childrens Referendum **poll added**

NOmeansNo

mango salsa wrote: »

Ok but thats completely unrelated

If these are the SAME people that will have more control in the future of my children and their welfare it is most deffinately related. As I said my son may one day rely on this allowance due to his disability... it is an absolute disgrace this is the HSE we are talking about here in relation to health and children... the same people that let children die and go missing. The same people that discriminated against an age bracket and did not support them in their medical issues.

NOmeansNo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Amazing that thousands of children where molsted, raped and tortured in this country and yet more people are supporting a no vote than those who stood up for us as kids.

Not all, but a lot of abuse and molestations that later came out in public happend in governmental and state institutions such as industrial schools. I am not saying this is the case in all matters but many. Why would I trust the govt. to be sure these kids are in safe hands if they were not able to fulfill their duty prior? Changes have to be made but it takes action. They have cut much needed funding in the welfare of children schools, creches, HSE sectors you name it. Their actions are completely hypocritical in regards to what is in the best interest of children. Child benefit cuts? Also effecting the welfare of children in lower income families. What the government is preaching versus what they are saying does not make sense.

AtomicHorror

NOmeansNo wrote: »

If these are the SAME people that will have more control in the future of my children and their welfare it is most deffinately related.

Are the people who make decisions on natural resources the same people who make decisions on the welfare of children, generally? Sure, it's "the state", but lets not over-simplify.

steddyeddy

K-9 wrote: »

And this referendum will stop this how?

Sorry I meant to reply to this. I dont think it will stop it; in fact I think it has a number of flaws. What I meant by my post is more people seem to be getting upset over the referendum than the abuse that went on.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry I meant to reply to this. I dont think it will stop it; in fact I think it has a number of flaws. What I meant by my post is more people seem to be getting upset over the referendum than the abuse that went on.

Maybe, that's referenda for you, they bring out the crazies and the obsessed.

squod

I can't see what this will solve. We'd be better off having a reliable and trustworthy government than a meaningless referendum, the outcome of which will be ignored anyway.

I'm voting no for a couple of reasons. One of them is the effect this may have on the importance of the family unit. Secondly as it has been said before the state has a very poor track record when dealing with children.

This referendum comes down to 'I can trust the state' or 'I can not trust the state'.

K-9

While I'm wondering why we are having this referendum, what effect is this going to have on the family unit?

First of all, what does a family unit even mean these days?

Annasopra

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe, that's referenda for you, they bring out the crazies and the obsessed.

Yeah I think some of these people just say no to everything.

I've read quite a lot of what people on the no side are saying and about 90% of it is just completely irrational

Slick50

I haven't heard a very good argument for changing the constitution. All I've heard so far is "vote yes" it's to strengthen "childrens rights".

I think childrens rights are well catered for as the constitution stands. But as usual instead of enforcing what protection is there, we are asked to cede more powers to the government. Which will be equally ineffective if they are not enforced.

WhiteRoses wrote:

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.

How was this a bad outcome?

The child was never abused! While I am sure it was traumatic initially, she got to grow up with her birth parents! Many adopted children grow up to seek their birth parents, wishing they had known them earlier in their lives.

Where is this family now. Has something come to light to show she would have been better off with the adoptive family.

closing_bell

im voting NO , the YES campaign is nothing but some high brow academic vanity project for constitutional junkies who can smugly claim to have supported a move to protect children , as if to suggest crimes against kids were not against the law before now , the reason nothing was done about abused kids in the past is due to the fact that guards , social workers , judges , dragged their feet

i dont see why giving a state with a lousy record even more power achieves anything

girl2

I think the people of Ireland really need to educate themselves about what this referendum is about and how it will affect the children and parents in society nowadays.

The current legislation does not fully allow children to be protected from parents who continue to abuse and neglect them throughout their lives. That is plain and simple.

I live and work in the north and the introduction of the Children's Order was introduced in 1995 - which is supposed to be looking at protecting children in need and at risk. However this same law is very very much in favour of the protection of parents' rights. With this, there are many many many children who are left with their parents (who abuse, neglect and cause so much emotional damage to these youngsters), all the while social services are trying to get them out of the homes (but the Courts are all about the parents' rights). I work in the industry and I have seen some cases where children are left in the family homes for just too long - where children are being physically, sexually and emotionally abused, so much so that there will never be a recovery for them due to the trauma and damage that has been put on them, as a result of not being taken out of the family home when they should have been.

