The Children's Referendum

fisgon

Interesting that there hasn't been any talk here about the upcoming referendum. I suppose that it's not really directly relevant to A & A, but there is a curious religious element involved here.

As normal, the No side is populated by the ragged ranks of the Theocratic Agenda. It's the usual suspects, Waters, Dana, Kathy Sinnot, Iona, Alive. Their main point is that there is an undeclared attack on the Irish Family implicit in the referendum. Waters has hinted at sinister forces out to destroy the Family, and has used, to justify his opinion....well, he's used his opinion. 'I think it, therefore it must be true'. It's all very predictable.

Interestingly, the Bishops and SVP have come out for a Yes vote, showing again that the Theocratic Agenda members are much more extreme and hysterical and fundamentalist than the clerics.

PopePalpatine

IMO, I think that the Catholic bishops were dragged kicking and screaming into supporting this. They probably see this as an apology for decades of child abuse.

Newaglish

I like how the super crazy No side save me the bother of actually reading the text in detail. I just know to vote opposite to them

Dades

There was some talk in another thread but it was undoubtedly off-topic and fizzled out. No harm in having a thread here.

The crazies in the NO camp do make for an easy decision at first glance.

JimiTime

I think for the many atheists who have expressed the opinion that bestowing ones faith on children is abuse, a yes vote is a must.

seamus

The referendum is little bit of an administrative tweak which doesn't actually change very much, making it irritating that it has to go to referendum at all. I'm ashamed to say that good, smart people I know are voting "No" because, "The courts can sort this stuff out without us changing the constitution". Of course, the point of the referendum is so that the courts don't have to sort this stuff out and cases can be dealt with using actual laws...

There is something in this relevant to A&A though. The current constitution imposes a "physical and moral" obligation on parents towards their children. Which, let's be honest, could be anything. And in Ireland of the past, probably included moral obligations invented by the local priest.
This amendment removes the "moral" aspect altogther and inserts the clearer obligation to the "health and welfare" of the child.

"Welfare" is open to interpretation, but far less so than "morality" IMHO. And it's certainly less open to abuse by cults and nutjobs.

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

I think for the many atheists who have expressed the opinion that bestowing ones faith on children is abuse, a yes vote is a must.

This referendum says nothing about faith in reality. In fact as I point out above, it basically removes the word "morality" from a parent's obligation which means that you're free to teach your children whatever the hell you want without fear of being stopped because your concept of "morality" differs from the State's.

Religious groups should be jumping for joy at this too.

Skrynesaver

Newaglish wrote: »

I like how the super crazy No side save me the bother of actually reading the text in detail. I just know to vote opposite to them

I like to think of Waters as a reference bigot it makes it easier to come to a position on many issues

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I think for the many atheists who have expressed the opinion that bestowing ones faith on children is abuse, a yes vote is a must.

I don't quite see the link between the childrens' referendum and the religious indoctrination of impressionable children by irresponsible parents.

Would you care to explain in more detail?

.

robindch

The National Parents Council, an organization that represents the interests of parents with children in primary schools, has called for a yes-vote, thusly:

• 1,500 confirmed cases of child abuse in 2011: For the first time, the Constitution will take a child-centred approach to child protection and will put an onus on the State to better support families
  
• Up to 2,000 children living in long term State would finally be eligible for adoption: This is in cases where the child cannot successfully return to their birth family
  
• 65% of children are not asked their opinion in court decisions affecting them: For the first time, judges must listen to the views of children when making their decision in court cases relating to custody or child protection

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I don't quite see the link between the childrens' referendum and the religious indoctrination of impressionable children by irresponsible parents.

Would you care to explain in more detail?

.

I think you summed it up succinctly in your post.

Dades

robindch

With respect:

Tim Robbins

I shall be voting No.

1. I do not see why a referendum that only gives children a tiny few more rights is even needed.
2. This amendment means your children may be taken from you in "exceptional circumstances". What are these exceptional circumstances? Who decides them? Not you. Is poverty a reason? Who decides? Them. Not you.
3. The entire point of a constitution is to safeguard people from crazy governments. They server no other purpose. When a amendment leaves things open to interpretation of a government or a court it devalues the entire point of having a constitution - this is what this referendum does.
4. The biggest right facing children is the lack of access to education if you are not a catholic or a catholic hypocrite. There should be constitutional guarantees to ensure children have equal access to education irrespective of their religion - to stop a crazy government or political party legislating for religious apartheid like what has already happened. Remember what a constitution is for people.
5. Look at the track record of how the state has treated children.
6. If you turn back the clock of history none of the major abuses of children by the state would have been stopped by this amendment. In fact, the amendment gives the state top legal power to take your children.
7. This referendum will be used to put families who are receiving 350 euros a month for fostering children under pressure to adopt - when they may not want to. They will also loose their 350 euros a month as soon as they adopt.
8. The lack of public information about this referendum is nothing short of disgraceful. The government is trying to dumb it down to a no brainer let's care for children.
9. There is nothing for children to give them the right to know who their parents are. Another fundamental right.
10. I feel the government are using this referendum as a political stunt so that they can claim they have done something - but this referendum does nothing.

