Garda power to remove children from family home: only as a last resort?

source

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ah ok guilty until proven innocent. Gotch.

You're impossible to deal with, the only thing you want to hear is for us all to turn around and say the Gardai were wrong and the family should sue and get millions.

You obviously have some form of chip on your shoulder where AGS is concerned as you won't listen to reason and twist everything others say into a negative.

I really couldn't be arsed discussing this with you any longer because dealing with your posting style is like taking to a juvenile brick wall.

Pawwed Rig

source wrote: »

You're impossible to deal with, the only thing you want to hear is for us all to turn around and say the Gardai were wrong and the family should sue and get millions.

The Gardai were wrong. It is all over the news. There will be a claim and rightly so.

My Dad was a Garda and I have nothing but respect for them in general as I have met loads down through the years. That doesn't mean they cannot have some major screw ups, this being one of them.

Sorry I don't agree with you but that is the nature of a discussion forum.

angelfire9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The Gardai were wrong. It is all over the news. There will be a claim and rightly so.

My Dad was a Garda and I have nothing but respect for them in general as I have met loads down through the years. That doesn't mean they cannot have some major screw ups, this being one of them.

Sorry I don't agree with you but that is the nature of a discussion forum.

What would you have done in the alternate scenario I posted then?
Please share your wisdom
Btw I am not a Garda

My name is URL

bravestar wrote: »

To all those other posts responding to me, I couldn't be bothered to quote you. You weren't there, have no idea what actually happened and come next week, will have something new to winge and moan about.

And yourself and others will have something new to aggressively defend, and circle the wagon over.. and shutdown any attempt from anyone to engage in a discussion.

Plus ça change :rolleyes:

jamesdiver

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So they are a flight risk because of their race? That is your point.:eek:

They could be considered a flight risk based on their culture as nomads/gypsies/travelling communities. Just like lots of people in different situations, Irish or otherwise could be considered a flight risk. Luckily in this case, it was a case of safe not sorry, life goes on.

jamesdiver

jamesdiver wrote: »

They could be considered a flight risk based on their culture as nomads/gypsies/travelling communities. Just like lots of people in different situations, Irish or otherwise could be considered a flight risk. Luckily in this case, it was a case of safe not sorry, life goes on.

How can you honestly base a flight risk on someone's 'culture'?? I would have thought it more sensible that anyone who had kidnapped a child and was being investigated by the guards would be a flight risk since once it's proved they kidnapped the child they will be going to prison?

So if you were in England and there was a brawl outside a pub and you were taken into custody for the night because Irish people have a reputation for fighting that would be fine?

bravestar

My name is URL wrote: »

And yourself and others will have something new to aggressively defend, and circle the wagon over.. and shutdown any attempt from anyone to engage in a discussion.

Plus ça change :rolleyes:

We defend it because it was the right thing to do, regardless of how many PC brigades it upsets.

My name is URL

bravestar wrote: »

We defend it because it was the right thing to do, regardless of how many PC brigades it upsets.

You're not the judge of that... no more than I or anyone else here is.

And it's not 'PC' to dislike seeing state forces apparently succumb to the the hysteria whipped up by mass media and a frenzied, somewhat bigoted public opinion.

bravestar

My name is URL wrote: »

... state forces apparently succumb to the the hysteria whipped up by mass media and a frenzied, somewhat bigoted public opinion.

Do you ever get tired of operating on assumptions based purely on your absolute lack of knowledge?

Pawwed Rig

bravestar wrote: »

Do you ever get tired of operating on assumptions based purely on your absolute lack of knowledge?

Well you have refused to engage in any debate but keep throwing out comments like 'You weren't there, so you don't know'.
Enlighten us then. What was the imminent risk to the blond child that did not exist for the other children?

You guys seem to be taking this very personally (with personal abuse being thrown around). Where there are problems in my profession I have no problem highlighting them. Here it seems to be a case of AGS are right no matter what they do!! I would ask those that if there are members of AGS here to try and be objective rather than defensive. Or at least engage in a debate rather than throw out abuse. I assume non members of AGS are welcome here? The charter seems to say so.

