Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Child removed from Roma gypsies-This time in DUBLIN *Mod Warning Post #1*

1…4243454748…66

Comments

  • #1322
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Grayson wrote: »
    Sweet, I'll just start calling the police from anonymous mobile numbers. all I have to do is make any accusation and they'll automatically arrest people or take their children away.

    If there is reasonable grounds for suspicion that the children are abducted, are being physically and sexually abused, are being exploited and neglected then the Gardaí will take the child away.
    That's what police forces do the world over.
    Kids are taken away from all manner of people from all races, classes and income and not just from Roma gypsies.
    This is clearly a matter of child welfare and specifically a fear that a child was abducted.
    The DNA test proved the kid was not abducted and it was given back to its parents.
    What has happened in this case is a cabal of ultra-leftists who make up various unelected NGOs have picked up the ball and are running with it to try and bash the state and the Gardaí for doing the job they were appointed to do.


  • #1323
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »
    Nobody was found "guilty" of anything though. Nobody was charged. The Gardai simply acted in accordance with the Child Care Act.[/QUOTE]


    On what grounds? Quote me the part of the Child Care Act that says why the Gardai are entitled to remove a child without notice from its biological parents, who they have absolutely no reason to believe are treating the child badly.

    Jesus H Christ...

    The parents couldn't provide documents at the time of asking and there verbal information didn't check out at the hospital where they claimed teh birth took place, or at the regristry office.

    To the officers responsible that was reasonable gounds for acting in accordance with the Child Care Act.

    It would have been completely negligent of the Gardai to just walk away from that.


  • #1324
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hindsight?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87144523&postcount=183

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87144840&postcount=203

    Yes hinsdight!
    We ask our representitives, HSE & Guards to act on the legislation and frameworks provided, if they deviate and something goes wrong then the keyboard warriors scream for blood.
    They must go and make decisions based on the evidence they are provided with. And if there is doubt or suspicion that a child is in danger they must act... And then days later keyboard warriors can disect their actions, condemn them based on evidence that wasnt available at the time of the event !!
    In any event the usual anti-establishment whackjobs come out and scream for blood !

    I hate that these families were hurt in the effort to protect children, but I'd hate it more if one of these children were abducted or abused and the time taken for DNA allowed them to be moved on to another abuser.
    I'm sure that junkie parents who are unfit to mind their kids are hurt when the kids are removed.. but it has to be done!!

    If this were a child trafficing ring then heading off for three days waiting for DNA would allow for all sorts to happen.


  • #1325
    TommyKnocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭TommyKnocker


    bbam wrote: »
    I agree in so far as a better system for dealing with such cases needs to be found.. But guards aren't allowed to make up new procedures on the hoof... they implement what is laid down.

    See this I have a problem with as frankly it has been shown time and again to be untrue.

    What about guards who allow fellow members of the force, Judges, TD, Friends off with speeding, drink driving, talking on mobiles etc?

    There are procedures laid down for these offenses but at times some guards appear to make up new procedures on the hoof. Remember the guard who was allowing people away with motoring offenses if they donated to a charity a while back? I don't believe that this is "implementing what is laid down" in any shape or form.

    Although I don't think it can be proven, I believe that this couple were denied any benefit of the doubt purely because they were Roma, the story of the young girl in Greece was all over the news, so they were tarred with the same brush.

    While I am all for protection of children I feel that the nuclear option of removing the children from their homes was taken too quickly. As the stated goal was the welfare of the two children I fail to see how removing two young children from the family home and denying them access to their parents is in their best interest. Unless there was substantial evidence to support the theory that the children were not related to either one or both of the adults they should have remained with the parents under supervision. This I feel would have been less traumatic for the children.

    Both birth cert and passport are legal documents in this country and can be used as proof of identity. Therefore it must be easy enough to check if the documents produced are legitimate or forgeries.

    I would also expect guards and HSE officials tasked with child welfare to be able to pick up from the way the parents reacted whether they thought they were dealing with shocked, traumatised parents or people trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

    Apparently both sets of parents co-operated fully with the authorities at all times and either offered to provide DNA samples or agreed straight away to provide DNA samples when requested. This to a lay person is not the actions of people who have abducted children of who are in charge of children under shady circumstances. It would be more likely that they would pack up and do a runner at the first opportunity.

    I think the states next move should be to offer an apology and a decent level of recompense to both families for the enormous f*&k up rather than wait for the families to sue. Also lessons should be learned from this mess and better procedures put in place for the future which truly do have the best interest of the affected child/children at heart.