You will still be ripped off every time you have to bring you child to the doctor. You will still get your child benefit slashed. You will still be wondering why both of you are working 40 / 50 hours a week and not seeing your children that much. You will still be paying almost a grand for every child you have in childcare. You will still either have to find an ET school and have your taxes funding religious apartheid. You will still be getting shafted left, right and centre.

And they'll say we gave your children rights?

My f*cking hole.

It is a complete disservice to children that this amendment gives children any rights whatsoever.

It is like the South African apartheid government having a referendum for Black rights and all that referendum does is give adoption options that there is not much demand for while keeping every single other aspect of apartheid.

How insulting?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Dades wrote: »

There was some talk in another thread but it was undoubtedly off-topic and fizzled out. No harm in having a thread here.

Do you mean the thread below?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056785372

Dades wrote: »

The crazies in the NO camp do make for an easy decision at first glance.

It's worth giving it a second glance.

robindch wrote: »

The National Parents Council, an organization that represents the interests of parents with children in primary schools, has called for a yes-vote, thusly:

• 1,500 confirmed cases of child abuse in 2011: For the first time, the Constitution will take a child-centred approach to child protection and will put an onus on the State to better support families

The Constitution already demands that the State intervenes in cases of abuse.

[*]Up to 2,000 children living in long term State would finally be eligible for adoption: This is in cases where the child cannot successfully return to their birth family

This argument is probably the most consciously misleading. Adoption by non-family members is very rare these days. Adoption belongs back in the Jurassic period, or somewhere that you've a large supply of frightened pregnant women with no access to abortion, like 1950s Ireland.

65% of children are not asked their opinion in court decisions affecting them: For the first time, judges must listen to the views of children when making their decision in court cases relating to custody or child protection

Yeah, this will amount to a 45 year old barrister getting a fee to stand up in Court and say "M'lud, if this child was a 45 year old barrister, he'd agree with what I'm about to say on his behalf.

Seriously, this thing is a crock.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The Constitution already demands that the State intervenes in cases of abuse.

But only where it can be established that the abuse was the result of "physical or moral reasons", two conditions which are very difficult to prove. The amendment is much clearer and simply says that where a child is likely to suffer harm, regardless of the reasons, the state can step in and protect the child.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Adoption by non-family members is very rare these days. Adoption belongs back in the Jurassic period, or somewhere that you've a large supply of frightened pregnant women with no access to abortion, like 1950s Ireland.

Huh? It's rare because things at the moment make it difficult. The amendment resolves those difficulties and makes it possible to enact law which permits adoptions into suitable families where the original birth family are unsuitable.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

this will amount to a 45 year old barrister getting a fee to stand up in Court and say "M'lud, if this child was a 45 year old barrister, he'd agree with what I'm about to say on his behalf.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to extract that meaning from the clear English sentence:

Proposed Amendment wrote:

[...] 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.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Seriously, this thing is a crock.

Not on the basis of anything you've posted so far.

iguana

Newaglish wrote: »

I like how the super crazy No side save me the bother of actually reading the text in detail. I just know to vote opposite to them

I don't live in Ireland right now so know very little about the referendum and don't have an opinion on either side, but I'd be very careful about jumping to assumptions like this. For example during the 2002 abortion referendum the pro-choice vote was to vote no. Yet Dana and her ilk were also calling for a no vote as they thought that proposed changes were not restrictive enough. Sometimes people can vote the same way for completely opposite reasons.

strobe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I shall be voting No.

1. I do not see why a referendum that only gives children a tiny few more rights is even needed.
2. This amendment means your children may be taken from you in "exceptional circumstances". What are these exceptional circumstances? Who decides them? Not you. Is poverty a reason? Who decides? Them. Not you.
3. The entire point of a constitution is to safeguard people from crazy governments. They server no other purpose. When a amendment leaves things open to interpretation of a government or a court it devalues the entire point of having a constitution - this is what this referendum does.
4. The biggest right facing children is the lack of access to education if you are not a catholic or a catholic hypocrite. There should be constitutional guarantees to ensure children have equal access to education irrespective of their religion - to stop a crazy government or political party legislating for religious apartheid like what has already happened. Remember what a constitution is for people.
5. Look at the track record of how the state has treated children.
6. If you turn back the clock of history none of the major abuses of children by the state would have been stopped by this amendment. In fact, the amendment gives the state top legal power to take your children.
7. This referendum will be used to put families who are receiving 350 euros a month for fostering children under pressure to adopt - when they may not want to. They will also loose their 350 euros a month as soon as they adopt.
8. The lack of public information about this referendum is nothing short of disgraceful. The government is trying to dumb it down to a no brainer let's care for children.
9. There is nothing for children to give them the right to know who their parents are. Another fundamental right.
10. I feel the government are using this referendum as a political stunt so that they can claim they have done something - but this referendum does nothing.