There are real people here that have been badly treated by the instrumennts of the State. Were the same thing to happen to me in another country I would have to seriously consider whether I wanted a future in that country where I would be singled out based on my race. This is not the type of country Irish people deserve.

angelfire9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well you have refused to engage in any debate but keep throwing out comments like 'You weren't there, so you don't know'.
Enlighten us then. What was the imminent risk to the blond child that did not exist for the other children?.

The risk was that the parents would abscond with a child which wasn't verifiably theirs
Presumably they had paperwork to go with the other kids?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You guys seem to be taking this very personally (with personal abuse being thrown around). Where there are problems in my profession I have no problem highlighting them. Here it seems to be a case of AGS are right no matter what they do!! I would ask those that if there are members of AGS here to try and be objective rather than defensive. Or at least engage in a debate rather than throw out abuse. I assume non members of AGS are welcome here? The charter seems to say so.

I am not a member of AGS and post here fairly regularly :cool:
i asked you already to engage in debate with regard to my initial post in this thread, you were asked what you would have done differently in the scenario i posted but for some reason you chose to decline to respond to that?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There are real people here that have been badly treated by the instrumennts of the State. Were the same thing to happen to me in another country I would have to seriously consider whether I wanted a future in that country where I would be singled out based on my race. This is not the type of country Irish people deserve.

What happened was not ideal, but better surely than letting a potential kidnapper abscond with their victim?
People get singled out for their race everywhere
Try travelling through Heathrow Airport (where they have a specific terminal to deal with Irish people) on your own with a child (as I did) and get pulled out off the queue to be questioned about the child's parentage (and this was with my eldest who was a miniature of yours truly at the time)
Methinks however the Roma family in question arrived into Ireland it wasn't through LHR :rolleyes:

bravestar

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well you have refused to engage in any debate but keep throwing out comments like 'You weren't there, so you don't know'.
Enlighten us then. What was the imminent risk to the blond child that did not exist for the other children?

You guys seem to be taking this very personally (with personal abuse being thrown around). Where there are problems in my profession I have no problem highlighting them. Here it seems to be a case of AGS are right no matter what they do!! I would ask those that if there are members of AGS here to try and be objective rather than defensive. Or at least engage in a debate rather than throw out abuse. I assume non members of AGS are welcome here? The charter seems to say so.

There are real people here that have been badly treated by the instrumennts of the State. Were the same thing to happen to me in another country I would have to seriously consider whether I wanted a future in that country where I would be singled out based on my race. This is not the type of country Irish people deserve.

It's quite simple. I wasn't there either. I've been around long enough to know that if you weren't there, then you should keep your mouth shut. Hence, I will give the benefit of the doubt to AGS.

Angelfire9, gave you a scenario which you have refused to comment on, maybe you should try address that because quite frankly, I am of the opinion that in your eyes, no matter what AGS did, they would be wrong. The only exception to that being some unrealistic/unworkable scenario you create.

Pawwed Rig

bravestar wrote: »

Hence, I will give the benefit of the doubt to AGS.

I get that. AGS can do no wrong in your eyes. Whereas I am saying that they made an error in this case. I have also previously stated that I hold AGS in high regard but I am not about to claim they do not make mistakes.
I would suggest it would be a very scary country indeed if only those that were present are allowed to comment on a child being removed from her family. Also we would need to close down boards.ie:D

angelfire9 wrote: »

The risk was that the parents would abscond with a child which wasn't verifiably theirs
Presumably they had paperwork to go with the other kids?

But coincidently not the blond child? I don't buy that.

angelfire9 wrote: »

I am not a member of AGS and post here fairly regularly :cool:

Yes but as you can see opposing points of view to the groupthink are definitely not welcomed here as can be seen from the personal abuse that has been levelled at anyone who isn't 100% behind AGS on this issue.

i asked you already to engage in debate with regard to my initial post in this thread, you were asked what you would have done differently in the scenario i posted but for some reason you chose to decline to respond to that?

