The O'Hara Family

K2

Co Meath parents reunited with children
March 12, 2005 12:15

The Co Meath couple whose five children were taken into care by the Health Service Executive last week have been reunited with them.

After a nine-and-a-half hour court hearing yesterday, a judge rejected an application to have their care order extended.

Parents Padraig and Mary O'Hara said they were delighted with the ruling.

The Irish Society for Autism also welcomed the ruling and said justice had been done.
__________________________________________________________

I was very saddened and angry to hear about the treatment of this family at the hands of the HSE, so much so that I finally got up off my ass and did something, and can I suggest you do likewise if you feel the same;

send a polite but firm email to the HSE on their website www.hebe.ie in the contact us section. I have asked them if the people responsible for making the decision to remove these children from their home will receive any training or whether they are still employed. I don't expect much of a reply but as organisations like amnesty have show a little bit of pressure can yield positive results.

I cannot claim to be an expert on autism but I know enough to know that breaking the routine is simply something you don't do. One of the worries I would have is that this action was taken by the HSE to shut the parents up! And as somebody who has to fight, push and shove to get the things my son is entitled to it adds a sinister dimension to dealing with the health boards/hse.

Amz

Thanks for your post K2.

The treatment of this family was absolutely disgraceful. I have two neighbours with Autistic children so I'm somewhat familiar with what is involved. Having spoken to these neighbours about the current treatment of the O'Haras this type of treatment isn't that extrordinary.

I've already written to the HSE and others in response to this and I would encourage other people to do the same. It's not enough for the media to highlight it every now and then, but the HSE needs to know that the general public have a problem with this too.

MorningStar

While I feel the treatment of the family was terrible the family have to take some responsibility. They have said on national radio and television they said they were driving with little or no sleep. That means they are a danger to themselves and others on the road in the same way a drunk driver is. If they still do this the children should be taken off them for the safety of others not just the children. Don't forget the Leeds train that was derailed due to one sleepless night of one car driver. These people are doing this repeatedly
While my knowledge of autisim is limited I think to keep on having children after your first three are special needs is irresponsible. Let alone having two additional children. I guess there could be religious beliefs but I would suspect they would have more children at this point if that was the case

K2

Hi MorningStar
do a little research and you will see that they did not find out about their children having autism until they were all born!

MorningStar

K2 wrote:

Hi MorningStar
do a little research and you will see that they did not find out about their children having autism until they were all born!

I know that but they didn't have 5 kids at once. As far as I know you can 't tell about autisim for sure untill the child is 2 and up.They had one child who has asburgess syndrome (sp?). Then they had a child who was autistic not sure when they found out, then another child who was autistic , again and then again. As far as I remember there is at least ten year spread on the kids. Anybody having 5 kids should only do so knowing they can care for them. They would at least known they had three children who were special needs prior to the 5th. If there is more detail I am not aware off fair enough.

They are still a risk on the roads and a danger to their own kids.

Amz

And why do you think it is that they have to go for long periods without sleep?

They're not receiving adequate help from anyone! It ws only when their situation was raised within the media that the HSE decided their children weren't being looked after properly.

I'm sure the parents are the first to admit that it's impossible to give all of the children the specialised care they require. They were doing the best with what little resources were available to them.

I still believe the HSE handled this extremely badly.

I don't believe you know enough about the situation to adequately comment. Firstly you don't seem to know enough about Autism.

I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone. I'm sure they didn't expect to have other children with Autism and as such calling them irresponsible is unfair in my opinion.

I haven't time write a proper response at the moment.

MorningStar

I also agree the HSE have handled this badly but I think the parent have some responsibility. Just because their life is hard doesn't mean they are not responsible for their actions.
Regardless of why they felt the need to drive they were a risk to other road users and themselves. This is irresponsible. I think a mother doing something similar for her sons medical care crashed last year. Not sure on the details.
I don't know a whole lot about autism. I am sure they didn't plan on 5 children with special needs. My point is they would have at least known that the 3 of their kids were special needs prior to having more. I am sure they did not think they would have another special needs kids but to have ANY other children was at least questionable. My comments are not about the condition just the parents choices.
While it also seems a little heartless I think it is valid to question the parents choices. THe HSE have acted terribly but if somebody says on national media "I am putting my children at risk" they have to do something. They did the wrong thing.

K2

Hi MorningStar,
afaik they had four children before it was noticed by them and their doctor that their first born was developing problems, so to say they were irresponsible to have five kids is an ill thought out opinion. I would really like to engage you re your other immature opinion on sleep deprivation and driving as I have first hand experience of this but i reckon that a. it will develope into a pointless arguement and b. I have legal reasons for not giving personal details out on the internet.

oh and the case you mentioned was a mother killed bringing her child to a language therapist. I would guess that you don't have any children yourself cos if you did you would realise that you would do anything for them...even if it cost you your job, home, marriage, your 05 car or whatever else you considered important.