You will still be ripped off every time you have to bring you child to the doctor. You will still get your child benefit slashed. You will still be wondering why both of you are working 40 / 50 hours a week and not seeing your children that much. You will still be paying almost a grand for every child you have in childcare. You will still either have to find an ET school and have your taxes funding religious apartheid. You will still be getting shafted left, right and centre.

And they'll say we gave your children rights?

My f*cking hole.

It is a complete disservice to children that this amendment gives children any rights whatsoever.

It is like the South African apartheid government having a referendum for Black rights and all that referendum does is give adoption options that there is not much demand for while keeping every single other aspect of apartheid.

How insulting?

Ok...

1. I do not see why a referendum that only gives children a tiny few more rights is even needed.

Surely being given a tiny few more rights is better than being given no more rights? "But you can already vote and drive, why should things change so you can be policeman too? You're causing an awful lot of fuss!"

Now I realise the referendum isn't about children driving or voting or being policemen, but I've decided to play the cards you've dealt. The sticky slimey cards. Do you know what the 'tiny few more rights' are that are tiny and few enough to mean you are voting no? Care to give a point by point on why they should be denied?

2. This amendment means your children may be taken from you in "exceptional circumstances". What are these exceptional circumstances? Who decides them? Not you. Is poverty a reason? Who decides? Them. Not you.

Your children can already be taken from you in 'exceptional circumstances', right now, right this second before the referendum has taken place, any second now... still have your children by the time you read to the end of the sentence? Nicely played...

3. The entire point of a constitution is to safeguard people from crazy governments. They server no other purpose. When a amendment leaves things open to interpretation of a government or a court it devalues the entire point of having a constitution - this is what this referendum does.

****ing good! Let's have no morals laid down in stone here please. Let's have a morality that is talked about and reasoned and considered, to paraphrase some ugly annoying English ****.

... and I've grown bored. Sorry. I definitely will come back to finish the post tomorrow or the next day, not just being sarky or anything. Just insanely tired.

Daftendirekt

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I shall be voting No.

1. I do not see why a referendum that only gives children a tiny few more rights is even needed.

Unless you think it's a bad idea to give children those few extra rights, then this isn't a reason to vote no.

2. This amendment means your children may be taken from you in "exceptional circumstances". What are these exceptional circumstances? Who decides them? Not you. Is poverty a reason? Who decides? Them. Not you.

The 'exceptional cases' part is already in the Constitution. In fact, the amendment clarifies the wording wording a little:

Existing Article wrote:

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.

Amended Article wrote:

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.

If the vagueness of 'exceptional cases' concerns you, then that's a good reason to vote yes.

3. The entire point of a constitution is to safeguard people from crazy governments. They server no other purpose. When a amendment leaves things open to interpretation of a government or a court it devalues the entire point of having a constitution - this is what this referendum does.

The point of a Constitution is to broadly define the powers and responsibilities of the government and the rights and protections granted to citizens. Given the history of abuse in this state, a specific article on the rights of the child is an entirely appropriate addition to ours.

Also, things in the Constitution are usually left open to interpretation. If they weren't, we wouldn't have Constitutional challenges to particular pieces of legislation.

4. The biggest right facing children is the lack of access to education if you are not a catholic or a catholic hypocrite. There should be constitutional guarantees to ensure children have equal access to education irrespective of their religion

I agree with this, but it's a red herring. The amendment is intended to provide extra protection to children in their home. It doesn't do anything to fix the problems with our education system, but it doesn't worsen them either. It's just not relevant.

5. Look at the track record of how the state has treated children.

It's not good. Which is a very good reason to insert an article into our Constitution that compels the government to make a point of looking out for children's welfare.

6. If you turn back the clock of history none of the major abuses of children by the state would have been stopped by this amendment. In fact, the amendment gives the state top legal power to take your children.

In exceptional cases where the safety or welfare of the child is in jeopardy. And the amended article outlines more clearly what these exceptional cases are (see my response to your second point).

7. This referendum will be used to put families who are receiving 350 euros a month for fostering children under pressure to adopt - when they may not want to. They will also loose their 350 euros a month as soon as they adopt.

Got a link?

8. The lack of public information about this referendum is nothing short of disgraceful. The government is trying to dumb it down to a no brainer let's care for children.

Same as most other referendums, then. The Referendum Commission website gives a decent overview of the amendment.

9. There is nothing for children to give them the right to know who their parents are. Another fundamental right.

Again, the fact that it doesn't do things it wasn't intended to do isn't an argument against it.

