childrens Referendum poll added

franktheplank · 21-10-2012 10:53pm

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

is it true that a yes vote being carried will mean children can be given injections in school with the parents knowledge or consent?

I presume you mean without the parent's knowledge and consent and tbh I don't know but it would seem to be leaning in that direction.

It's all about putting the child's welfare first which is great in a lot of ways but when it comes to making more difficult decisions on the child's welfare I think it's worrying if it allows the state that power.

Suppose you're child is causing trouble in school. He/she is diagnosed with ADD, could the state force the child to take medication for this? Im no legal expert (by any means) but the referendum seems to be about putting the child's welfare above the parent's wants. That's all fine but it doesn't say who makes the decisions and im assuming if the parent's are knocked back it's up to the school's, social worker, gardai etc. which would concern me greatly.

GhanGee · 22-10-2012 11:04am

R0ot wrote: »

Is anyone else concerned with the lack of debate on the topic? It seems everyone is saying vote Yes without any questions being raised of "could this be better?".

WTB more dissenting voices.

I believe We all want the best for our children, but can someone tell me what is the downside? This morning I found this "If passed, this amendment will remove from children the most important right that they have - that is the right to parental protection and advocacy."

In past 2 years there were many cases documented and filmed by a TV. Scandalous cases of UK social services, check on google "UK Social Services stealing Children aka State Kidnapping" and more. This is no conspiracy theory, dailymail.co.uk wrote "Children stolen by the state" - quoted "The social workers hire ‘experts’, such as psychologists, who earn thousands of pounds writing reports which appear to confirm the case planned for the courts. The reports can contain woolly allegations, such as that a mother might suffer from a ‘borderline personality disorder’." (business or not?)

After I've been told about these cases and checked it out I see things differently. What if 'child protection' law will be turned against GOOD parents. Obviously, this strict law was ruled after a death of 17 months old baby P who died by the hand of his parents. It was a tragic, RIP. Now over 10k children are taken by British SS in a year.

I don't know all the facts but please anyone tell me Ireland is not copying British law, as it might well bring more evil than good.

uck51js9zml2yt · 22-10-2012 11:29am

What about religious freedoms.
Could a secular state disagree with parents bringing their kids up in a religion and take the kids from them.
It opens up a can of worms.

flutterflye · 22-10-2012 11:38am

I just got a leaflet in the door about the referendum.

The new proposed article seems to be talking a lot about putting any child up for adoption if the parents haven't been doing their job.
I'm not sure how I feel about that tbh.
I mean, adoption is a permanent thing - which would be good for the child to have that stability, but at the same time it means that the child can not return to their birth parents if things get better at home.

Also, it keeps going on about "the best interests of the child" - but who says what the child's best interests are?

I suffer from depression and anxiety a fair bit.
Is it my kid's best interest to be placed with a family where the parents are mentally healthy all the time?

Oh I don't know - I don't like the vagueness of it all.

I do however think that it's a great thing that children be recognised in the constitution as having rights, and that these rights supersede those of the parents where there is abuse or neglect.

Onesimus · 22-10-2012 12:14pm

On the face of it, from the title it sounds wonderful, but is it really? On these pages we have provided you with information to make an informed decision. Do the research for yourself and we think that you will agree that this is an attack on Families and Children. Children will actually have less rights if this incideous legislation passes. Ireland will be giving up the sovereignty of our children to unelected people in the UN and EU

Irish children deserve a world-class Child Protection System, but the Irish State have always proven to be the worst possible parent. What is happening to children now in State "Care" is far worse than ever occurred in the old institutions. Wait for Ryan Report II, coming soon.

We are being fooled by the Government and by people with vested interests to sign away our parental rights to determine what is in the best interests of our children. If the Constitution is changed it will give license to the Government to do anything they want and you will have no say.