  • #1326
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,883 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Tombo2001 wrote: »

    Jesus H Christ...

    The parents couldn't provide documents at the time of asking and there verbal information didn't check out at the hospital where they claimed teh birth took place, or at the regristry office.

    To the officers responsible that was reasonable gounds for acting in accordance with the Child Care Act.

    It would have been completely negligent of the Gardai to just walk away from that.


    Jesus H Christ.....I asked you which part of the CHild Care Act allows them to do that and Jesus H Christ you havent answered me even though Jesus H Christ this is the third post where you've said the Gardai acted according to the Child Care Act.

    So......I've looked at the Child Care Act myself.

    This is what says.

    Emergency care orders

    If the gardaí have reason to believe that there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of a child which cannot wait until an emergency care order is made, they have the power to enter the home and remove a child, by force if necessary, to safety. The child must be given into the care of the HSE as soon as possible.

    Care orders

    The HSE must apply for a care order or a supervision order (see below) if a child needs care and protection which he/she is unlikely to receive without an order. The District Court judge may make an interim care order while the decision on a full care order is pending. This means that the child is placed in the care of the HSE for 8 days. It may be extended if the HSE and the parents agree. Generally the parents/guardians must be given notice of an interim care order application.
    A care order may be made when the court is satisfied that:
      <LI hoverIntent_t="undefined" jQuery1382625174371="93">
    The child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused or that the child's health, development or welfare has been or is likely to be impaired or neglected
    [*]The child needs care and protection which he/she is unlikely to receive without a care order
    I dont see any grounds there for the Gardai acting the way they did.

    PS as documented, the parents did provide documents at the time of asking.


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,584 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Tony EH wrote: »

    To the officers responsible that was reasonable gounds for acting in accordance with the Child Care Act.

    It would have been completely negligent of the Gardai to just walk away from that.

    In that case, then were they not negligent in failing to remove all of the kids. If they honestly believed the child to be in any danger while they investigated the matter; then how could they possibly see fit to leave other children behind? If they believed the family to be a flight risk then why not arrest the parents on suspicion of whatever crime they believed to have taken place?

    They removed the kid because it had pale skin and fair hair, based entirely on an unfounded allegation by some busy body on Facebook. It's abundantly clear that's the case.


  • #1328
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »


    Jesus H Christ.....I asked you which part of the CHild Care Act allows them to do that and Jesus H Christ you havent answered me even though Jesus H Christ this is the third post where you've said the Gardai acted according to the Child Care Act.

    So......I've looked at the Child Care Act myself.

    Read section 12


  • #1329
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    According to this article, two small children were taken and held in police custody, while the parents waited for DNA results taken by the Irish state.

    The state seizes the children on the word of a neighbour who reported them for suspecting the kids were not theirs.

    I thanks the Children's Rights Act for the state entitlement to seize people's kids on the word of a suspicious neighbor.

    This really does cross the line IMO.
    http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/periscope/outrageous-actions-by-irish-authorities-seizing-two-children-from-parents-229074621.html


  • #1330
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Tony EH wrote: »

    Jesus H Christ...

    The parents couldn't provide documents at the time of asking and there verbal information didn't check out at the hospital where they claimed teh birth took place, or at the regristry office.

    They did provide documents - I provided the link there on the previous page.


  • #1331
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    What has happened in this case is a cabal of ultra-leftists who make up various unelected NGOs have picked up the ball and are running with it to try and bash the state and the Gardaí for doing the job they were appointed to do.

    I'm always amazed at those who hanker after a stasi like inform on your neighbour state.

    You'll be alright if I phone the Gardai, so? If I suspect you've abducted or harmed your kids?


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,883 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Tombo2001 wrote: »

    Read section 12


    I have done, and I cant see any grounds for the HSE/ Gardai acting the way they did.


  • #1333
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    My name is URL wrote: »
    In that case, then were they not negligent in failing to remove all of the kids. If they honestly believed the child to be in any danger while they investigated the matter; then how could they possibly see fit to leave other children behind? If they believed the family to be a flight risk then why not arrest the parents on suspicion of whatever crime they believed to have taken place?

    They removed the kid because it had pale skin and fair hair, based entirely on an unfounded allegation by some busy body on Facebook. It's abundantly clear that's the case.

    That depends on whether the parents produced the relivant docs for this kids or not and I am unaware whether this was even entered into.

    Until such time that those points become clear, it would be impossible for anyone to make any comment on that, wouldn't you agree?