MorningStar

If they never knew any of their children were special needs while they were still having children that is a valid arguement. Then it shuts that point but is that the case for sure? The kids ages looked pretty diverse that's why I questioned it and it is reasonable to ask questions.
To drive a car without enough sleep is dangerous. What ever the reason it is dangerous. If somebody stayed up late to talk to their girlfriend or take care of their child and the drove they are just as much a risk on the road. Your personal desires and wants should not allow you to risk others lives. The fact somebody does it for their children does not change the point. Your argument seems to be that you are allowed to put your childrens' lives in danger because you think their education is more important.
The fact a mother has managed to kill herself and child (were more killed?) for speech theropy really does seem to prove my point that it is unsafe.
Being a parent should not give you the right to put others at risk or your own child.
I am not trying to argue and just because I think differently to you it doesn't make me immature. I have not insulted you personally and I'd appreciate the same.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/20/sleep.deprivation/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/story/0,7369,609756,00.html

You can refer to a friend to avoid legal issues

K2

No offence intended but try and be balanced in your thinking. Ask yourself why these parents run themselves ragged, why the health service are not providing the services that we all, you included, are entitled to under our constitution and what is being done to help them. To be reckless is not excused because it's for the care or good of your child but there can often be a good reason for having to (ie not having any other choice). Also you mention education, why? The case you mentioned was a daily trip this woman and her child took every day, mon to fri, to try and get her child speaking. That's more medical than educational, she had to travel long distances as there were no therapists made available by her health board and so she had to go private. I'm sure she did not want to harm herself or anyone else (afaik nobody else was hurt/killed) but she did want to do all that could be done for her child. Unfortunately she may have pushed herself too far.

Yes, I agree that to drive while tired is not a good idea, but it is not akin to drink driving or speeding - after saying that I have seen a programme where it was proved, unscientifically, that it was more dangerous than drink driving.

As mentioned earlier, do some research, I'm not trying to be a smartarse or patronagise you, but it may change your opinion on some of your ideas re autism. It should also give you an insight into what this family go thro on a daily basis, every single day with no end to it.

MorningStar

I know why they are doing it. I know the health care is failing them. I know the parents feel they have no choice. I have a great deal of compasion for the people in this situation. As I said my views aren't about autism but the parents choices.
From the bit of knowledge I have of the family and autism it seems they would have known. I'll take your word that they wouldn't have known while they continued to have children. I thought you tended to know by 2 especially in extreme cases by maths and logic I was guessing the family knew they had three kids with special needs before having the 5th.
"The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16.The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, 9; Seadna, 5 and 4-year-old Cionnaola have autism"
Fionn is both dyslexic and has asburgus syndrome (Sp?). Very hard to identify both in combination as they will mask each other. They didn't notice a 9 year old and a 5 year old had autism before having a 5th child? It's possible but does sound a little hard to believe. If they didn't know then the parents didn't make the bad choice I thought they made. I had assumed they knew as it is a concern of so many parents which is probably unfair on the parents.

I do believe driving without enough sleep on a continual basis is as dangerous as drink driving. I even included links saying so. If you read them and don't agree with the point do a simple search on the net and you will see the dangers of sleep deprivaton on driving. I doubt you will find anything saying it is safe but you will find a few saying it is as bad or worse than drink driving.

If even one head person in the HSE had heard the media reports on the family and believed as I do about sleep deprivation they would investigatigate the case. The HSE then acted terribly but the driving alone seems to be a valid reason to question the parents.
If you don't believe it is a risk then I guess you won't accept the point. You may be able to justify the risk for your children if you see it as a risk. If somebody regualrly drink drives with their kids people would be outraged regardless of the benifits for the kids. I don't see the difference regardless of my emotional feels on the subject.

K2

Hi MorningStar,
I think you may have confused yourself over what the issues here are, the children were not taken away because their parents were driving while tired. The extract below is a media report on the case. In fact I think you may have missed the whole point of my original post.
___________________________________________________

Judge says five children can be returned to their parents
Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent


Five children who were taken into State care a week ago were last night due to be reunited with their parents in Kells, Co Meath, following a court battle against the local health authority.

Amid jubilant scenes at Trim District Court last night, Pádraig and Mary O'Hara expressed relief that their "week-long nightmare" was over and said they were delighted at the outcome of their case.

The Health Service Executive (North Eastern Area) sought to place the couple's children - four of whom are autistic - in State care a week ago against the parents' wishes. Mr and Mrs O'Hara had been giving media interviews at the time complaining about the lack of support services for their children.