The Irish Government are currently allowing 30% of all Irish Children to live in consistent poverty. They have allowed banks to make 6,000 families homeless, they have cut back services to Special Needs even in the good years. They have allowed children to die in hospitals because they would not fund treatments. They have denied children an Education, the right of all children "Enshrined" in the Irish Constitution. They have allowed the deaths of 260 children in "Care" of the State and allowed 500 to go missing in a decade, many of them trafficked into child prostitution and nobody was held accountable for these failures. Children are dumped on the street at age 18 by the Child "Protection" System. Can you imagine a parent who loves their child doing that?

Now the Government are asking you to sign away your parental rights so that the State decides Best Interests.

The question we are being asked here is "Do you trust the Government?,
worse yet. "Do you trust the Government with your children".
Please note that or group is not funded. Can I also make it clear that we have no Spokesperson or Leader, it has been wrongly reported and assumed that Kathy Sinnott is the leader of our panel. We are individuals who decided to put our resources together in the short time allowed to present our individual views. Anyone is welcome to join if they can contribute to the debate with a good understanding of the issues.
.
Our panel consists of individuals each of whom have a specialized knowledge in this debate, Kathy's interest is in the area of Special Needs children and how this will affect them and their parents. Kathy also has a unique understanding of the UNCRC and has written extensively on the topic. I will leave you with a quote from Emily Logan, The Children's Ombudsman in an opinion piece in the Irish Times;
"My office has never examined a case involving a conflict between parents’ rights and children’s rights. And if there is one thing that has become confirmed by the eight years of this office’s operation, it is that parents are by far the strongest and most tenacious advocates for children."
http://www.aps.ie/

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

GhanGee · 22-10-2012 12:36pm

here is another one and ONCE AGAIN, I am not saying this is supposed to happen in Ireland, but I would be shocked if Ireland copied a doubtful law (unique in the EU !!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9545361/Foreign-government-may-take-UK-to-European-court-over-its-illegal-child-snatching.html#

Lollipops23 · 22-10-2012 1:31pm

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

Much as I understand your concern about how much the state can interfere with your parenting of your kids, surely it should be easier for the state to intervene in the cases of neglect?

Have a gander over in the Parenting forum sometime, you often see threads about people upset about kids in their neighbourhood/family being neglected and abused. Hell, some of the stories in a thread in PI the other week by a woman with a crazy mother would bring a tear to your eye.

wendell borton · 22-10-2012 1:43pm

Had planned to vote yes but now i am not so sure. What difference will voting yes make to the rights of children.

Is there realy a need for this referendum? As far as i know child abuse is a crime but that didn't stop what went on in this country by the church etc..
If the laws in place were actualy enforced instead of bringing in new ones just to be ignored again for the sake of optics we would be better off.

bbam · 22-10-2012 1:48pm

I would plead with those who have made up their minds in this to read the information fully. To date there has been very little information given out but it will be available in time to read an understand before the vote.

I believe this to be a good thing for children, particularly children being raised in bad families. There have been countless cases where SW had to stand back and allow terrible situations continue as their hands were tied.

Providing a proper documented procedure is in place then a framework where defenceless children could be removed from abusive families has to be welcomed.

It's a fact that Irish society has to recognise. Not all children are better off left with their parents, many need protection from their parents and this amendment to the constitution should allow more powers to exercise this protection.

hooradiation · 22-10-2012 1:52pm

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

If this is the best a no campaign can manage, then I don't think there's much chance of this not being passed.

Onesimus · 22-10-2012 2:02pm

There is a lot more to it than that. Follow the link I provided on page 4.

Child abuse is already a crime, and people who witness things like that going on in their neighbourhood should notify the appropriate authorities. This new referendum is under the disguise of enforcing childrens rights when in fact it is an attack on children and their families.

follow the link provided and read up on it. You don't need me to tell you here.

Onesimus · 22-10-2012 2:11pm

10 Reasons to vote No in the Children's Rights Referendum

1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.

2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary decision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)

5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.

6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights.

8/ The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9/ The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10/ The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote no.
http://www.aps.ie/page8.php

Here is a very good brief ten reasons why we should vote NO

hooradiation · 22-10-2012 2:19pm

Onesimus wrote: »

There is a lot more to it than that. Follow the link I provided on page 4.