People need to be realistic here - this is not about giving power to the state - it's about protecting the children - giving the children a voice, giving the children rights. And as some posters have already said - parents who are good to their children have nothing to worry about here - it is those who are not practising good parenting who should be fearful of the proposed new laws. There is a happy medium here that could be achieved in order to protect these children who are genuinely in danger.

Slick50

girl2 wrote: »

I think the people of Ireland really need to educate themselves about what this referendum is about and how it will affect the children and parents in society nowadays.

The current legislation does not fully allow children to be protected from parents who continue to abuse and neglect them throughout their lives. That is plain and simple.

I live and work in the north and the introduction of the Children's Order was introduced in 1995 - which is supposed to be looking at protecting children in need and at risk. However this same law is very very much in favour of the protection of parents' rights. With this, there are many many many children who are left with their parents (who abuse, neglect and cause so much emotional damage to these youngsters), all the while social services are trying to get them out of the homes (but the Courts are all about the parents' rights). I work in the industry and I have seen some cases where children are left in the family homes for just too long - where children are being physically, sexually and emotionally abused, so much so that there will never be a recovery for them due to the trauma and damage that has been put on them, as a result of not being taken out of the family home when they should have been.

People need to be realistic here - this is not about giving power to the state - it's about protecting the children - giving the children a voice, giving the children rights. And as some posters have already said - parents who are good to their children have nothing to worry about here - it is those who are not practising good parenting who should be fearful of the proposed new laws. There is a happy medium here that could be achieved in order to protect these children who are genuinely in danger.

What is your interpretation of the proposed amendment... what makes it so strong, that justifies changing our constitution.

If children are being subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse,,, why are the perpetrators of this abuse not being prosecuted for it.

I don't think " if you've done nothing wrong" is a good enough reason to vote yes.

Annasopra

Slick50 wrote: »

I haven't heard a very good argument for changing the constitution. All I've heard so far is "vote yes" it's to strengthen "childrens rights".

I think childrens rights are well catered for as the constitution stands. But as usual instead of enforcing what protection is there, we are asked to cede more powers to the government. Which will be equally ineffective if they are not enforced.



How was this a bad outcome?

The child was never abused! While I am sure it was traumatic initially, she got to grow up with her birth parents! Many adopted children grow up to seek their birth parents, wishing they had known them earlier in their lives.

Where is this family now. Has something come to light to show she would have been better off with the adoptive family.

I actually do think it is a form of abuse to a child to let that child bond with her adoptive parents for a year or two and then to remove her.

Annasopra

closing_bell wrote: »

im voting NO , the YES campaign is nothing but some high brow academic vanity project for constitutional junkies who can smugly claim to have supported a move to protect children , as if to suggest crimes against kids were not against the law before now , the reason nothing was done about abused kids in the past is due to the fact that guards , social workers , judges , dragged their feet

i dont see why giving a state with a lousy record even more power achieves anything

This is not about giving the state more power. It is about rebalancing the rights of people so that in exceptional circumstances the rights of parents may have to be breached because their children are at extreme risk.

Death and Taxes

mango salsa wrote: »

This is not about giving the state more power. It is about rebalancing the rights of people so that in exceptional circumstances the rights of parents may have to be breached because their children are at extreme risk.

That right already exists, the state can remove children from the parents where it can show that the children are at risk, it can even have medical procedures carried against the wishes of the parents by going to court.

Annasopra

WileyCoyote wrote: »

That right already exists, the state can remove children from the parents where it can show that the children are at risk, it can even have medical procedures carried against the wishes of the parents by going to court.

Yes but this lowers the threshhold a little bit.

Actually in the PKU case the Supreme Court held HSE couldn't go against the wishes of the parents despite this being in the best interests of the child

http://jme.bmj.com/content/28/3/136.full

This is an example where the threshhold is too high and the constitution actually meant that the HSE could not do something in the best interests of the child.

Morag

Got my polling card today, voting on a Saturday at last.

Slick50

mango salsa wrote: »

I actually do think it is a form of abuse to a child to let that child bond with her adoptive parents for a year or two and then to remove her.

It was not abuse. A young couple made a mistake at an emotional time. When they got themselves sorted out, they went to great lenghts to regain their daughter and rear her in the family.

It wasn't an ideal situation, and stressful for all involved, but probably the best result for the child, who is supposed to be the primary concern.

This is probably the worst example to argue for a yes vote.

Annasopra

Slick50 wrote: »

It was not abuse. A young couple made a mistake at an emotional time. When they got themselves sorted out, they went to great lenghts to regain their daughter and rear her in the family.

