What way should I vote, and why

oscarBravo

ciarafem wrote: »

All the evidence is strongly suggestive that the intact biological parents family unit is superior to all others with respect to achieving the best outcomes for children.

Except when it isn't.

ciarafem

oscarBravo wrote: »

Except when it isn't.

That's why Art 42.5 is there - to deal with that situation as Supreme Court Judges Hugh O'Flaherty (retired) and Adrian Hardiman have pointed out.

The state in the Kilkenny and Roscommon incest cases and the Kelly Fitzgerald case did not intervene to protect the children involved, even though it was required to by Art 42.5 of the Constitution.

diabeticmum

ciarafem wrote: »

That's why Art 42.5 is there - to deal with that situation as Supreme Court Judges Hugh O'Flaherty (retired) and Adrian Hardiman have pointed out.

The state in the Kilkenny and Roscommon incest cases and the Kelly Fitzgerald case did not intervene to protect the children involved, even though it was required to by Art 42.5 of the Constitution.

Which is why we dont need a referendum and I'll be voting NO.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

K-9 wrote: »

I'd respect Hardiman's opinion but that is all it is, his expert legal opinion which obviously other expert opinions disagree with.

He's not just providing an expert opinion. The quotes from him on these threads are taken from his judgment in the Baby Ann case. So what you're actually reading is the reasoning employed when he participated in a pivotal case - as part of the Court charged with authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. So, strictly speaking, it's not just another view that other experts can disagree with.

mango salsa wrote: »

Catherine McGuinness former supreme court judge has given some very good arguments in favour

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1009/1224325059406.html

Not really - she repeats all the irrelevant stuff about adoption, as if it was a live concern. Adoption as a practice is dying out for reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution.

fisgon

ciarafem wrote: »

All the evidence is strongly suggestive that the intact biological parents family unit is superior to all others with respect to achieving the best outcomes for children.

That might be relevant if the proposal was to take all children from their parents and put them into state care. This is not the proposal at all, of course. It's about those particular minority of situations where the biological parents are either unwilling or unable to care for their children.
The above point was made by Catholic Social Services in Sligo during the McColgan case, who saw it as their duty to do everything in their power to "maintain the family unit", as the highest priority. All the while the father was raping and torturing his children and wife. This misguided delusion that "family" is somehow perfect and ideal and sacred, and always the best option for children, has been behind some of the great travesties in this country.

ciarafem

fisgon wrote: »

That might be relevant if the proposal was to take all children from their parents and put them into state care. This is not the proposal at all, of course. It's about those particular minority of situations where the biological parents are either unwilling or unable to care for their children.
The above point was made by Catholic Social Services in Sligo during the McColgan case, who saw it as their duty to do everything in their power to "maintain the family unit", as the highest priority. All the while the father was raping and torturing his children and wife. This misguided delusion that "family" is somehow perfect and ideal and sacred, and always the best option for children, has been behind some of the great travesties in this country.

You do not seem to be aware of what out Constitution contains. Art. 42.5 in there to deal with these exceptional cases

42.5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

As Supreme Court Justic Adrain Hardiman clearly stated:

There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.

What this as a background what were you trying to say in your post?