Child abuse is already a crime, and people who witness things like that going on in their neighbourhood should notify the appropriate authorities. This new referendum is under the disguise of enforcing childrens rights when in fact it is an attack on children and their families.

follow the link provided and read up on it. You don't need me to tell you here.

I have and it's still nothing of substance.
Your entire line of 'reasoning' in this post, such as it is, is that because child abuse is already a crime, therefore there are no other other possible deficiencies in the legal standing of children under Irish law.

But you're right, I really don't see much need for you to tell me anything.

Lollipops23 · 24-10-2012 1:29pm

STOP SHOUTING.

hooradiation · 24-10-2012 1:52pm

Lollipops23 wrote: »

STOP SHOUTING.

LOUD NOISES!

Jester252 · 24-10-2012 2:02pm

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm voting NO. I refuse to sign away my rights as a parent to the state.

You don't have any rights when it comes to child. You have responsibilities.
If you can't meet these responsibilities. Then society has the responsibilities to step in for the good of the child.

kateydo · 24-10-2012 7:02pm

Just so you know
The present legal position under the Adoption Act 1988 allows the adoption of children without the consent of married parents when a court determines they have been abandoned. The test for abandonment is high and rightly so. If it cannot be established, then parental contact exists and the focus should be on promoting rather than extinguishing it. This balances both parents’ and their children’s rights to know and have a relationship with each other.

There is no evidence that adoption provides greater stability for children who have suffered adversity. Widening the threshold for adoption may simply reduce the cost of providing for children in care while doing nothing to meet their needs."

This referendum is about one thing passing control from families to the state. Do we really want this state having more control of our children?
Finally former Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty has also come out to state that this children's referendum is completely unecessary see article here:http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

Now there is no doubt that these are very laudable precepts, but the question is -- do we need a new referendum to deal with them? They are all -- or nearly all -- to be found in an existing article of the Constitution, in our ordinary legislation or in court judgments.

The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

On my reading of it and the earlier legal analysis, at it's most benign this referendum is completely unecessary, while at its most sinister it is an alarming takeover by the state of all of our children's rights.

kateydo · 24-10-2012 7:24pm

please everyone vote no , this is a terrible thing , every child deserves parental protection and the state are trying to take this away from us. read between the lines why do ye think that their is no 'NO' campaign ?
They do not want us to know, do you trust this government?

bbam · 24-10-2012 7:25pm

I've looked over the information from the referendum commission and the only rights people will be singing away are the rights they think they have to abuse their children. Absolutely no rights of decent ordinary parents will be taken away with this legislation. Only those with anything to hide should fear this legislation.

Only the tin foil hat brigade will be afraid of a social worker coming and taking away their children for no good cause..

Corkfeen · 24-10-2012 7:29pm

kateydo wrote: »

please everyone vote no , this is a terrible thing , every child deserves parental protection and the state are trying to take this away from us. read between the lines why do ye think that their is no 'NO' campaign ?
They do not want us to know, do you trust this government?

We heard you the first time. Also the judge you were referring to had to resign because of a controversy many years ago so I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheedy_Affair
I don't trust a Judge's word on the constitution when he has very little respect for the justice system. You are sensationalising the referendum in much the same way people claimed that abortion on demand would occur as a result of the Lisbon treaty. In the process you are endangering a change that should have been made decades ago.

kateydo · 24-10-2012 7:49pm

Nothing changes in this referendum except more rights for the state ? why would I vote yes to that.
Look at all the forced adoptions happening in the UK google it?

kateydo · 24-10-2012 7:54pm

By the way I am not sensationalizing anything , I am a concerned parent standing up for my right to parental control.
I have done my research and am making an informed decision. Look at the mess of the state and look at all the damage the state has done to children over the years. Parents need to make a stand and say no!