It wasn't an ideal situation, and stressful for all involved, but probably the best result for the child, who is supposed to be the primary concern.

This is probably the worst example to argue for a yes vote.

But that's the point. The child was NOT the primary concern in this case at all. The parents were.

Slick50

mango salsa wrote: »

But that's the point. The child was NOT the primary concern in this case at all. The parents were.

How do you figure that? Being with her natural parents was the best thing for her. While she obviously went through a traumatiuc time, in the long run it was in her best interest. These were not abusive parents.

Annasopra

Slick50 wrote: »

How do you figure that? Being with her natural parents was the best thing for her. While she obviously went through a traumatiuc time, in the long run it was in her best interest. These were not abusive parents.

If her parents were unmarried it is very likely the judgement would have been different and she would have stayed with her adoptive parents.

Because Baby Anns parents were married the Court could not consider anything in relation to the welfare of Ann. They could not consider her rights. Justice Catherine McGuinness was very clear in her judgement. She stated clearly the judgment was made despite the overwhelming evidence of expert medical witnesses that an immediate change in custody could cause severe psychological damage to Baby Ann.

Smidge

I've really deliberated about this and have decided to vote no.
I did not reach this decision easily but ultimately there are too many points about this referendum that I cannot agree with.

I find the fact that there is a "oh won't someone think of the children, Simpsons vibe about the "yes" side very disconcerting to begin with. There is ample legislation to remove children from unsafe homes already it is just that, as usual in this country they are not enforced fully. So instead of "fixing" a damaged system and empowering the people working within child welfare with greater powers of removal(and you don't need to change the constitution to do this), the government decide to put a band aid over it by introducing this amendment.

I also feel that yet again through a referendum, people are not being informed of the full implications with regard to the adoption clause.

This worries me.

For example,

Married couple 30's/40's
Husband is the breadwinner
Wife stay at home mother to their 4 children.
Husband has good job and pristine history.

He loses job and succumbs to alcohol and depression, but is not abusive in any shape way of form.
And before anyone judges this, IMO there is not one person in the state who can honestly say what would happen to them in the same situation.
Financial difficulties ensue and one of the small children let slip to a teacher "that mammy and daddy are having problems".

Social services involved and the children are removed to foster care if need be.
That's as it should be.

The sole aim of foster care is reunification with the parents(unless there is demonstrable abuse and neglect on the part of the parents, quite rightly so).

Under this new legislation you will have three years to prove to a judge(and as we know the judges in this country ALWAYS get things right;)) that you have turned your life around.
Three years is not a long time if your life falls apart. I know of a case where a person was an addict but turned their life around but it took 7 years. The children were in foster care and well looked after and this former addict is now a fantastic member of society and her children flourish with her.

She just hit a very major roadblock in the course of her life.

If this legislation had been in when she was going through her own personal hell, her children could have been adopted out.

For me, this legislation is too far reaching and much to "Final" with regard to families.

Anyone could be the hypothetical family that I outlined above, there but for the grace and all that.

My final point and my biggest worry.
There are a lot(and I mean a LOT) of couples wanting to adopt in Ireland.
There are also a lot of children in foster care.
The phrase "killing two birds with one stone" comes to mind.

Sure, the cost of fostering children for the state would be dramatically reduced.
But at what cost to a family who met a major roadblock?

(Sorry for long post:o)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

Because Baby Anns parents were married the Court could not consider anything in relation to the welfare of Ann. They could not consider her rights.

Total nonsense. It's always a little disappointing when you find a poster ignoring facts pointed out on a different thread that they participated in. Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman was very clear in his opinion and judgment in the Baby Ann case that the welfare of the child was central to deliberations

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81578049&postcount=129

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.

And it is simply inhuman to envisage telling Baby Ann, when she's aged twenty-five, that she could have been raised by her natural parents, but legal process dictated that she should be raised by strangers instead.

There's much else that can be said about the detail of the Baby Ann case, but that stark principle deserves to left to sink in.

squod

Thread needs a poll. No voters like meself seem to be over-run by bullshit artists and moneymen.

R0ot

So initially I was on the Yes side, after a few hours reading both sides it seems the no side is aiming for either facts on the wording and actual power of the amendment while the yes side is simply aiming for the sympathy vote saying "it's the right thing to do" or "it's for the children".

I don't think this has been debated publicly enough and needs more thought and discussion.