    They didn't arrest anybody, because nobody was charged with anything. The Gardai were just acting as they saw fit with the powers that the CCA allowed them under section 12, not because of the kids skin colour, but because they couldn't corroborate the parents story with the records held at the institutions they contacted.


  • #1334
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »


    I have done, and I cant see any grounds for the HSE/ Gardai acting the way they did.

    Read it again.


  • #1335
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    TommyKnocker wrote: »
    See this I have a problem with as frankly it has been shown time and again to be untrue.

    What about guards who allow fellow members of the force, Judges, TD, Friends off with speeding, drink driving, talking on mobiles etc?

    There are procedures laid down for these offenses but at times some guards appear to make up new procedures on the hoof. Remember the guard who was allowing people away with motoring offenses if they donated to a charity a while back? I don't believe that this is "implementing what is laid down" in any shape or form.

    right so.. are they all corrupt and nothing they do is in the public interest or the interest of children... they are all running round breaking the law and can't be trusted to to the job, tar them all with the one brush - isnt that what you are accusing the guards of doing with the Roma community ??


    Although I don't think it can be proven, I believe that this couple were denied any benefit of the doubt purely because they were Roma, the story of the young girl in Greece was all over the news, so they were tarred with the same brush.

    I wouldn't deny there may have been influence from the other case.

    While I am all for protection of children I feel that the nuclear option of removing the children from their homes was taken too quickly. As the stated goal was the welfare of the two children I fail to see how removing two young children from the family home and denying them access to their parents is in their best interest. Unless there was substantial evidence to support the theory that the children were not related to either one or both of the adults they should have remained with the parents under supervision. This I feel would have been less traumatic for the children.

    Both birth cert and passport are legal documents in this country and can be used as proof of identity. Therefore it must be easy enough to check if the documents produced are legitimate or forgeries.
    And didn't the guards check with the hospital who couldn't support them? And someone mentioned the registery office - but I didnt read that other than here

    I would also expect guards and HSE officials tasked with child welfare to be able to pick up from the way the parents reacted whether they thought they were dealing with shocked, traumatised parents or people trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
    Really... even trained skilled people can be tricked, and I doubt our forces get the gighest level of training on such things.. and how do we know they didn't get the wrong signals from the parents ?

    Apparently both sets of parents co-operated fully with the authorities at all times and either offered to provide DNA samples or agreed straight away to provide DNA samples when requested. This to a lay person is not the actions of people who have abducted children of who are in charge of children under shady circumstances. It would be more likely that they would pack up and do a runner at the first opportunity.
    Yes, they would pack up and do a runner, was the child not taken into care to avoid just that happening?

    I think the states next move should be to offer an apology and a decent level of recompense to both families for the enormous f*&k up rather than wait for the families to sue. Also lessons should be learned from this mess and better procedures put in place for the future which truly do have the best interest of the affected child/children at heart.
    Absolutely dead right... its one of our biggest failings, it takes the state too long to learn from mistakes and implement better solutions.
    .


  • #1336
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nodin wrote: »
    They did provide documents - I provided the link there on the previous page.

    They provided documents at a later stage, which were called into question, because the information from the parents couldn't be confirmed by the registry office or the Coombe hospital.


  • #1337
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,030 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Tony EH wrote: »

    They didn't arrest anybody, because nobody was charged with anything. The Gardai were just acting as they saw fit with the powers that the CCA allowed them under section 12, not because of the kids skin colour, but because they couldn't corroborate the parents story with the records held at the institutions they contacted.

    Since when do you get charged before you get arrested?:confused:


  • #1338
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nobody was charged with anything.


  • #1339
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,122 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    i have not fully read the story, but i am not fully sure what the fuss is about.

    can you outline objectively, what the problem is?

    and an honest question, if this was a family from a less well off part of lets say Dublin, that the child was taken from, would you be equally as angered?

    surely if the parents answered the questions correctly, then this wouldnt have happened and i think the authorities acted in the best interests of the children - they have enough s*it to be dealing with and didnt get involved just for the s*its and giggles.

    just my 2 cents, but as i said, i need to know the full story as i dont have all the facts.

    +1.


  • #1340
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    Threads merged


  • #1341
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,883 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Tombo2001 wrote: »

    Read it again.


    I wont thanks.

    You've now referred to the ChildCare Act 4 times as the grounds for the Gardai acting the way they did, but have not been able to show which part of the Child Care Act facilitates this.