10. I feel the government are using this referendum as a political stunt so that they can claim they have done something - but this referendum does nothing.

Did you not just claim it gives the state the power to take your children? And that it gives children a "tiny few more rights" (to use your exact wording)?

strobe

Actually, what he said, I'll probably forget to come back tomorrow or the next day in anyways and that was close enough.

Treora

robindch wrote: »

I don't quite see the link between the childrens' referendum and the religious indoctrination of impressionable children by irresponsible parents.

Would you care to explain in more detail?

.

Morality in the constitution is from 'our Divine Lord' and the morality of those that hold a different value system (let's say atheist), separated people or single people are looked on differently by the constitution. Replacing 41 with children's rights in relation to the onus on their parents, but placing fundamental connection between child and parent would solve many things. Gay marriage (another part of 41) and separated parents rights along with better divorce law (another part of 41) should be and would be changable by open dáil vote and only one constitutional referendum rather than the expect three to five over the next 20 years.

Preamble to the constitution
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,"

The Family
Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior

to all positive law.
1. 2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Education
Article 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.

versus

42 A
2. 1° 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.
2.2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

Daftendirekt

strobe wrote: »

Actually, what he said, I'll probably forget to come back tomorrow or the next day in anyways and that was close enough.

Snap?

PopePalpatine

Article 41 wrote:

The Family
Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
1. 2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Are these bolded statements the reason why the children of married parents can't be adopted?

Tim Robbins

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Unless you think it's a bad idea to give children those few extra rights, then this isn't a reason to vote no.

Some of the changes are also dangerous for reasons I outlined.

The 'exceptional cases' part is already in the Constitution. In fact, the amendment clarifies the wording wording a little:

Elaborate please?

The point of a Constitution is to broadly define the powers and responsibilities of the government and the rights and protections granted to citizens. Given the history of abuse in this state, a specific article on the rights of the child is an entirely appropriate addition to ours.

Incorrect. The changes would not have made any difference to what happened. In fact they could have made things worse.

Also, things in the Constitution are usually left open to interpretation. If they weren't, we wouldn't have Constitutional challenges to particular pieces of legislation.

They shouldn't be. That's bad law.

I agree with this, but it's a red herring. The amendment is intended to provide extra protection to children in their home. It doesn't do anything to fix the problems with our education system, but it doesn't worsen them either. It's just not relevant.

But a Yes vote gives an edifice that thinks religious apartheid is ok more power. This edifice has failed. It should not be given any more power. It is a very dangerous thing to give it more power, until changes are made to stop it failing.

It's not good. Which is a very good reason to insert an article into our Constitution that compels the government to make a point of looking out for children's welfare.

They already looked after children's welfare and made a mess of it. a Yes vote does nothing to make them raise their standards instead it gives them more power.

It is the wrong way to fix this problem.

Got a link?

Frontline, last Monday.

Did you not just claim it gives the state the power to take your children? And that it gives children a "tiny few more rights" (to use your exact wording)?

There are a tiny few more rights in some adoption cases - that's it.

Tim Robbins

strobe wrote: »

Your children can already be taken from you in 'exceptional circumstances', right now, right this second before the referendum has taken place, any second now... still have your children by the time you read to the end of the sentence? Nicely played...

And with a Yes vote they will able to do it with constitutional support.

****ing good! Let's have no morals laid down in stone here please. Let's have a morality that is talked about and reasoned and considered, to paraphrase some ugly annoying English ****.

Are you saying to get rid of the declaration of human rights as well then?

The children's referendum was done in a mess. It should have been like the declaration of human rights where the actual rights are stated - rather than a transfer of power to a state.

Have a read of the declaration of human rights and then read this joke of a referendum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

But only where it can be established that the abuse was the result of "physical or moral reasons", two conditions which are very difficult to prove.

Ah, come up for air. The State can and does intervene in cases of abuse. The present wording does not represent a block on action.

robindch wrote: »

It's rare because things at the moment make it difficult.

No, you've been taken in by the spin. There used to be over 1,000 adoptions a year in Ireland, right up to the 1980s - under our present constitution. Now there's less than 200, and most of them are by the "natural mother and her husband". The reason for the fall-off is simply that society has changed.

The spin that there's 2,000 children in foster care only waiting for this change to facilitate an adoption is complete baloney. There's no legal block on non-marital children being adopted (and marital children can be adopted if the parents have failed), yet there's still damn all adoptions. It is a completely invented argument, spun by people who know better.
Because people like Barnardoes know this argument is pants, yet they keep making it.

robindch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how you managed to extract that meaning from the clear English sentence:

Well, if you reflect on it with an open mind I'm sure enlightenment will come.

Incidently, its already the practice for Courts to "hear the voice of the child" in proportion to the child's maturity. This is another invented issue. Children essentially have the same rights as all of us; the issue is only around how those rights are defended.

robindch wrote: »

Not on the basis of anything you've posted so far.

