child rights referendum's problem for parenting

eaglej13

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

liliq

eaglej13 wrote: »

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.

eviltwin

Yeah I've been waiting for this wording to see exactly what it means. As a parent and a general decent human being of course I believe that all children should be treated with dignity, respect and have their rights met but I am a bit worried that a specific CRR might take away from the rights of parents and put it back into the State.

I have yet to read the full copy, will do that tonight. Would be interested to hear from anyone who has read it and their views on it.

eaglej13

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????

Orion

eaglej13 wrote: »

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.

Davidth88

I have been watching this with interest , although I cannot vote in a constitutional referendum ( being British )

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 ?

Is there actually any need for any change as such , is there no child neglect legislation already ? 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 ' )

This is a really interesting one .

seamus

Davidth88 wrote: »

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 ?

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".

Is there actually any need for any change as such , is there no child neglect legislation already ?

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.

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.

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 ' )

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.
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

Davidth88

Thanks Seamus


I still find the written constitution thing a little different

eaglej13

Orion wrote: »

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.

orion, thanks for your reply and i agree in some part but again go back to the 2 parents at the beginning, would they be mature enough to make the right decision, i believe that most children who would find themselves in this position might find themselves struggling with there family situation and hence could make a decision that they will have to live with for the rest of there life.
i feel the fact that they would be asked to choose would be wrong. every child deserves the right to have both parents equally.
i also feel that in alot of cases the parents and the child need more support than is presently out there.

barbiegirl

Unfortunately this legislation would not be needed if all parents had the best interests of their child at heart. There are 100's of children in long term foster care who cannot be adopted because the parents, though they cannot or will not provide a stable environment for the child, will not agree to adoption.
It is not always best for the child to continue in the family unit, as due to abuse, physical, mental and sexual of the child, or neglect, which let's face it are the main reasons children in Ireland end up in longterm care, they are better off away from the family. Under the current legislation it is very difficult to remove a child from such family circumstances if the parents don't agree, now it will be easier.
I am fully in favour of this legislation as I do not think it is the right of the parent that should come first, but rather the rights of the child to a safe and happy childhood.

In relation to the childs choice in the case of seperation, the childs opinion is taken into account, it is not the final vote. The judge will give due consideration to all the facts. The child has a voice and has the right for that voice to be one of those that are heard.

eaglej13

I am fully in favour of this legislation as I do not think it is the right of the parent that should come first, but rather the rights of the child to a safe and happy childhood.

yes i agree in some part but social workers have, and do put a lot of emphasis on were the child would like to live. add this to the amendment for the court system and i feel that there might be too much emphasis on this. were i believe that children need to be protected and yes at times from there parents, do we need to put the pressure on the child.
so yes children need rights, totally agree. maybe the state need to look at parenting skills when deciding rather than childrens choice. ??

barbiegirl

But it's not the childs choice, but rather that they have a voice that will be listened to. It might be that the child would prefer to live with their dad because he is easier on them, but that is not necessarily good for them and therefore the courts should rule in favour of the mum.
This decision, on where to live, affects the child more than anyone and it is only right, that whether that opionion be informed or not, mature or not, that it is heard.
As to parenting skills, unless we start issuing licenses for having children, I don't see how that would help. If you are the type of parent who will attend a parenting course, then you probably are not the type of parent who needs to be overly worried about social workers.

iguana

barbiegirl wrote: »

Unfortunately this legislation would not be needed if all parents had the best interests of their child at heart. There are 100's of children in long term foster care who cannot be adopted because the parents, though they cannot or will not provide a stable environment for the child, will not agree to adoption.

I'm not currently living in Ireland and won't be home for the referendum so I'm not very well up on the proposed amendment. Will it do anything to change the fact that a child born to a married mother can never be adopted while she and her husband are alive?

seamus

iguana wrote: »

I'm not currently living in Ireland and won't be home for the referendum so I'm not very well up on the proposed amendment. Will it do anything to change the fact that a child born to a married mother can never be adopted while she and her husband are alive?

Yes. This amendment levels the playing field such that any child is elgible for adoption regardless of the marital status of the parents.

rolly1

eaglej13 wrote: »

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..

chicamom

I agree, whilst we all want to think of ourselves as champions of "the rights of the child" as right thinking people, I couldn't possibly vote to give the State more powers of them. The Yes campaign for this referendum has been so far over-simplistic and smacks of propaganda for vested interests(the gardii, lawyers, social workers, adoption industry etc). The focus on neglectful and guilty parents handily takes the glare off the state's abominable record of caring for children and young people (the 121 deaths of kids in state care is ABOMINABLE in such a small country!) The constitution already protects children's rights...maybe we should have protected those poor kids from the state itself.