"No" supporters of the Children's Referendum

suzanne88 wrote: »

Hi All.....
I'm not sure if you realise that the proposed section with regards to adoption is in relation to young people living in the care of the state only.
if this referendum is passed it will allow for the legal adoption of young people who are living in the care of the state on a Long Term basis i.e. with no actual opportunity to return home to their birth parents.

Essentially this will not effect all children living in the care of the state but only young people who are for various reasons unable to return to their birth parents.

Take for example a baby/ young person who is entered into the care of the state and their parents are not able or do not want to take care of their children. The passing of this referendum would give these young people, who have already had a rough start is life the opportunity to be adopted by a family and receive the love, stability, sense of belonging that all children should be afforded!

Not true!

Suzanne, legislation is derived through the ordinary legislative system from the Constitution. The Constitution only enshrines the values and parameters from which that legislation can be debated and defined within the law of the land to define them and to enforce them within law..

That's the point!

The whole thing is totally unnecessary - this referendum is rewording the constitution to 'apparently' protect children - and it's totally unnecessary, the only thing that is necessary is to build laws in accordance with the constitution we already have....and THAT has not been done...but still could be, even down to 'Adoption' to protect a child in danger....Or indeed, giving a voice to a child when their parents separate - these things can be pursued TODAY using the current constitution. This is not impossible.

This referendum is basically a 'yes' or 'no' vote to telling the State that they 'must' now legislate to protect children - when in fact, they were always free to do so through the ordinary system.

The problem is that the 'wording' has shifted - and this new wording will be the gift from us to future generations, when the 'protection' of children was already quite possible in the past, now, and in the future without a need to change the 'wording' that legislation is built on in the first place.

The constitution is there to 'protect' people - not to harm people...the state has always been free under the current constitution to introduce any legislation it sees fit without changing the constitution that protects the family and not necessarily sees state edict as the rule of thumb.

It's not a 'bad' thing to support this, but it is not necessarily a bad thing either to notice the 'shift' in wording - This is important, if we're happy to let the state play this role, simply because we think, ' They're really good..'...than that's what we're passing on to the next generation.

As it stands the constitution DOES protect children, the State has failed to use it - to introduce and pursue such legislation through the normal organ of law.

Instead, we're being asked as a nation to change the wording of our constitution when it is unnecessary, and the wording is decidedly ambiguous.

What you are saying is not true. The Constitution only points the way towards future legislation, it does NOT legislate - and the new wording certainly does not say anything about only children in state care.

Today's revelations of govt interference in a family law case do not inspire confidence that the new powers given the State by this amendment will be used in a proportionate way.

ciarafem wrote: »

Because according to http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal under the new art. 42A.1 it could have been arguable that the BIC required the baby to remain with the adoptive parents regardless of art. 41.1

But this was written by an occupational psychologist. What legal expertise does the guy have.

how will this affect the whole abortion referendum if it ever comes along?

Will this referendums change not allow the government to disallow any abortion as their choice is more important than the parents, or parents to be?

lmaopml wrote: »

The State would be 'accountable' if they sought legislation based on our current Constitution in the first place - but they haven't done so...they could have yesterday, they could today, they could tomorrow, but they aren't.

They could seek to have a child's voice heard, they could seek to have a child adopted if the circumstances are drastic - but they haven't done so through the ordinary legislative system which is only 'derived' from our Constitution - no need to re-word it!

They didn't do so, and they don't deserve us to reword our Constitution that allows ALL of those things to take place through the ordinary system - which has always been an option without a need for a referendum in the first place.

The current wording allows for all of these things...:) Why change it? Seriously why change it?

This referendum is a 'sales' pitch, and one that seeks to separate accountability from any terrible things that have happened here, and also happened all over the world, and sell the idea that 'the hands of the State were tied', but by voting 'Yes' we can 'untie' them - afterall it was impossible to DO, anything prior to this referendum.