Well, there's always a necessity for people to being open to hear evidence.

magicbastarder

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's no legal block on non-marital children being adopted (and marital children can be adopted if the parents have failed), yet there's still damn all adoptions. It is a completely invented argument, spun by people who know better.

from what i understand, the way the law is interpreted (regardless of how it may be actually phrased), a biological parent can prevent a child from being adopted by someone else, even if the biological parent cannot be trusted to be left alone with the child.

if the referendum makes the wording explicit, this is not a bad thing.

owla

I don't trust the state, i don't trust the spin, I agree that if the government now pledge this change, besides a few rare adoption cases, will they improve childrens welfare? As far as i know they are cutting funding (via HSE) to all these care services? So am I going to hand over the rights of parents over their children to the state? NO!

Tim Robbins

owla wrote: »

I don't trust the state, i don't trust the spin, I agree that if the government now pledge this change, besides a few rare adoption cases, will they improve childrens welfare? As far as i know they are cutting funding (via HSE) to all these care services? So am I going to hand over the rights of parents over their children to the state? NO!

It's a sinister political stunt. Would have been nice to have something that gave children real and meaningful rights.

magicbastarder

owla wrote: »

I don't trust the state, i don't trust the spin, I agree that if the government now pledge this change, besides a few rare adoption cases, will they improve childrens welfare? As far as i know they are cutting funding (via HSE) to all these care services? So am I going to hand over the rights of parents over their children to the state? NO!

for every positive change you could point to, you could probably point to three negative things. is this a reason to abandon trying to make a positive change?

Turtwig

Have only skimmed through this thread but just wanted to rant. I haven't been able to read up much on this referendum so I don't fully know yet where I lean but it seems the 'No' side of people I know keep using the state hasn't dealt adequately with children so why should we give them more power and it annoys the crap out of me.

That's a bit like assuming a state where 100s of murders are occurring daily and going "The Gardaí don't do enough to prevent murders therefore we shouldn't make murder illegal in our constitution." If children deserve more rights then they deserve more rights and protections. Whether the state competently enforces and carries out those protections is another matter entirely. If they fail to look after children with due care and diligence then that is a failing of the state which they should be made fully accountable for.
It's not adequate to claim they don't look after children competently, therefore this change to the law is unnecessary. .



Just wanted to get that off me chest.

Panrich

What side is the Iona Institute on? NO.
What side is 'Dana' Rosemay Scallon on? NO.
What side is Kathy Sinnott on? NO.

I was leaning towards a YES vote in any case.

I will be voting yes.

Have heard various different people giving out about random things in relation to this - performance of the state to date, abortion, the state judging the morals of people (despite this being in the existing article which will be removed)

seamus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's a sinister political stunt. Would have been nice to have something that gave children real and meaningful rights.

It's a relatively minor change which ties up some legal loose ends and removes archaic and ambiguous wording.

The option is to leave the loose ends hanging there, or sort them.

I've seen a lot of posts claiming that nothing needs to be changed and that the children of married couples can be adopted, but no actual facts to back this up. Every government body, including the adoption authority, specifically states that the children of married couples are not eligible for adoption.
Even if removing this block only applies to 2 children per year, then it's necessary.

You could say rightly that amendments should be much more overhauling and this should be a much bigger change. But then you risk a battle over higher profile items, and the loose ends get lost in the fray. Sometimes amendments need to be small and clean - prep work, even, for a larger set of amendments further down the line.

7. This referendum will be used to put families who are receiving 350 euros a month for fostering children under pressure to adopt - when they may not want to. They will also loose their 350 euros a month as soon as they adopt.

That's pretty cynical. Do you know any fosterers? I don't, but I'd be fairly sure that fosterers willing to adopt a child as their own couldn't give two fncks about €350/month versus being able to clarify their home as the child's permanent and stable base.
I also don't see why someone could be put under pressure to adopt a foster child. How many children are in long-term foster at a cost of €350/month? Do you really think this is a big consipracy to lower fostering payments? Cos I'm pretty sure the cost of running a referendum is higher.

8. The lack of public information about this referendum is nothing short of disgraceful. The government is trying to dumb it down to a no brainer let's care for children.

The RefCom booklet is short, concise and exceptionally unbiased.
Unlike EU referenda, this is actually a fairly simple amendment, so there's no excuse for claiming that you're confused, except if you don't bother reading up on it.

Tim Robbins

Panrich wrote: »

What side is the Iona Institute on? NO.
What side is 'Dana' Rosemay Scallon on? NO.
What side is Kathy Sinnott on? NO.

I was leaning towards a YES vote in any case.

When these are the reasons Yes people give, it makes me think the government have completely succeeded in ensuring people haven't even thought about what they are doing. Tragic.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

The option is to leave the loose ends hanging there, or sort them.