Following an eight-hour private sitting of Trim District Court yesterday, Judge David Anderson dismissed an interim care order taken out by the health authority.

The HSE, which had insisted the parents undergo a psychiatric assessment before any attempt could be made to reunite them with their children, declined to comment last night.

The health authority's treatment of the couple prompted criticism this week from campaigners and support groups. Independent MEP Kathy Sinnott called for an apology from the HSE.

Following the outcome of the case last night, Mr and Mrs O'Hara hugged tearful family members and friends at the courthouse. In a statement read by their solicitor, Roger Murray, they expressed delight with the ruling and thanked their friends and supporters.

The O'Hara's family doctor and chairman of the Irish Society for Autism, Dr James Hayes, said he was ecstatic at the outcome. "This frightful event should never have occurred," he said. "Whatever the crisis, there are other ways of dealing with it. Justice has been done and the family have been reunited."

Arrangements were being made last night to reunite the children with their parents. The parents agreed on Friday of last week to let the children be put in respite care on a voluntary basis after social workers and gardaí arrived at their home with a care order seeking to commit the children to State care.

Fionn (16), who is dyslexic, Oisín (13) and Blain (9), who are autistic, have been staying at a guesthouse in Drogheda for the last week. Seadna (5) and Cionnaola (4) have been staying at a residential unit without any contact with their parents.

Irish Autism Alliance chairman Cormac Rennick said the group had lodged a formal complaint about the treatment of the parents.

He said the O'Haras were "dedicated and devoted parents" whose lives revolved around the care of their children.

Ms Sinnott said: "We have to have an apology from the HSE and an assurance that this will never happen again. Taking away your children is the worst threat the State can make."

The HSE was represented in court yesterday by a four-person legal team along with a number of health authority officials who gave evidence during the court sitting.

---

(you may have noticed that not all their children are austic.)

MorningStar

Generally my point was the parents were not questioned by the media. The parents decided to bring this to the media and then it was brought on as a pity story on the news.
I brought two points up that I thought were worth asking.
It does appear the parents were unaware of their childrens conditions as such when they continued their family. (from other post*)
While on the radio and TV the mentioned many things I thought were worth of investigation. One of which was the driving which I focused on. They did repeatedly say they couldn't cope and they were on anti-depressants.
The HSE acted terribly but by bringing it to the media the family kind of forced the situation.
What did they think would happen when they brought it to the media. I can only guess they were hoping to spur action from the HSE. They did and didn't like the outcome.
I still think the driving is terrible. They want a system of scocial conscience to work for them but do not act socially responsibly when it comes to driving. I know I seem to be harsh but what if they crashed into your family and killed them becasue of the drive they choose to do for the good of their children?

I am guessing you or somebody close to you maybe in a simlar driving situation?

*There is another post about actually cover the family size and other issues but I didn't see any mention of driving and sleep.

** Some reports have mentioned the eldest having dyslexia and others don't but I heard the parents say he had asburges syndrom (it's like a high functioning autism) and dyslexia. Both can be hard to diagnose and some people don't find out till in their 40's and later.

K2

In your first post you said the parents had to take some responsibilty for the way the hse handled the situation ie take their children away, and then you picked up on two issues - driving and having 5 children. Personally I think you are wrong about both, esp. about having 5 kids but there's no point in flogging a dead horse at this stage. Also, you have failed to realise that these people felt they had to bring their case to the media as the health boards were not doing enough or in this particular case it appeared that they were being heavy handed in an attempt to shut them up. So while you think this was a terrible thing to happen they were partly responsible for it?

You may not know it but the O'Haras have being campaging (and this includes using the media) for quite some time for adequate services, which is why some people, myself included, feel the recent action of the HSE was an attempt to bully them. This is why I put up my original post, the very agency which is supposed to help these people is doing the opposite.

Amz

Sorry, just an aside, but I might copy this thread to Humanities if K2 has no objections? This is an interesting topic and it probably isn't getting as much exposure on this forum as it might do over there.

K2

Not a problem for me, in fact it may encourage others to email the HSE. On that note I might mention I did receive a reply. It was only a quick note to say they would pass my questions and concerns onto the hse area involved but she was good enough to give her name so I should be able to follow it up if I don't get a real reply.

Amz

At least they acknowledged it I guess.

K2

Yes I was surprised too. I thought they would have just put on the hard hats and weathered it out. I still don't expect much will happen but maybe, just maybe this family will finally begin to receive the support and assistance they so desperatley need if the HSE realise that joe public is not happy with what they did.

Sometimes it gets so fustrating when you consider all the money which has been wasted on things like the bertie bowl and e-voting (and is still being wasted) and the areas it could be spent in. Not just health but in education and law enforcement - the three areas politicians get nailed on each time they vist the doorsteps at election time.

