childrens Referendum **poll added**

Onesimus

There is a lot more to it than that. Follow the link I provided on page 4.

Child abuse is already a crime, and people who witness things like that going on in their neighbourhood should notify the appropriate authorities. This new referendum is under the disguise of enforcing childrens rights when in fact it is an attack on children and their families.

follow the link provided and read up on it. You don't need me to tell you here.

Onesimus

10 Reasons to vote No in the Children's Rights Referendum

1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.

2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary decision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)

5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.

6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights.

8/ The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9/ The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10/ The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote no.
http://www.aps.ie/page8.php

Here is a very good brief ten reasons why we should vote NO

hooradiation

Onesimus wrote: »

There is a lot more to it than that. Follow the link I provided on page 4.

Child abuse is already a crime, and people who witness things like that going on in their neighbourhood should notify the appropriate authorities. This new referendum is under the disguise of enforcing childrens rights when in fact it is an attack on children and their families.

follow the link provided and read up on it. You don't need me to tell you here.

I have and it's still nothing of substance.
Your entire line of 'reasoning' in this post, such as it is, is that because child abuse is already a crime, therefore there are no other other possible deficiencies in the legal standing of children under Irish law.

But you're right, I really don't see much need for you to tell me anything.

Lollipops23

STOP SHOUTING.

hooradiation

Lollipops23 wrote: »

STOP SHOUTING.

LOUD NOISES!

Jester252

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

You don't have any rights when it comes to child. You have responsibilities.
If you can't meet these responsibilities. Then society has the responsibilities to step in for the good of the child.

kateydo

Just so you know
The present legal position under the Adoption Act 1988 allows the adoption of children without the consent of married parents when a court determines they have been abandoned. The test for abandonment is high and rightly so. If it cannot be established, then parental contact exists and the focus should be on promoting rather than extinguishing it. This balances both parents’ and their children’s rights to know and have a relationship with each other.

There is no evidence that adoption provides greater stability for children who have suffered adversity. Widening the threshold for adoption may simply reduce the cost of providing for children in care while doing nothing to meet their needs."

This referendum is about one thing passing control from families to the state. Do we really want this state having more control of our children?
Finally former Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty has also come out to state that this children's referendum is completely unecessary see article here:http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

Now there is no doubt that these are very laudable precepts, but the question is -- do we need a new referendum to deal with them? They are all -- or nearly all -- to be found in an existing article of the Constitution, in our ordinary legislation or in court judgments.

The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

On my reading of it and the earlier legal analysis, at it's most benign this referendum is completely unecessary, while at its most sinister it is an alarming takeover by the state of all of our children's rights.

kateydo

please everyone vote no , this is a terrible thing , every child deserves parental protection and the state are trying to take this away from us. read between the lines why do ye think that their is no 'NO' campaign ?
They do not want us to know, do you trust this government?

bbam

I've looked over the information from the referendum commission and the only rights people will be singing away are the rights they think they have to abuse their children. Absolutely no rights of decent ordinary parents will be taken away with this legislation. Only those with anything to hide should fear this legislation.

Only the tin foil hat brigade will be afraid of a social worker coming and taking away their children for no good cause..

Corkfeen

kateydo wrote: »

please everyone vote no , this is a terrible thing , every child deserves parental protection and the state are trying to take this away from us. read between the lines why do ye think that their is no 'NO' campaign ?
They do not want us to know, do you trust this government?

We heard you the first time. Also the judge you were referring to had to resign because of a controversy many years ago so I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheedy_Affair
I don't trust a Judge's word on the constitution when he has very little respect for the justice system. You are sensationalising the referendum in much the same way people claimed that abortion on demand would occur as a result of the Lisbon treaty. In the process you are endangering a change that should have been made decades ago.

kateydo

Nothing changes in this referendum except more rights for the state ? why would I vote yes to that.
Look at all the forced adoptions happening in the UK google it?

kateydo

By the way I am not sensationalizing anything , I am a concerned parent standing up for my right to parental control.
I have done my research and am making an informed decision. Look at the mess of the state and look at all the damage the state has done to children over the years. Parents need to make a stand and say no!

Jester252

I might be wrong but this will help foster parents. I remember hearing on the radio a college kid who was in foster care with the same family for most of his life (one of the lucky ones) but due because of the law he was never abandoned as his mother in England who sent him a card once a year so she still be his legal guardian.
They were also talking about the status of foster parents as they are not legal guardians for a child in their care so if he need a form signed for school to go on a trip his mother would have to sign and if she wasn't his legal guardian they would have to get it signed by someone from the state as they would be the legal guardian.
Also I think as well foster parents can't adopted a child that was ever in their care.
From what I understand this referendum will help solve some of these problems for foster parents and they should get as much help as possible. It will also allow the child opinion to be taken into account when dealing with matters relating to them.
I don't see how anyone would be worried about the state taken away they kids unless they are not treating their kids well

Peetrik

I'll be voting No.

The state, as far as I'm concerned, has done an atrocious job so far, why would I give them more say over what happens to my children?!