I don't see how this sorts anything. In fact, it runs the risk of making things worse.

I've seen a lot of posts claiming that nothing needs to be changed and that the children of married couples can be adopted, but no actual facts to back this up. Every government body, including the adoption authority, specifically states that the children of married couples are not eligible for adoption.
Even if removing this block only applies to 2 children per year, then it's necessary.

Well, I think a lot more needs to be changed and clarified.

You could say rightly that amendments should be much more overhauling and this should be a much bigger change. But then you risk a battle over higher profile items, and the loose ends get lost in the fray. Sometimes amendments need to be small and clean - prep work, even, for a larger set of amendments further down the line.
That's pretty cynical. Do you know any fosterers? I don't, but I'd be fairly sure that fosterers willing to adopt a child as their own couldn't give two fncks about €350/month versus being able to clarify their home as the child's permanent and stable base.
I also don't see why someone could be put under pressure to adopt a foster child. How many children are in long-term foster at a cost of €350/month? Do you really think this is a big consipracy to lower fostering payments? Cos I'm pretty sure the cost of running a referendum is higher.
The RefCom booklet is short, concise and exceptionally unbiased.
Unlike EU referenda, this is actually a fairly simple amendment, so there's no excuse for claiming that you're confused, except if you don't bother reading up on it.

The cynicism is to avoid 95% of children's rights, the right to education, their rights to medical care, the rights to know who their parents are, the rights to spend time with their parents. The cynicism is to change nothing that would stop the awful offenses to children by the state happening again.

And the cynicism is to surely pretend you are giving them rights and anyone who disagrees is some weirdo who is against children's rights and this amendment will somehow stop the awful things that used to happen while you make preparations to cut child benefit?

Tim Robbins

I also don't see why someone could be put under pressure to adopt a foster child. How many children are in long-term foster at a cost of €350/month? Do you really think this is a big consipracy to lower fostering payments? Cos I'm pretty sure the cost of running a referendum is higher.

No I don't think it is a conspiracy. It is one of many very good examples of how this law has been poorly thought out.

You have to put the show on the other foot. There are parents who put their children into respite care because they need help - perhaps because the parents have health problems.

Now, they will have the fear that the state can take their kids.

I am not scare mongering, I am just saying this is very poorly thought out law. All these people who dismiss these No arguments as scare mongering are conveniently forgetting how easily abuse of children by the state has already happened.

There should be some cast iron protections - there are none.

How would you like if you were abused by the state and then told to vote Yes to childrens rights to stop this happening when you knew all this changed were tiny things in relation to adoption?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jernal wrote: »

That's a bit like assuming a state where 100s of murders are occurring daily and going "The Gardaí don't do enough to prevent murders therefore we shouldn't make murder illegal in our constitution."

No, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would an amendment to the Constitution that protects the Gardaí from accusations of corruption.

And, just before it gets silly (after all – this is the interweb), I’m not making any comment about the Gardaí. I’m just upsetting your rant.

Panrich wrote: »

What side is the Iona Institute on? NO.
What side is 'Dana' Rosemay Scallon on? NO.
What side is Kathy Sinnott on? NO.
 
I was leaning towards a YES vote in any case.

Ah, the old “Dana is against it, so that absolves me of any responsibility to account for voting Yes” line.

Can’t say I find it convincing. But, I’ll grant you, it seems to be awfully popular with some.

magicbastarder wrote: »

from what i understand, the way the law is interpreted (regardless of how it may be actually phrased), a biological parent can prevent a child from being adopted by someone else, even if the biological parent cannot be trusted to be left alone with the child.

All I can say is that I don't understand that to be the case, and the Constitution does allow for children to be adopted when parents have failed.

And repeat that adoption is, in practical terms, an irrelevance.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

... adoption of any child, whether a marital or non-marital child, by non-family members is quite a rare event these days. Just taking two recent years as a for instance there were only 190 Irish Adoption Orders in 2009, 148 of which were within families (and 140 of them were by "natural mother and her husband"). There were only 189 Irish Adoption Orders in 2010, of which 154 were within families (151 were by "natural mother and her husband"). To get a sense of context, there were more than 1,000 adoptions every year from 1964 to 1984, with the exception of 1979 when there was still a whopping 988 adoptions.
 
Adoption belongs back in the Jurassic period, and I don't know why folk aren't aware of its near irrelevance. It's certainly very strange to see the Government using it as a ground for changing the Constitution.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, you've been taken in by the spin.

