is testament enough to this fact.
Entrusting the state with even greater powers over our children is quite ludicrous in my opinion, especially when we can all see it is systems failure by the state, as exemplified in the Roscommon case, that lie at the root of the failings rather than anything to do with our constitution..0 -
Advertisement