I had to goto bed because it was late:p
I don't know to be honest. You are asking me to comment on an area that I am not an expert in. A crude method would be to set up some kind of surveillance system where they could monitor the family for a couple of days and if they tried to run then call in the cavalry. I am sure a professional Police force could easily do that. Having said that there are bound to be better ways than my suggestion but you would need to ask a professional.
A cruder way is taking a frightened child away from her parents.

On a side note - Looks like the Greek case is coming to a close too in that the child may not have been kidnapped and may be Roma (although the legalities of the adoption are still in question).

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

And it's not 'PC' to dislike seeing state forces apparently succumb to the the hysteria whipped up by mass media and a frenzied, somewhat bigoted public opinion.

bravestar wrote: »

Do you ever get tired of operating on assumptions based purely on your absolute lack of knowledge?

It also emerged yesterday that the controversy in Tallaght was sparked by an anonymous posting on Facebook. An unnamed female member of the public tipped off television channel TV3 about the presence of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed child at the house on Monday morning.

A researcher at the station passed on the Facebook message to an investigative TV3 reporter, who then contacted the gardai at the station in Tallaght.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/blonde-girl-roma-parents-returned-dna

Yeah.. definitely no sign of hysterics in any of that.

Here's the Facebook post in question - http://itonlyencouragesthem.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/roma.png

McCrack

The HSE and the Gardai have commenced internal investigations into the two matters. As I understand it, one child from Tallaght and another from Athlone were taken unlawfully from their families by the State and returned back to them.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that there were mistakes made by one or more State agencies.

I sincerely hope the families affected seek or have sought the appropriate legal advice.

angelfire9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You are asking me to comment on an area that I am not an expert in.

Don't you see the irony in that?
You are competent In your opinion to comment on what was done wrong
But not expert enough to suggest alternative scenarios

Pawwed Rig

angelfire9 wrote: »

Don't you see the irony in that?
You are competent In your opinion to comment on what was done wrong
But not expert enough to suggest alternative scenarios

I did suggest an alternative scenario which is what you asked for but qualified it by saying a relevant professional should be able to come up with a better idea.
So no I do not see any irony in that.
Why ask for an alternative scenario and then ignore the scenario I present completely just to get in yet another dig?
Also what do you think about the origin of the 'complaint' ie the facebook post. Is this the kind of tip off a modern Police force should rely on when removing a child from her family?

bravestar

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I did suggest an alternative scenario which is what you asked for but qualified it by saying a relevant professional should be able to come up with a better idea.
So no I do not see any irony in that.
Why ask for an alternative scenario and then ignore the scenario I present completely just to get in yet another dig?
Also what do you think about the origin of the 'complaint' ie the facebook post. Is this the kind of tip off a modern Police force should rely on when removing a child from her family?

Your alternative scenario is unworkable. The Facebook tip off as you put it may have sparked a further investigation, which resulted in the child being removed and then returned once the investigaton had concluded. All investigations start with a suspicion, it doesn't mean guilty until proven innocent.

Zambia

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I had to goto bed because it was late:p
I don't know to be honest. You are asking me to comment on an area that I am not an expert in. A crude method would be to set up some kind of surveillance system where they could monitor the family for a couple of days and if they tried to run then call in the cavalry. I am sure a professional Police force could easily do that. Having said that there are bound to be better ways than my suggestion but you would need to ask a professional.
A cruder way is taking a frightened child away from her parents.

You seem to think there was a right way to do this. In the end the members were looking for the least wrong way to do it.

Most professional police forces would do something similar.

msg11

McCrack wrote: »

As I understand it, one child from Tallaght and another from Athlone were taken unlawfully from their families by the State and returned back to them.

They where removed lawfully. The Garda used section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0017/print.html#sec12

McCrack

msg11 wrote: »

They where removed lawfully. The Garda used section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0017/print.html#sec12

Not necessarily. Just because a power is conferred in law does not mean the person exercising it (Gardai in this case) is justified. Powers given in law are not a blank card to act unconditionally.