Since you don't know me from Adam, I'd be interested to learn how you know that I've "been taken in by the spin". For your information, and with the sole exception of Kathy Sinnots insane ravings in Wednesday's Irish Times, I haven't read any media commentary on this, nor watched any on the telly, nor consumed anything online other than the one item I quoted above, and have read here. Instead, I've read the before and after Constitutional articles myself and spent some time pondering both. I'm quite happy that the new text is much better than the old. You may disagree, but you will need to explain what's wrong with it as you haven't done that yet.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, if you reflect on it with an open mind I'm sure enlightenment will come. [...] Well, there's always a necessity for people to being open to hear evidence.

If the best response to my points that you can produce is to tell me that I'm closed minded, then I'm quite happy that you've lost the argument good and proper.

/fail

Tim Robbins

An interesting letter...

Irish Examiner wrote:

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

While I was initially in favour of a constitutional provision providing for children’s rights, having studied the proposed amendment I will be voting no for a number of reasons.

The fact that no-one can give any reasonable forecast as to how it will be implemented in practice is in itself good enough reason for a no vote. The claim that the courts will decide does not reflect current practice whereby judges delegate decisions relating to children to social workers, whose decisions are more influenced by ideology than the best interests of children.

Providing that children’s views be taken into account may appear superficially attractive, but is fraught with dangers. Putting children into a pivotal position in deciding acrimonious disputes between parents will expose them to manipulation, and possible even to intimidation.

The provision to allow for the children of married parents to be adopted is potentially the most dangerous of all, especially for separated and unmarried fathers.

Mothers, who have custody of children and are living with a new partner, will be entitled to apply to have the children adopted by her new partner against the wishes of the natural father. This would be consistent with the State’s unwritten policy of creating a fatherless society.

Matt Harper
Clones Road
Monaghan

It seems the No people can be split into two categories:
1. Religious nuts.
2. Those who don't trust the state and demand a higher standard of legislation.

Obliq

"The provision to allow for the children of married parents to be adopted is potentially the most dangerous of all, especially for separated and unmarried fathers.

Mothers, who have custody of children and are living with a new partner, will be entitled to apply to have the children adopted by her new partner against the wishes of the natural father. This would be consistent with the State’s unwritten policy of creating a fatherless society."

That doesn't make much sense though. As the law stands, an unmarried mother can "adopt" her own child with her new partner that she marries. The unmarried father has no rights as to custody and so on, regardless of his name appearing on the birthcert, without having been named a guardian.

The only way this new legislation will change things (according to this excerpt from the man's letter) is that divorced mothers will be able to do the same thing. Yes, it's ridiculously unfair that unmarried fathers have zero rights and it would be just as ridiculous to do the same to married ones - I'm not sure that could be the case though (as married fathers have automatic rights to their children). Must look into this further.......

seamus

Obliq wrote: »

it would be just as ridiculous to do the same to married ones - I'm not sure that could be the case though (as married fathers have automatic rights to their children). Must look into this further.......

It's not the case. A father who is married to the child's mother has automatic guardianship rights, which cannot later be revoked as far as I can tell. The father's guardianship rights can only be revoked if they were previously awarded by a court. That's as far as I can see from the legislation anyway.

So while a mother and her new partner may apply for adoption of her existing children, this amendment doesn't change the fact that the mother's former husband is still the guardian of the children.

Daftendirekt

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would an amendment to the Constitution that protects the Gardaí from accusations of corruption

Actually, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would be a Constitutional amendment that gives the state an obligation to actively deal with the problem.

@Tim Robbins:

I'm not going to do another long multi-quote since I'd end up repeating myself, but you asked me to elaborate on point 2.

If you're concerned about giving the state an open-ended power to take children into care, the article as it stands is worse than the proposed amendment. At present, failure for "physical or moral reasons" (vague) is the condition for state intervention. The new amendment spells out that the parents' failure means that the "safety or welfare" (less vague) of the child is endangered. Here's the text again:

Existing Article wrote:

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.

Amended Article wrote:

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.

Newaglish

iguana wrote: »

I don't live in Ireland right now so know very little about the referendum and don't have an opinion on either side, but I'd be very careful about jumping to assumptions like this. For example during the 2002 abortion referendum the pro-choice vote was to vote no. Yet Dana and her ilk were also calling for a no vote as they thought that proposed changes were not restrictive enough. Sometimes people can vote the same way for completely opposite reasons.

I've read about it and now I'm all confused. God damn it.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

So while a mother and her new partner may apply for adoption of her existing children, this amendment doesn't change the fact that the mother's former husband is still the guardian of the children.

But would you not admit some oversight here?

You said earlier even if it only benefits one or two people it is worth it. But surely if it screws around 2 or three people it is not worth it.

Sarky

strobe wrote: »

not just being sarky or anything.

As if you could... :coolface:

Onesimus

How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?

It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way. We citizens have not got a CLUE about law and cannot read objectively a ''text'' of law the way a solicitor could.

I think that a referendum like this should be battled out in court between the No and the Yes but there ya have it.