Jester252 · 24-10-2012 8:46pm

I might be wrong but this will help foster parents. I remember hearing on the radio a college kid who was in foster care with the same family for most of his life (one of the lucky ones) but due because of the law he was never abandoned as his mother in England who sent him a card once a year so she still be his legal guardian.
They were also talking about the status of foster parents as they are not legal guardians for a child in their care so if he need a form signed for school to go on a trip his mother would have to sign and if she wasn't his legal guardian they would have to get it signed by someone from the state as they would be the legal guardian.
Also I think as well foster parents can't adopted a child that was ever in their care.
From what I understand this referendum will help solve some of these problems for foster parents and they should get as much help as possible. It will also allow the child opinion to be taken into account when dealing with matters relating to them.
I don't see how anyone would be worried about the state taken away they kids unless they are not treating their kids well

Peetrik · 24-10-2012 9:03pm

I'll be voting No.

The state, as far as I'm concerned, has done an atrocious job so far, why would I give them more say over what happens to my children?!

Definite No from me.

admiralofthefleet · 24-10-2012 9:19pm

no from me too, im not giving them a vote to inject my child without my knowledge or consent

Morag · 24-10-2012 9:43pm

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

is it true that a yes vote being carried will mean children can be given injections in school with the parents knowledge or consent?

That is not true, it's utterly false and a red herring.

Morag · 24-10-2012 9:53pm

kateydo wrote: »

Just so you know
The present legal position under the Adoption Act 1988 allows the adoption of children without the consent of married parents when a court determines they have been abandoned.

What about the kids who have not been abandoned, but how have been abused and neglected like the ones in the Roscommon case?

Those children as they were removed from their parents 'care' so they were not abandoned so they can not be adopted.

kateydo wrote: »

This referendum is about one thing passing control from families to the state.

Nope it is about bring our constitution in line so that we are compliant with the United Nation convention of the rights of the child.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

kateydo wrote: »

Do we really want this state having more control of our children?

It is about giving children thier own special set of rights which they need as they are children.

kateydo wrote: »

Finally former Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty has also come out to state that this children's referendum is completely unecessary

And FORMER SUPREME Court judge Catherine McGuinness has some out for a yes vote.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1024/1224325626426.html

FORMER SUPREME Court judge Catherine McGuinness has said people living in the “comfortable nest of privilege” could find it difficult to understand that some children were not safe in their families.

Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness said Irish people had been historically hesitant to intervene in the family circle and it was often assumed that the best place for children was with their families in all instances.

“It’s easier to believe this from a privileged, middle-class, professional background where we all grew up in the loving care of our parents . . . this applies to judges too,” she said.

“Do we who live in the comfortable nest of general privilege really know much about the reality of other children’s actual private lives?”

She was speaking at a children’s rights referendum information seminar organised by the Yes for Children movement in Dublin last night.

kateydo wrote: »

The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

We can't have legislation which is in conflict with the constitution that is why we are having the referendum.

kateydo wrote: »

On my reading of it and the earlier legal analysis, at it's most benign this referendum is completely unecessary, while at its most sinister it is an alarming takeover by the state of all of our children's rights.

What I find sinister is the amount of alarmist twaddle being thrown about trying to scare parents into voting no.

Morag · 24-10-2012 9:54pm

Peetrik wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

The state, as far as I'm concerned, has done an atrocious job so far, why would I give them more say over what happens to my children?!

Definite No from me.

So they did an atrocious job and now are looking to reform the system from top to bottom starting with the constitution form which our laws and rights are derived and you are voting against it? :rolleyes:

Morag · 24-10-2012 9:55pm

kateydo wrote: »

Nothing changes in this referendum except more rights for the state ? why would I vote yes to that.
Look at all the forced adoptions happening in the UK google it?

We are not the UK our laws are different, or do you somehow think we are still part of the UK?

bbam · 24-10-2012 10:30pm

It sickens and saddens me to see so many spooks, spoofs and scaremongers out to promote a no vote on such a critical issue.

This is a good thing. Anything but a yes vote is ludacris

Morag · 24-10-2012 10:36pm

flutterflye wrote: »

Also, it keeps going on about "the best interests of the child" - but who says what the child's best interests are?