There are checks and balances to be observed and I suspect in these situations they were not.

Pappa Charlie

McCrack wrote: »

Not necessarily. Just because a power is conferred in law does not mean the person exercising it (Gardai in this case) is justified. Powers given in law are not a blank card to act unconditionally.

There are checks and balances to be observed and I suspect in these situations they were not.

Where's your proof that it was unlawful, you have no idea of the full details of the case and the situation as it unfolded and the information or lack of information available to gardai, there was a risk and they acted, if they didn't and the child was trafficked and went missing because of a delay in acting you'd be on here spouting about risk and gardai not enforcing the law, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't!

Iwannahurl

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't: that appears to be the main argument in favour of removing a child.

However, if removal is a last resort in highly exceptional cases, then alternatives must be considered, and rejected, first.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) are without prejudice to any other powers exercisable by a member of the Garda Síochána.

With regard to alleged flight risk, if that is supposed to be the primary motivation for removing a child in the first instance, would there be a problem with seizing of passports, or the posting of Gardai outside or near a family home to monitor or prevent departure?

Are these not suitable alternatives, and if so why not? Are there no other options at all, within the range of "other powers exercisable by a member of the Garda Síochána"?

bravestar

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't: that appears to be the main argument in favour of removing a child.

However, if removal is a last resort in highly exceptional cases, then alternatives must be considered, and rejected, first.



With regard to alleged flight risk, if that is supposed to be the primary motivation for removing a child in the first instance, would there be a problem with seizing of passports, or the posting of Gardai outside or near a family home to monitor or prevent departure?

Are these not suitable alternatives, and if so why not? Are there no other options at all?

And where are these extra gardai supposed to come from that will sit outside, who's going to pay them for the overtime and sub? You have no idea mate.

McCrack

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Where's your proof that it was unlawful, you have no idea of the full details of the case and the situation as it unfolded and the information or lack of information available to gardai, there was a risk and they acted, if they didn't and the child was trafficked and went missing because of a delay in acting you'd be on here spouting about risk and gardai not enforcing the law, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't!

Yes but the fact that the children were in fact the biological children of the parents strongly suggests the State agencies acted unlawfully.

S12 is draconian and used infrequently and as a last resort.. The threshold if used lawfully is very high and something tells me in these cases that wasn't observed.

Time will when the various internal and external findings are published.

McCrack

bravestar wrote: »

And where are these extra gardai supposed to come from that will sit outside, who's going to pay them for the overtime and sub? You have no idea mate.

Ironic thing is its going to cost the State far more in compensation payments to the affected families for the cock-ups than would have cost to post a Garda outside while appropriate checks carried out.

Zambia

McCrack wrote: »

Ironic thing is its going to cost the State far more in compensation payments to the affected families for the cock-ups than would have cost to post a Garda outside while appropriate checks carried out.

You don't know the cost of either.

Imagine if the "kidnappers" harmed the child while the Garda stood outside.

It was a lose lose scenario from the get go. What part of that are you not getting?

bravestar

McCrack wrote: »

Ironic thing is its going to cost the State far more in compensation payments to the affected families for the cock-ups than would have cost to post a Garda outside while appropriate checks carried out.

That still doesn't answer the question though does it. Where are the extra gardai and money to pay them going to come from?

McCrack

Zambia wrote: »

You don't know the cost of either.

Imagine if the "kidnappers" harmed the child while the Garda stood outside.

It was a lose lose scenario from the get go. What part of that are you not getting?

I have a good idea what compensation the affected families would be entitled to as well as the legal costs and I base that on my own professional experience.

They people the Gardai took the children from were not kidnappers, they were the children's parents so imagining what could have happened is really pointless.

McCrack

bravestar wrote: »

That still doesn't answer the question though does it. Where are the extra gardai and money to pay them going to come from?

If its that necessary the manpower can be sanctioned from somewhere. I'm not saying posting a Garda outside the homes while appropriate checks were carried out should have been done instead. It's just an alternative that has been mentioned than what in fact did happen.