Rant over, I'll not say anymore except to apologise to MorningStar if I was rude.

Amz

amp and co. I hope you don't mind that I copied this thread to Humanities, I felt it was a subject that wasn't getting enough views on A/M/D, but might be of interest to some of the posters here who otherwise wouldn't have seen it. Perhaps they'll have some interesting insights.

Thanks.

MorningStar

The parents did a major media blitz TV3, Radio1, newstalk and the Independent that I saw. This was going to have results it didn't have the one the initially hoped for. Again I say the HSE acted terribly but what did they ideally wanted them to do? If somebody says on national media "We can't cope" and "We are on anti-depresants as a result". THe organisation meant to be taking care of these children better do something. The case is private and ultimately the HSE did not take the children away but took them into forced tempory respite (read this somewhere could be wrong). The mental state of the parents may have truely been in question. It may have been best to give the parents a break. The kids haven't been killed in a car crash for example. You don't know I don't know but health proffesional are more likely to be able to check this than me and,unless you assesed them, you.


I never gave out about the fact they just decided to have 5 children. I thought it was irresponsible to have children into a situation where by you can't take care of them. As they didn't know at the time I conceed the point that they weren't. However I am basing that on the fact somebody said they only found out in 2004 so they haven't been compagining that long if that is true. SO I am doubting they just found out now anybody got facts?

I provided information about how dangerous driving while sleep deprived is. You seem to just dismiss this in the same way that drink drivers did in the 70's. The fact that it has happend here too should really point it out. I am really curious how you don't see it as dangerous.

You haven't insulted me again but you did earlier.

GuanYin

Give it a rest Morningstar, its quite obvious the HSE action was nothing short of petty bullying in a response to criticism they received.

The wording of your letter is very diplomatic K2, the people who made the decision should have charges brought against them for abuse of state powers, after they have been sacked.

MorningStar

psi wrote:

Give it a rest Morningstar, its quite obvious the HSE action was nothing short of petty bullying in a response to criticism they received.

The wording of your letter is very diplomatic K2, the people who made the decision should have charges brought against them for abuse of state powers, after they have been sacked.

I am entitled to an opinion as are you. I am stating reason for my belief and have conceeded a point. Stating an opinion with out any discussion is not the way I want to live. If that's what you want don't comment and keep your views in your own head where nobody will challange you.
I don't think HSE was bullying but badly executed and I have given some logic to that so it's not obvious.

Amz

Do you not find it odd though, that the HSE only felt the children should be taken away when they started getting flak from the media and the public?

The circumstances didn't just suddenly change. It was quite obviously a bullying tactic.

Beruthiel

e mail sent

morningstar
do you work for the health board?

MorningStar

Amz wrote:

Do you not find it odd though, that the HSE only felt the children should be taken away when they started getting flak from the media and the public?

The circumstances didn't just suddenly change. It was quite obviously a bullying tactic.

No is the short answer. I think by bringing it into the light of the media the HSE were forced to react. I also believe the HSE did the wrong thing.
I don't think a public agency that deals for the well being of people acts in the same way as a human being or emotionally. Given what the family said to the media I think the children's well being was brought into question. I have already stated what I think warrants a family assement:
1) Careless attitude to driving and therfore their children's lives and other road users
2) Parent saying the could not cope repeated on media reports and in writing to HSE
3) Parent saying the situtation was so bad that they rely on anti-depressants.

If you don't think they are valid reason for assement what does warrant an assesment?
If you don't think driving while sleep deprived is dangerous that's one thing but I have already given links showing how dangerous it is.

MorningStar

Beruthiel wrote:

e mail sent

morningstar
do you work for the health board?

No and just because I don't take pity on the family doesn't make me a monster either. I am not defending the HSE actions as such. I tried to balance out an argument and had leggit questions about the parent actions and maybe why HSE reacted as the did.
If a single parent had 3 kids in a one bed flat and complain the city council only provided that I would have questions there too. Where is the other parent and why keep having children if you can't care for them?

Fysh

Having seen a few programs over the last few months about how autism in its many variants is (not) cared for in this country, I'm interested in this. My chief question really would be to wonder how other countries compare, eg the UK and US?