The referendum is unnecessary. They could pursue any kind of childrens rights right now under the current constitution, but apparently it's not worthwhile doing without a clap on the back and some ambiguous re-wording - Nice!

As it stands, the constitution has strong protections for 'the family' and 'the institution of marriage' and taking both of these together, the courts have decided that the only family recognised by the constitution is a marital family. This requires a constitutional amendment to change

Marital children cannot be adopted voluntarily. They cannot be adopted involuntarily unless the court is convinced that the child has been totally abandoned by its parents and this will continue until age 18. This is an almost impossibly high bar. This requires a constitutional amendment to change

The above doesn't apply to children whose parents aren't married. We were supposed to have abolished the concept of illegitmacy 30 years ago, we abolished it from our laws but not our constitution. Children should not be treated differently because of the marital status of their parents. This requires a constitutional amendment to change

The voice of children being heard, and that the interests of the child should be paramount, need to be put in our constitution. As it stands, the rights of the family (a married family) are paramount not what's best for the child. This requires a constitutional amendment to change

The amendment also has explicit statements of the rights of children, which some people think are unnecessary, perhaps they are. But making them explicit cannot be a bad thing.

**PRESS STATEMENT**
Monday 1 February 2010
Response to HSE statement that no missing child from HSE care has been trafficked

By Jillian van Turnhout, Children’s Rights Alliance

Responding to an article in today’s edition of The Irish Times (‘500 children seeking asylum went missing from care in decade’), the Children’s Rights Alliance would like to refute the reported statement from a HSE spokesperson that ‘it has been unsubstantiated that any of the children who go missing from HSE care have been trafficked’. Unfortunately, it is a matter of public record that children, who have disappeared from HSE care, have subsequently been ‘found’ in situations where they were being exploited by traffickers. It is vital that the HSE publicly acknowledges the reality of child trafficking in Ireland, so that they can address this serious violation of children’s rights.

The Alliance has collated a list of over 25 cases of confirmed child trafficking for the purposes of sexual or labour exploitation, including forced marriage (compiled using media reports and information provided by non-governmental organisations). The clandestine nature of the crime, in addition to child protection issues, means that it is likely that there have been significantly more cases of child trafficking than has been identified and put into the public domain.

In five of these cases, listed below, children have gone missing from HSE care and been exploited by child traffickers.

A 17-year-old Nigerian girl was placed into the care of the HSE after arriving in Ireland unaccompanied. She ran away shortly after being placed in care and six months later was found working in the sex industry in Sligo. Gardaí found the girl after they raided premises in Sligo Town, which they suspected was a brothel run by foreign nationals. The previous year, a 17-year-old African girl was found to be working as a prostitute in Sligo Town. The Gardai subsequently discovered that this African child was trafficked into Ireland by an organised prostitution ring.
An underage female from Nigeria was found by Gardaí in a brothel in Kilkenny and was identified as a suspected victim of trafficking. She was taken into HSE care. She was charged at Carlow District Court with failing to produce identity papers. Her case was originally heard in early July 2008 and she was remanded on continuing bail to appear again on 9 September 2008. She was placed in HSE care but failed to show up for her court appearance and was reported missing. Her whereabouts are unknown.
A 16-year-old female from Nigeria who arrived as a separated child was enticed out of a HSE residential care for separated children by a man who later got her involved in prostitution.
A 10-year-old Romanian Roma girl was taken into State care by the Gardaí under an Emergency Care Order. She went missing from her Dublin HSE care placement less than a week later. The 10-year-old was suspected to have been subject to an arranged marriage to an 18-year-old. The teenager concerned was also missing.
A 16-year-old female from Liberia was living in a HSE hostel for separated children in Dublin in 2003. She was reportedly picked up from her HSE Dublin care placement by traffickers and transported to Cork. In Cork, she was put on a plane destined for abroad. Her journey was intercepted by the Irish authorities and she was placed in a Limerick prison.
Child trafficking is an illegal criminal activity. It is a gross exploitation of children that breaches their fundamental human rights and may involve rape of a child, slavery, forced labour and psychological abuse. Separated children in the care of the HSE are at high risk of being exploited by traffickers. The Alliance believes that the HSE has breached its statutory duty towards these children by providing them with substandard care in hostels. The inadequate quality of hostel care and accommodation has been directly linked to instances of vulnerable children going missing and being trafficked for exploitation. Furthermore, the HSE does not have a plan to provide a child identified as a suspected victim of trafficking with adequate care and accommodation to meet their need for safety and security.
The Alliance welcomes the commitment in the Ryan Report Implementation Plan to provide equity of care to separated children, by ending the use of hostels. The Alliance will be monitoring the HSE closely over the coming year to ensure that it fulfills its equity of care policy fully.