Smidge

R0ot wrote: »

So initially I was on the Yes side, after a few hours reading both sides it seems the no side is aiming for either facts on the wording and actual power of the amendment while the yes side is simply aiming for the sympathy vote saying "it's the right thing to do" or "it's for the children".

I don't think this has been debated publicly enough and needs more thought and discussion.

I agree with you about giving the public a full account of exactly what this referendum is about, not just "How can it be a bad thing to have this, sure isn't it for the children".

That's not enough for me to want to amend the constitution.

There has been a lot of talk from the "yes" side with relation to "Giving the child a voice" but I am not buying this for one simple reason.

Let's say a child is placed in foster care at 6 months old.
The mother is 16 years old and has taken the wrong path.

If at the end of three years the courts decide that the mother "in the courts opinion"(and this is a human opinion and will vary from judge to judge as with every other human on the planet) the child can be placed for adoption.

Now, there are many couples in Ireland that are desperate to adopt(and my heart genuinely goes out to them)and this three year old child would be fantastic for that perspective adoptive couple.

Two major problems I foresee here if this referendum gets a yes vote.

Firstly, the mother of the child will now only be nineteen. She loses the opportunity forever to redeem herself after her mistakes(which could take longer than three years). She is still herself a teenager and now her child is lost to not only her but her entire family, the child's Nana, Grandad forever, no comebacks, no return.

Secondly, if the child has been with the foster family since 6 months, to all intents and purposes the child will be secure there. If the three years run out and an adoptive family are found, will the "child's voice" be taken into consideration if the child says "I want to stay here"? So not only will this child have been taken from the birth family but then from a secure( and hopefully very happy)foster home and placed at 3 years old with strangers, the new adoptive parents, losing contact forever with everyone he has ever known. Is this really "In the best interest of the child"?
I don't think so.

Now I know that people will say "well then why don't the foster parents adopt the child"?
1; They may not be eligible for one thing(age etc)
2; Foster families recognise the difference between adoption and fostering. Fostering is a stopgap to enable the family for whose child/ren they care for get their life back together. Adoption is permanent.
3; So this child if placed for adoption is going to be uprooted from all the have know in their lives(ie foster parents) and placed with strangers with no hope of returning to the birth family again.

No government or state should have the power to do this. Ever.



BTW I am not coming from any religious or other "sneaky" standpoint. Just concerned what this will mean for future generations of children.

R0ot

bbam wrote: »

I would plead with those who have made up their minds in this to read the information fully. To date there has been very little information given out but it will be available in time to read an understand before the vote.

I believe this to be a good thing for children, particularly children being raised in bad families. There have been countless cases where SW had to stand back and allow terrible situations continue as their hands were tied.

Providing a proper documented procedure is in place then a framework where defenceless children could be removed from abusive families has to be welcomed.

It's a fact that Irish society has to recognise. Not all children are better off left with their parents, many need protection from their parents and this amendment to the constitution should allow more powers to exercise this protection.

Of course you are correct but at the moment I am siding with No, I will take any added information made available and try and understand it to the extent my law knowledge will extend. I do have to admit I rely a lot on others on forums like this and other sites to fill in the blanks for me.

CruelCoin

I will be voting no.

There is a total absence of any definition of what a child is.

Is it birth/conception/viability?
At what age does it cease?
No mention either of equality in terms of boys/girls (rape laws etc).

This is so poorly written i cannot in good conscience vote yes.

get_even

im voting no but think the yes side will win

asking people to vote yes is like asking them to vote yes to save puppies from drowning or for world peace , or at least thats how the campaign has been framed

the no sides spokespersons have largely been a bunch of freaks + john watters , this alone should loose it for the no side , i dont read the magazine alive yet that is who rte have rolled out most of the time to represent the no side

heard an incredibly biased interview by miles dungan last week where he had fergus finlay debating with some religous nut from alive

Slick50

mango salsa wrote: »

If her parents were unmarried it is very likely the judgement would have been different and she would have stayed with her adoptive parents.

Then that judgement would have been made on different circumstances, and in my opinion incorrect.

Do you believe it would have been better for this child to have been brought up by anyone other than her actual parents.? I don't!

mango salsa wrote: »

Justice Catherine McGuinness was very clear in her judgement. She stated clearly the judgment was made despite the overwhelming evidence of expert medical witnesses that an immediate change in custody could cause severe psychological damage to Baby Ann.

Then this would be the case for any child being moved around from foster to foster to adoptive parents.

This new wording and the whole manner in which this referendum has been handled is a shambles. There has been no real debate.