Going back to this specific case, I don't think the HSE handled this correctly at all, but....if you have two parents admitting to the national media that they can't cope with raising five children, four of whom are affected by a disability, doesn't someone somewhere have to ask whether the parents would be able to cope, even with due assistance? From family experience I know it's not particularly easy to raise a family that size in any case, never mind if there are several cases of a disability to factor in. From what I've seen/read about autism, raising even one child with autism can keep both parents fully occupied - at which stage you have to wonder how much support would be required to help them handle five children in this situation, and whether it would indeed be the best solution overall (although in saying that, I can't imagine that removing a child from its family is ever an ideal solution). (Note : as stated above I know rather little about the condition overall, but am open to learning more - any links to sites I can learn more about the kind of care required for the condition would be appreciated)

Regarding driving while tired - I hardly think this family are the main culprits of this quite widespread offence, and I'd suggest that haulage companies would be both more guilty of causing it and a more serious risk due to the size of the vehicles concerned. The parents are being socially irresponsible, but social responsibility is a result of the contract implicit in government, which requires the government to adequately cater to the population's needs. That is clearly not happening here, and these people being forced to drive while in a poor condition for doing so is a result of that failing on the HSE's part. Focusing on that isn't really any different to blaming the family for the situation they are in - they're asking for help that they are entitled to by being honest about how they can't currently cope; taking that honesty and using it against them will only encourage other affected people to keep quiet, which can only lead to more accidents with exhaustion as the cause - which benefits nobody.

MorningStar

Fysh wrote:

The parents are being socially irresponsible, but social responsibility is a result of the contract implicit in government, which requires the government to adequately cater to the population's needs. That is clearly not happening here, and these people being forced to drive while in a poor condition for doing so is a result of that failing on the HSE's part. Focusing on that isn't really any different to blaming the family for the situation they are in

Scocial responsibility starts with the individual and ends with the individual. The government are an extention of this. If every individual acted with scocial responsiblity there woudn't be a problem.
Road haulage is heavily regulated and is rarely involved in accidents with direct crashes while cars commonly crash late a night with single occupents.
While you see the parents as being forced they aren't. It is not a life and death situation. If they really want to avail of the services at the risk of others they could in fact move house closer to the service centres. They have some choice the one they have taken is risk peoples' lives. I still don't think either is fair but it is still no excuse to driving sleep deprived (not tired). 2 tons of metal moving at 60mph should not be in the hands of anybody drunk yet somebody as dangerous (more so after prolonged lack of sleep) is fine if they have to educate their children because the government haven't put the facilities beside them.
I would hold the government and the parents responsible if they crashed. If there were any fatilities the parents would be guilty of manslaughter at least. The government would be guilty of nothing.

Megatron

From what i've read and listened to about this, the parents where complaining about the fact they didn't have access to the facilities they need for the care of the childeren. They did have access but only if they drove for exteneded periods of time. When they approched the HSA about this they where ignored. They tried several times but always recieved the same responce .. nothing.

They then went ( and rightly so) to the media to highlight the problem. HSA though that they could end this quickly. they where mistaken. As for having the children and knowing that there is a chance of them having autism, if they want more children they are entiltled to it. If we try and stop people from having children because of possible defects we should go the whole way.
Any history of Cancer , yeah ... ok no children, any history of mental ilness .. yeah .. no children .... a few years do the line ... ummm what's happening to our population , it's going down.

Autism or any afliction that people have in my opinon is needed in the gene pool. For sheer diverity , we don't want stale gene pool where if something was to suddenly mess it about there would be no comeback from this.

As for the Driving while tired, yes it is risky, but driving a car is risky. Putting your child in danger, yeah it happens day in day out, we only live with a illisuon of control. If people belive they can control the situation with minimising the riskes to others then yes they should be able to do it.

also remember that the whoel thing was a PR stunt to get the plight highlighted. some of the facts where imbelished.

Beruthiel

MorningStar wrote:

If a single parent had 3 kids in a one bed flat and complain the city council only provided that I would have questions there too. Where is the other parent and why keep having children if you can't care for them?

dead?
abuser?
run off?
it must be great to live in such a black and white world, however in the real one nothing is straight forward and you cannot call into question every single one parent family

MorningStar

Beruthiel wrote:

dead?
abuser?
run off?
it must be great to live in such a black and white world, however in the real one nothing is straight forward and you cannot call into question every single one parent family

Actually my point was I would ask questions as things aren't black and white. Some people in such situations are of their own doing and others have dramatic life changes that throws them into this situation. I don't believe the children should suffer for the sins of the parents. I will be critical of anybody who has three children by different partners and does not live with any partner. I will feel sorry for somebody who's partner died leaving them in this situation but critical if they didn't have life cover. I wiould not deny either scocial welfare or any state aid.

As I said I would ask questions if somebody goes to the media complaining about a situation. I want to gauge how responsible that person is for the situation. My whole point is questions should be asked I NEVER said anything to suggest people should just put up with bad situations. Just because you are in a bad sistuation does not mean you are innocent in that situation or give you the right to do what you want.

Don't project views on me instead try reading what I said. More money needs to get to people in need that either mean more efficent system or higher taxes which do you think will happen?