We have to remember that every single word going in to the constitution is not just ''sweet words'' on giving children rights. These are LEGALLY BINDING WORDS. Everyone of them are LEGALLY BINDING. And they need to be looked at by people in law to decide how these legally binding words could be interpretated one way or another in a court of law. How they could be manipulated by the social services and government and so on.

But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.

seamus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But would you not admit some oversight here?

You said earlier even if it only benefits one or two people it is worth it. But surely if it screws around 2 or three people it is not worth it.

Actually I said if it benefits 2 children, it's worth it. But that's being pedantic. Implicit in that statement is that it should be for the overall good.

However, I fail to see what part of my post you quoted suggests that two or three people may be screwed over.

At present, a married woman cannot apply to have her new partner adopt her child. This amendment doesn't seem to change that because it doesn't change the status of the existing father. So this amendment isn't screwing anyone over...

Onesimus wrote: »

How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?

I have read it in full a couple of times, but I won't claim to even come close to remembering it inside-out or having "studied" it.

It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way
...
But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.

Everything you have said could apply to any constitutional amendment, past, present and future. So basically what you're saying is that the politicians should be free to amend the constitution between themselves because the population can't be trusted to understand it.

As quite rightly pointed out by Tim Robbins (maybe in another thread), the constitution sets out the framework of what's expected of the state in relation to its population. It's crucial (IMO) that the State is not free to amend that framework without the approval of its superiors - the people.

The citizen has a duty to ensure that they know why they're voting, or refraining from voting if they don't. Claiming that the average Joe doesn't understand the constitution is not a good reason to prevent him from voting on it. It's a form of elitism - it presumes that the politicians understand it better. They don't.

lazygal

Onesimus wrote: »

How many Yes voters here can honestly put their hands up and say they have read and studied the Irish constitution in full?

It seems that the government is putting forth to us, the decision to change a constitution we have not read in full or have any clue about any which way. We citizens have not got a CLUE about law and cannot read objectively a ''text'' of law the way a solicitor could.

I think that a referendum like this should be battled out in court between the No and the Yes but there ya have it.

We have to remember that every single word going in to the constitution is not just ''sweet words'' on giving children rights. These are LEGALLY BINDING WORDS. Everyone of them are LEGALLY BINDING. And they need to be looked at by people in law to decide how these legally binding words could be interpretated one way or another in a court of law. How they could be manipulated by the social services and government and so on.

But instead they are throwing it at the average Joe who has not got a CLUE how to do all that and decide whether its good or not.

I'm a yes voter and have qualified in constitutional law.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

Actually I said if it benefits 2 children, it's worth it. But that's being pedantic. Implicit in that statement is that it should be for the overall good.

However, I fail to see what part of my post you quoted suggests that two or three people may be screwed over.

At present, a married woman cannot apply to have her new partner adopt her child. This amendment doesn't seem to change that because it doesn't change the status of the existing father. So this amendment isn't screwing anyone over...

I have read it in full a couple of times, but I won't claim to even come close to remembering it inside-out or having "studied" it.

Everything you have said could apply to any constitutional amendment, past, present and future. So basically what you're saying is that the politicians should be free to amend the constitution between themselves because the population can't be trusted to understand it.

As quite rightly pointed out by Tim Robbins (maybe in another thread), the constitution sets out the framework of what's expected of the state in relation to its population. It's crucial (IMO) that the State is not free to amend that framework without the approval of its superiors - the people.

The citizen has a duty to ensure that they know why they're voting, or refraining from voting if they don't. Claiming that the average Joe doesn't understand the constitution is not a good reason to prevent him from voting on it. It's a form of elitism - it presumes that the politicians understand it better. They don't.

Here Seamus, the way you have used quote there it makes it looks like I said things I never did. If you are quoting another poster you should make sure his / her name is used. What I was trying to say was there is a chance that the amendment means if you are married and alive and well, someone else can still adopt your children.

Is there a potential for one parent now claiming that the other parent has failed in his / her parenting and someone else should be allowed to adopt the child? I don't see anything in the referendum which puts in safeguards in place - for when a marriage breakdowns and partners like to get nasty with each other.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Actually, the correct analogy would be to say the response to corruption in the Gardaí would be a Constitutional amendment that gives the state an obligation to actively deal with the problem.

Would that it was.

robindch wrote: »

Since you don't know me from Adam, I'd be interested to learn how you know that I've "been taken in by the spin".

Oh, simply on the basis of your post. Apologies, I didn't realise you were simply making an assertion without any actual basis, other than an expectation that reality would take the form required by your opinion.

In any event, adoption is an irrelevance. I've actually posted some evidence above in support of that contention.

robindch wrote: »

I'm quite happy that the new text is much better than the old. You may disagree, but you will need to explain what's wrong with it as you haven't done that yet.

Well, the actual situation is that a No vote is the default. The onus is on the Yes side to indicate why an amendment is necessary.