Definite No from me.

admiralofthefleet

no from me too, im not giving them a vote to inject my child without my knowledge or consent

Morag

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

is it true that a yes vote being carried will mean children can be given injections in school with the parents knowledge or consent?

That is not true, it's utterly false and a red herring.

Morag

kateydo wrote: »

Just so you know
The present legal position under the Adoption Act 1988 allows the adoption of children without the consent of married parents when a court determines they have been abandoned.

What about the kids who have not been abandoned, but how have been abused and neglected like the ones in the Roscommon case?

Those children as they were removed from their parents 'care' so they were not abandoned so they can not be adopted.

kateydo wrote: »

This referendum is about one thing passing control from families to the state.

Nope it is about bring our constitution in line so that we are compliant with the United Nation convention of the rights of the child.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

kateydo wrote: »

Do we really want this state having more control of our children?

It is about giving children thier own special set of rights which they need as they are children.

kateydo wrote: »

Finally former Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty has also come out to state that this children's referendum is completely unecessary

And FORMER SUPREME Court judge Catherine McGuinness has some out for a yes vote.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1024/1224325626426.html

FORMER SUPREME Court judge Catherine McGuinness has said people living in the “comfortable nest of privilege” could find it difficult to understand that some children were not safe in their families.

Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness said Irish people had been historically hesitant to intervene in the family circle and it was often assumed that the best place for children was with their families in all instances.

“It’s easier to believe this from a privileged, middle-class, professional background where we all grew up in the loving care of our parents . . . this applies to judges too,” she said.

“Do we who live in the comfortable nest of general privilege really know much about the reality of other children’s actual private lives?”

She was speaking at a children’s rights referendum information seminar organised by the Yes for Children movement in Dublin last night.

kateydo wrote: »

The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

We can't have legislation which is in conflict with the constitution that is why we are having the referendum.

kateydo wrote: »

On my reading of it and the earlier legal analysis, at it's most benign this referendum is completely unecessary, while at its most sinister it is an alarming takeover by the state of all of our children's rights.

What I find sinister is the amount of alarmist twaddle being thrown about trying to scare parents into voting no.

Morag

Peetrik wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

The state, as far as I'm concerned, has done an atrocious job so far, why would I give them more say over what happens to my children?!

Definite No from me.

So they did an atrocious job and now are looking to reform the system from top to bottom starting with the constitution form which our laws and rights are derived and you are voting against it? :rolleyes:

Morag

kateydo wrote: »

Nothing changes in this referendum except more rights for the state ? why would I vote yes to that.
Look at all the forced adoptions happening in the UK google it?

We are not the UK our laws are different, or do you somehow think we are still part of the UK?

bbam

It sickens and saddens me to see so many spooks, spoofs and scaremongers out to promote a no vote on such a critical issue.

This is a good thing. Anything but a yes vote is ludacris

Morag

flutterflye wrote: »

Also, it keeps going on about "the best interests of the child" - but who says what the child's best interests are?

Those are laid out in the UN convention on the rights of the child, we signed up to them in 1990 and started to ratify them in 1992 but the process stalled due to the fact we need to change the constitution.

You can read it here
http://www.hrea.org/feature-events/simplified-crc.html

flutterflye wrote: »

I suffer from depression and anxiety a fair bit.
Is it my kid's best interest to be placed with a family where the parents are mentally healthy all the time?

If your kids are thriving and you are doing your best and your kids are not at risk they are not going to take your kids. They will give you and your family all the support they can when you need it.

flutterflye wrote: »

I do however think that it's a great thing that children be recognised in the constitution as having rights, and that these rights supersede those of the parents where there is abuse or neglect.

Then I think you should vote Yes.

Morag

Callum Hot Desert wrote: »

What about religious freedoms.
Could a secular state disagree with parents bringing their kids up in a religion and take the kids from them.
It opens up a can of worms.

Nope it doesn't.

That is covered in the UN convention of the rights of the child which we as a country signed up to.

http://www.hrea.org/feature-events/simplified-crc.html

Article 12: Expression of opinion
The right of the child to express his or her opinion and to have this taken into consideration.

Article 13: Freedom of expression and information
The right to seek, receive and impart information in various forms, including art, print, writing.

Article 14: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
States are to be respect the rights and duties of parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of this right in accordance with the child's evolving capacities.

Article 15: Freedom of association
The child's right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

I'm a pagan and the government won't even recognise my religion but I am not worried about that being an issue for my children due to the above rights.

There are some times when the state will step in and get a temporary care order, this has happened already here were Jehovah Witness parents refused to let their dying child have a blood transfusion, which would save them. I think most people would agree the state was right to step in as the child's right to life was at stake.

steddyeddy

As a former victim myself I do understand people's fears about this and thats fair enough. I do however think that something should be done regarding the reality of child abuse in Ireland.

Peetrik

Sharrow wrote: »

So they did an atrocious job and now are looking to reform the system from top to bottom starting with the constitution form which our laws and rights are derived and you are voting against it? :rolleyes:

If a junkie decides to reform and after a lifetime of bad decisions says they want to get back on track you don't immediately put them in charge of a creche. Its about trust and at the rate they've been going they have absolutely none in my book after how they have managed our finances and our nation resources. No I don't want them having more say over my children than they already do.