Fysh

MorningStar wrote:

Scocial responsibility starts with the individual and ends with the individual. The government are an extention of this. If every individual acted with scocial responsiblity there woudn't be a problem.

Where exactly would government agencies (who do not have a physical form and cannot easily be pinned down as being one individual's responsibility)fit into this rather restrictive definition of social responsibility? It is an agreement - it's an offshoot of the social contract which requires people's needs to be adequately catered for. If they aren't catered for, it breaks down.

MorningStar wrote:

While you see the parents as being forced they aren't. It is not a life and death situation. If they really want to avail of the services at the risk of others they could in fact move house closer to the service centres.

And you know for certain that this is a place they could move to that is affordable, meets their other requirements and where there is adequate housing available?

What you're saying here is, basically, they should accomodate the services rather than the services accomodate them. So, even though they are pointing out a shortfall in these services, you seem to think the responsibility to make up this shortfall lies with the affected family, and not the providers of the services. Why not apply that to everything? "Sorry, we don't provide electricity/clean water/roads/telephone access/anything at all in your area. Guess it's time to move house."

MorningStar wrote:

They have some choice the one they have taken is risk peoples' lives. I still don't think either is fair but it is still no excuse to driving sleep deprived (not tired). 2 tons of metal moving at 60mph should not be in the hands of anybody drunk yet somebody as dangerous (more so after prolonged lack of sleep) is fine if they have to educate their children because the government haven't put the facilities beside them.
I would hold the government and the parents responsible if they crashed. If there were any fatilities the parents would be guilty of manslaughter at least. The government would be guilty of nothing.

And you don't think that the situation the family are in would be considered extenuating circumstances, to say the least? Because you're being very naive in that case. These parents are trying to handle their responsibilities as parents in the only way available to them - you're focusing on what they're being driven to (no pun intended) and trying to criminalise them. You can't just tell everyone in their situation that they have to move house, and I'm quite surprised you're focusing on such a tangential aspect of the story. What about the risk to the parent's mental health through lack of availability of support? Or would your answer be "move house" to that as well - regardless of the distress that this could cause anyone (and possibly aggravated effects on the children, who rely on a routine)?

MorningStar

I agree that they are being failed in all the ways that has been said. I just don't think it excuses their behaviour. I am not criminalising thiere action they ARE criminal. I said they have the option to move I don't think they should have to but it's the reality of the situation.

I have people argue that in country locations people should be allowed to drink drive because otherwise they will be socially isolated. What's the difference? Just the reason for the dangerous behaviour.

If you want to know why it bothers me I ask you this how many people in your family have been killed on the roads?

Fysh

MorningStar wrote:

I agree that they are being failed in all the ways that has been said. I just don't think it excuses their behaviour. I am not criminalising thiere action they ARE criminal. I said they have the option to move I don't think they should have to but it's the reality of the situation.

I have people argue that in country locations people should be allowed to drink drive because otherwise they will be socially isolated. What's the difference? Just the reason for the dangerous behaviour.

If you want to know why it bothers me I ask you this how many people in your family have been killed on the roads?

I have at no point advocated people being allowed to drink drive if they live somewhere in the country. The difference is a huge and important one - there is no need for people to drink if they travel to see friends/relatives etc. However, the parents of these children did and do need to travel to receive the assistance and care they require for their children. A pretty fundamental difference, really.

As for why it bothers you, well, ok, you've had losses from people dying on the roads. I haven't. That doesn't make your argument superior - it just means that it's important to you because you've been personally affected by it. I have family who work in healthcare and they've repeatedly commented that the care provided for autism and similar syndromes is nothing short of pathetic. Do I win a special prize for playing the personal involvement card? Or is this, as I suspect, just moving further and further away from the actual issue at hand?

MorningStar

Just because the care is bad does not give anybody the right to risk my families lives. That was one of two points I made I haven't moved on it. I am critical of anybody putting lives at risk on a regular basis no matter what the reason.

If what you are saying once you have a reason it's OK say that. I have said all the reason s why I am critical of the parents. I don't think there is any excuse. I have also been critical of the HSE. People have focused on me being critical of the parents and missed a valid point about safety of everybody concerend

I never said my family were killed on the roads I asked a question.

Simple, two wrongs do not make a right.

Fysh

You seem to be ignoring my point - I lay the blame for them being forced to drive at the government's feet. You seem to not accept that, apparently on the basis that your suggested alternative (moving house) does not involve risking lives.

I don't agree that it is necessarily an acceptable or even necessarily feasible alternative. More importantly, if your suggested solution regarding the lack of facilities and support for people afflicted in this way is to force them to move house, then I can only assume your priorities are skewed. The government is failing to provide for these people - this is the source of the problem. Remove that, and you remove the symptoms. Making people move house is just dealing with the symptoms but not removing the source.