    So at this point I'll bow out, I dont expect you to answer the question.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,030 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    i have not fully read the story, but i am not fully sure what the fuss is about.

    can you outline objectively, what the problem is?

    and an honest question, if this was a family from a less well off part of lets say Dublin, that the child was taken from, would you be equally as angered?

    surely if the parents answered the questions correctly, then this wouldnt have happened and i think the authorities acted in the best interests of the children - they have enough s*it to be dealing with and didnt get involved just for the s*its and giggles.

    just my 2 cents, but as i said, i need to know the full story as i dont have all the facts.

    Why say a less well of part of Dublin, what difference does it make if the family lives in Dalkey or ballymun?


  • #1343
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,030 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Nobody was charged with anything.

    I know that, but you don't have to be charged with anything before you can be arrested.


  • #1344
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The parents couldn't provide documents at the time of asking and there verbal information didn't check out at the hospital where they claimed teh birth took place, or at the regristry office.

    It's being reported that they provided a passport while in the house is it not?


  • #1345
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »

    I wont thanks.

    You've now referred to the ChildCare Act 4 times as the grounds for the Gardai acting the way they did, but have not been able to show which part of the Child Care Act facilitates this.

    So at this point I'll bow out, I dont expect you to answer the question.

    Bow out then, but seeing as you need special atention...

    12.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that—


    (a) there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of a child, and


    (b) it would not be sufficient for the protection of the child from such immediate and serious risk to await the making of an application for an emergency care order by a health board under section 13 ,

    the member, accompanied by such other persons as may be necessary, may, without warrant, enter (if need be by force) any house or other place (including any building or part of a building, tent, caravan or other temporary or moveable structure, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft) and remove the child to safety.

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

    (3) Where a child is removed by a member of the Garda Síochána in accordance with subsection (1), the child shall as soon as possible be delivered up to the custody of the health board for the area in which the child is for the time being.

    (4) Where a child is delivered up to the custody of a health board in accordance with subsection (3), the health board shall, unless it returns the child to the parent having custody of him or a person acting in loco parentis, make application for an emergency care order at the next sitting of the District Court held in the same district court district or, in the event that the next such sitting is not due to be held within three days of the date on which the child is delivered up to the custody of the health board, at a sitting of the District Court, which has been specially arranged under section 13 (4), held within the said three days, and it shall be lawful for the health board to retain custody of the child pending the hearing of that application.




    The relevant sections have been bolded for you.


  • #1346
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,349 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    It's being reported that they provided a passport while in the house is it not?

    They provided a passport, whether that was at the time of asking or at a later date with the Birth Cert, I don't know. However the passport was of a baby and not the 7 year old. So, it was deemed not enough.


  • #1347
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Whats the reasonable grounds then Tony?


  • #1348
    Oranage2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,129 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    I can't for the life of me see what the police did wrong!


  • #1349
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I can't for the life of me see what the police did wrong!
    They took a child away from it's parents because they had a mild suspicion based on racial profiling due to a case that happened in Greece .


  • #1350
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I can't for the life of me see what the police did wrong!

    Some people don't want to see.

    If the Garda abducted your kids on a whim, would you be asking the same question?


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,030 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    [QUOTE=Tony EH;87172979

    Bow out then, but seeing as you need special atention...

    12.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that—


    (a) there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of a child, and


    (b) it would not be sufficient for the protection of the child from such immediate and serious risk to await the making of an application for an emergency care order by a health board under section 13 ,

    the member, accompanied by such other persons as may be necessary, may, without warrant, enter (if need be by force) any house or other place (including any building or part of a building, tent, caravan or other temporary or moveable structure, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft) and remove the child to safety.

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

    (3) Where a child is removed by a member of the Garda Síochána in accordance with subsection (1), the child shall as soon as possible be delivered up to the custody of the health board for the area in which the child is for the time being.

    (4) Where a child is delivered up to the custody of a health board in accordance with subsection (3), the health board shall, unless it returns the child to the parent having custody of him or a person acting in loco parentis, make application for an emergency care order at the next sitting of the District Court held in the same district court district or, in the event that the next such sitting is not due to be held within three days of the date on which the child is delivered up to the custody of the health board, at a sitting of the District Court, which has been specially arranged under section 13 (4), held within the said three days, and it shall be lawful for the health board to retain custody of the child pending the hearing of that application.




    The relevant sections have been bolded for you.[/QUOTE]

    So Tony based on what you have bolded - why then have the state given the child back to the parents, surely if they acted on the bolded bit then they can't put the child back into such an environment....


Advertisement