Jillian van Turnhout
Chief Executive

Notes to Editor:

1.The above statement can be used verbatim.

Case-study 1: Cited by ECPAT in Progress Report – Ireland “Teen missing from care working as a prostitute”. Irish Independent. 1 April 2007. http://www.independent.ie/nationalnews/teen-missing-from-care-working-as...
Case-study 2: ‘Gardaí believe teenage girl was trafficked’, Ruadhan Mac Cormaic, The Irish Times, 09.07.08 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0709/1215537641783.html; ‘Nigerian girl trafficked for sex trade goes missing from HSE’, Dara De Faoite and Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, The Irish Times, 10.09.08. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0910/1220919678635.html
Case-study 3: Immigrant Council of Ireland (2009) Globalisation, Sex Trafficking and Prostitution: The Experiences of Migrant Women in Ireland, p.66;
Case-study 4: Nuala Haughey, The Irish Times, 05.04.03 ‘Gardaí remove girl (10) in inquiry into suspected arranged marriage’;
Case-study 5: Communication from refugee support group to the Children’s Rights Alliance 24.04.09.
2. Over the past number of years, the Alliance has consistently raised at ministerial level our serious concerns about the level of care and accommodation being provided to separated children and the alarmingly high number of children going missing. It has also campaigned for reform in coalition with other NGOs through ‘Action for Separated Children in Ireland’

3. Separated children are defined as children under 18 years of age who are outside their country of origin and separated from both parents or from their previous legal/customary primary caregiver. (Source: Separated Children in Europe’s Programme (2004) Statement of Good Practice, p. 2.).



Creator: Children's Rights Alliance


From this website; http://www.childrensrights.ie/resources/response-hse-statement-no-missing-child-hse-care-has-been-trafficked



My point; Giving the State more power or making them more accountable is a good thing.... Or at least it SHOULD be a good thing. Truth of the matter is, there are still a lot of issues that lie beneath the nice ideal this 'referendum' represents. Do we all want to protect children? Of course! There can be no dispute about that. Children are our greatest treasures in Ireland and hearing about the amount of abuse is both painful and disturbing to many of us on a great many levels. However, is this referendum the way to go about it? The HSE is not only lacking in its treatment of children under care, it has also proven to be lacking in it's care of the elderly.

From my own understanding of this amendment, a great many more children will be put under HSE care should a YES vote prevail....

Given the great many numbers of children that have died and gone missing already under HSE care, i truly fear for our nations youth. With so many children under care and so few family's willing to adopt (never mind legible) things can only get worse. Just take a look at the Social Welfare Office as an example. With so many more people on unemployment benefit the Office efficiency has greatly reduced leaving many people missing payments or having to resubmit documentation that has gone missing.

I do believe that children should have greater care provided for them by the state (coming from a rather unhappy childhood myself, I would have appreciated it), but I do not want to rush this decision without finding all the fine details, every possible factor must be accounted for starting with the foundations in Child Care Facilities. This cannot be achieved by an 'Easy Fix' like this referendum. We need more time to sort out the kinks.