MorningStar

Believe it or not I actually agree the government have responsibility.
I just don't think that means the parents don't have any responsibility as a result.

I suggested one alternative maybe there is more but the one they have taken is dangerous. As a result it is irresponsible their childrens' rights don't override everybody elses. As peolpe live in the real world changing a whole system in a minute is unrealistic. They have no alternative in the short term but to treat the symptom rather than manage to change to whole system. Idealistically I think the system needs to be fixed. That means either making the system more efficent (take on the unions) or increase taxes (never popular with the public). It's just not going to happen at a speed to help the family so you have to treat the sympton.

If you think the family went to the media to solve the problem for all over just their needs you have a better belief system than I.

My point stands regardless of personnal situation it is unaacceptable to drive continuely in a sleep deprive situation.

Megatron

The goverment is there to serve the people.
Not the otherway around.

MorningStar

Megatron wrote:

The goverment is there to serve the people.
Not the otherway around.

So?
People are still responsible for their OWN actions. The government made me do it is not a valid arguement.

Limited options do not excuse actions but they explain it.

The government can also be said to be there to lead the people.

K2

Hi MorningStar
can you give me any links to articles relating to Mr or Mrs OHara and having to drive long distances for work, care etc. I'm not trying to wind you up its just that I cannot find any on the net. I do remember reading articles where they mention how little sleep they get, in fact I'm sure I've seen them on tv talking about it but all I can find are articles relating to recent events, such as this one from the irish times:
____________________________________________________

Parents of children agree to psychiatric assessment
Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent


The parents of four autistic children who health authorities have sought to put in State care said last night they had been asked to undergo a psychiatric assessment.

Padraig and Mary O'Hara met with the Health Service Executive (North Eastern Area) in Kells, Co Meath, yesterday and agreed to proposals that they undergo an assessment in the coming weeks.

In the meantime their children, aged between four and 16 years of age, will continue to stay in respite care.

"We're trying to keep strong, trying to maintain as much normality as possible. We hope this will all be over soon. We're focused on getting our children back," Mrs O'Hara said.

"They want Padraig and I to undergo a full psychiatric assessment. We said we would, absolutely. We want it done as soon as possible but they say it will take a few weeks.

"We've no fear, they asked for a psychiatric assessment 18 months ago, and that was fine. We're not afraid of anything. We have to do it, and that's the way things are."

The Health Service Executive (North Eastern Area) was last night unavailable for comment.

It stated last weekend that it could not comment on the case except to say that under the Childcare Act it had an obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of children.

There was a stand-off outside the family's home in Kells on Friday night after gardaí and social workers arrived with a care order seeking to commit the children to health board care.

After negotiations between the family's solicitor and health authorities, the family agreed to voluntarily place their children in respite care until the issue was resolved.

The O'Haras gave media interviews last week complaining about the lack of official support as they struggled to look after their children.

More than 100 people, including parents of children with autism, protested outside the North Eastern Area headquarters of the HSE and criticised the approach of the health authority towards the O'Hara family.

MEP and disability rights campaigner Kathy Sinnott said the treatment of the family was unacceptable and said parents should not have to fight the health service and Government for access to basic services for their children.

The North Eastern Autism Support Group, an umbrella group for parents of autistic children in the area, also criticised the treatment of the family who, they said, have been crying out for help.

Mrs O'Hara said she had been in contact with health workers looking after her two youngest children, who spent the weekend in a residential unit.

One of the children did not go to school yesterday, she was told, because he was upset.

The parents said last night they wanted the psychiatric assessment to be carried out as soon as possible.

Mrs O'Hara said they had been asked to undergo a psychiatric assessment at the request of the health board a year and a half ago which, she said, had not raised any issue.

A separate psychological report the couple commissioned from a UK consultant clinical psychologist in October 2004 concluded that both father and mother were "devoted parents".

The report reads: "I conclude that Mrs O'Hara does not suffer from any developmental or underlying mental health or psychological problems which would affect her parenting of her children. She has always enjoyed being a mother and the children have been the highlight of her life."
___________________________________________________

The HSE appear to be hiding behind the Childcare Act and will not be giving answers or explanations anytime soon, of course they may have no option but to say nothing as they have a confidential relationship with the family and perhaps this is something the family should clear up if they are going to use the media. But MorningStar if you feel what the HSE did was wrong why not email them as per my original post?

Btw neither parent is working now so I'm not sure if you are correct in condeming them for driving while tired as neither will have to travel to work, and of course we don't have any of their personal details so we do not know how much traveling they do weekly for their family. I really feel that this is a minor side issue which you gave gotten tangled up in, its not at the centre of the recent event which led to me posting here. Thats not to say its not important but maybe you should start a thread in the motors sections and I will see you there

MorningStar

K2,

I tried to look up further details and couldn't find anymore. I was really interested in the diagnosing of the children. If you have any details on that I would appriciate it. There have been a few things siad that contradict each other. I only heard the parents talk about the driving on the radio and TV never saw an article.