Sharrow wrote: »

There are some times when the state will step in and get a temporary care order, this has happened already here were Jehovah Witness parents refused to let their dying child have a blood transfusion, which would save them. I think most people would agree the state was right to step in as the child's right to life was at stake.

I would be more concerned with things like having no say in mandatory vaccinations. I would want to research and decide for myself any medications to be given to my child. Again it boils down to trust and I don't trust some politician not to accept a cushy job after his term from some pharmaceutical giant for pushing something that, at best, my child may not actually need.

Morag

Do you have anything to back up the rumors about mandatory vaccination?
I've seen a lot of scaremongering on this topic but no one to date has been able to link me to anything about it.

NOmeansNo

How does the State all of the sudden have Children's best interest if they are constantly making cuts and adding taxes to families trying to support the well-being of their children?

Does anyone not question who is paying for this campaign??? We are 1.1 Million so far to be exact of public spending money which has currently been brought to the courts.

Who has your Children's best interest you or the State?

I do not get how people are so naive... It is very frightening....I see the poorer countries standing up and fighting...I sugguest people do some more research to know exactly what they are voting for whether it be Yes or No and not just go along with the crowd.

I DEFF agree there has to be changes made to protect children but by voting away your rights is not the way.

If ANYONE can remember how many referendums took place in the so called "Celtic Tiger" years??? Why are the people suddenly being bombarded with decisions in a vulnerable time??? The FEAR factor. The same tactics the Nazi's used.


By the way I am a mother of two children. One with a disability. I do not feel this referndum is in the best interest of any child.

I feel there are many changes in Ireland to come... This will be a cashout for judges, solicitors, and barristers as well as social work sectors. Some of the organisations supporting the Yes vote are in favour of more State control and accept donations from very influential business people pushing their hidden agenda.

WAKE UP! WAKE UP AND BE PROUD TO BE IRISH AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE...ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS... AND THE STATE HAS NOT SHOWN THEIR RESPONSABILITY IN HAVING SUCH RIGHTS AND EXCLUDING THE NATURAL FAMILY FROM ITS LAWS.

I am quite concerned as well for the children to be adoptded if this referndum passes as the government has cut funding in these sectors...Where will the money come from when the demand for adoption increases? I feel we may be back at square one.

REMEMBER once it is changes it is changed...

Morag

Who has your Children's best interest you or the State?

Me but not all parents take into consideration their child's best interests, when this happens children have to have clear cut rights and a voice and input to what happens next. Never again should children be left to suffer as ones in the Roscommon case.

I too have kids and one which has special needs and I am voting yes.

With austerity we need to have the rights of children cleared up so we can use the Convention on the rights of the child to fight and push for our children and really your argument lost all credibility once you mention Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Jimoslimos

Seems to be one or two useful bits of legislation worth voting Yes for but overall fluffed up with vague wishy-washy nonsense. I do think however it is slightly misleading to call it a "Children's Referendum", (Adoption Ref would have been more accurate)

The referendum itself isn't the waste of money, it's the creating of a whole new ministerial department to come up with something that could easily have been done by Social Protection or Justice.

SusieBlue

One of the cases that sparked this was the Baby Ann case. I don't know all the details for sure, so don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but basically what happened was:

-A woman in a relationship with a man got pregnant. The relationship broke up and the mother placed the child up for adoption.
-The child was adopted into a new loving family and bonded with her new parents.
-When the child was about 1yr old (I think), the parents got back together and decided they wanted the baby back.
-Under the instruction of their lawyer, they quickly got married so they'd have more rights.
-They began legal proceedings to get their daughter back. By now, she had bonded with her new family and her adoptive parents didn't want to give her back.
-The birth parents lost their case, and Ann was supposed to stay with her adoptive parents.
-The birth parents appealed and took the case to the supreme court.
-Despite the fact that the judge agreed that being seperated from her adopted family would cause great emotional distress to baby Ann, according to the constitution birth parents (in particular, married birth parents) have ultimate rights to their child and they won their appeal.
-Now 2 years old, baby Ann was returned to her birth parents.

I challenge anyone to say this was a good outcome. The current laws protect parents rather than children. The outcome of that case came to be because of parental rights, what rights did baby Ann have? None. Despite the fact that it was detrimental to her wellbeing, she was taken away from her adoptive family because her parents had the right to do it. That to me is so wrong.


I for one will be voting yes. I think that this will benefit children, and no decent parent has anything to fear from this.

Nollog

Sharrow wrote: »

We can't have legislation which is in conflict with the constitution that is why we are having the referendum.

I done read the actual changes they're proposing, and all I see is them adding a few extra words to an already existing article and moving it around.
The rest could be done through the normal bill process.

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.

becomes

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty
towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

The rest isn't in the constitution already and I don't see anything in it that would stop us making a simple law for legalising adoption for "unabandoned" children.