I did e-mail the HSE.

I am not going to keep repeating myself about the responsibility about driving as anybody reading this seems to think the parents are responsible in the same way I do. I don't want to be seen as some ranting nutter. My point has been made anybody who doesn't agree isn't going to listen to different angles on the same points.

I have taken it to another post. If you think the parents choice on driving is valid take your point here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=237993

Megatron

MorningStar wrote:

So?
People are still responsible for their OWN actions. The government made me do it is not a valid arguement.

Limited options do not excuse actions but they explain it.

The government can also be said to be there to lead the people.

Ok they where left with no other options is what i'm trying to get across.
They tried the appeal process and they where ignored. they tried to ge the "ahh poor them" vote, but instead it backfired .

If you want to continue beating on your drum about the driving thing , you can stay on your side of the fence.. but you will end up like your brain cell ... Alone

Amz

Megatron, there's no need for insults like that.

MorningStar

I don't pass insults and I expect the same.

I have made my points and logic. Just because you don't agree does not make you more intelligent than me. I have no idea what fence you think is between our views but feel free to pin point it for me. My ideology sounds to be the similar to yours it is a point of opinion we disagree on.

K2

It looks like the north east HSE have still not tackled their internal problems re: dealing with families and patients in a professional and humane manner.

Taken from the rte site:
__________________________________________
23 March 2005 22:17

The northeast section of the Health Service Executive is under the spotlight after another case has emerged in which a child with special needs was abruptly taken into residential care.

The teenage boy was taken into care after Bernard and Jacqueline Mohan requested respite.
___________________________________________


I heard Mrs Mohan talking on the radio last nite and my heart went out to her. She blames herself because she asked the hse for the respite care they should have being receiving ( a grand total of 3, yes only 3 nites a month). The child was taken away from the foster parents in a rather cruel way, he went to school in the am as normal and did not return in the evening!

MorningStar

K2 wrote:

It looks like the north east HSE have still not tackled their internal problems re: dealing with families and patients in a professional and humane manner.

I am not trying to argue but what are the details? Did you hear HSE opinion on the case. I am not assuming one way or the other but it's been made obvious that you don't think highly of the HSE so is it possible you have a bias?

K2

a child was taken away from his foster parents without prior notice. The foster parents think its because they asked for respite care. The HSE have not issued any statements on this case, so you can decide for yourself if they are avoiding the issue or if there is a confidential matter involved. Either way I, personally, do not believe that this is the manner in which this organisation should conduct itself. Issues should be resolved in private and to the satisifaction of the patient not the organisation.

Do you believe the HSE is there to serve the public or not? And if so, should it not be answerable and accountable if mistakes are made. Again, there should be a correct forum and procedure for this but it appears that families have to go to the press as the HSE is acting in such an agressive and bullying manner.


ps I will not comment on my own situation as it will be in the courts within a year but I will say that by your earlier comments you appear to feel that running to the press is the easiest thing these families can do. Well I can tell you it fills me with stress, worry and dread to think that my familys details are going to be reported in the papers and read by people like you, morningstar, who have no understanding for what others have to deal with every day, and would appear to have little compassion.

MorningStar

The HSE are there to serve yes.
THe HSE are limited what they say about individual cases. I would just argue that maybe you are only getting a one sided arguement. If you think it should be done in private would you not be critical of the foster parents for going to the media?
You are also projecting emotional reaction and behaviour onto an organisation. I think it is a little hard to evaluate actions and then declare the motives for them without the facts.
You obviously dislike the HSE for what ever reason and it doesn't sound like you can evaluate their action impartally.
How do you know the foster parents house was discovered to have a danger. Parents accused of a crime? Drug problem?
I don't know and either do you unless you are involved directly. If you spent anytime in the media you would know about the way it is manipulated. Phone in radio is not a great fact finder and is tabloid radio I would never trust.

K2

Drug problem!! have a look at their pic on rte.ie, somehow I don't think they are crack users

MorningStar

K2 wrote:

Drug problem!! have a look at their pic on rte.ie, somehow I don't think they are crack users

Picturial assesment of parenting abilities has long been overlooked as a science. Ignore all my other points and avoid the questions. Do you just post things up so people agree with you? The idea of a forum is to discuss and debate as far as I am concerend. :rolleyes:
You could say I have a chip on my shoulder about facts and details and I wouldn't particualrly argue.

MorningStar

This being discussed here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2528882#post2528882