Those are laid out in the UN convention on the rights of the child, we signed up to them in 1990 and started to ratify them in 1992 but the process stalled due to the fact we need to change the constitution.

You can read it here
http://www.hrea.org/feature-events/simplified-crc.html

flutterflye wrote: »

I suffer from depression and anxiety a fair bit.
Is it my kid's best interest to be placed with a family where the parents are mentally healthy all the time?

If your kids are thriving and you are doing your best and your kids are not at risk they are not going to take your kids. They will give you and your family all the support they can when you need it.

flutterflye wrote: »

I do however think that it's a great thing that children be recognised in the constitution as having rights, and that these rights supersede those of the parents where there is abuse or neglect.

Then I think you should vote Yes.

Morag · 24-10-2012 10:40pm

Callum Hot Desert wrote: »

What about religious freedoms.
Could a secular state disagree with parents bringing their kids up in a religion and take the kids from them.
It opens up a can of worms.

Nope it doesn't.

That is covered in the UN convention of the rights of the child which we as a country signed up to.

http://www.hrea.org/feature-events/simplified-crc.html

Article 12: Expression of opinion
The right of the child to express his or her opinion and to have this taken into consideration.

Article 13: Freedom of expression and information
The right to seek, receive and impart information in various forms, including art, print, writing.

Article 14: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
States are to be respect the rights and duties of parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of this right in accordance with the child's evolving capacities.

Article 15: Freedom of association
The child's right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

I'm a pagan and the government won't even recognise my religion but I am not worried about that being an issue for my children due to the above rights.

There are some times when the state will step in and get a temporary care order, this has happened already here were Jehovah Witness parents refused to let their dying child have a blood transfusion, which would save them. I think most people would agree the state was right to step in as the child's right to life was at stake.

steddyeddy · 24-10-2012 11:13pm

As a former victim myself I do understand people's fears about this and thats fair enough. I do however think that something should be done regarding the reality of child abuse in Ireland.

Peetrik · 25-10-2012 12:10am

Sharrow wrote: »

So they did an atrocious job and now are looking to reform the system from top to bottom starting with the constitution form which our laws and rights are derived and you are voting against it? :rolleyes:

If a junkie decides to reform and after a lifetime of bad decisions says they want to get back on track you don't immediately put them in charge of a creche. Its about trust and at the rate they've been going they have absolutely none in my book after how they have managed our finances and our nation resources. No I don't want them having more say over my children than they already do.

Sharrow wrote: »

There are some times when the state will step in and get a temporary care order, this has happened already here were Jehovah Witness parents refused to let their dying child have a blood transfusion, which would save them. I think most people would agree the state was right to step in as the child's right to life was at stake.

I would be more concerned with things like having no say in mandatory vaccinations. I would want to research and decide for myself any medications to be given to my child. Again it boils down to trust and I don't trust some politician not to accept a cushy job after his term from some pharmaceutical giant for pushing something that, at best, my child may not actually need.

Morag · 25-10-2012 12:45am

Do you have anything to back up the rumors about mandatory vaccination?
I've seen a lot of scaremongering on this topic but no one to date has been able to link me to anything about it.

NOmeansNo · 25-10-2012 1:27am

How does the State all of the sudden have Children's best interest if they are constantly making cuts and adding taxes to families trying to support the well-being of their children?

Does anyone not question who is paying for this campaign??? We are 1.1 Million so far to be exact of public spending money which has currently been brought to the courts.

Who has your Children's best interest you or the State?

I do not get how people are so naive... It is very frightening....I see the poorer countries standing up and fighting...I sugguest people do some more research to know exactly what they are voting for whether it be Yes or No and not just go along with the crowd.

I DEFF agree there has to be changes made to protect children but by voting away your rights is not the way.

If ANYONE can remember how many referendums took place in the so called "Celtic Tiger" years??? Why are the people suddenly being bombarded with decisions in a vulnerable time??? The FEAR factor. The same tactics the Nazi's used.

By the way I am a mother of two children. One with a disability. I do not feel this referndum is in the best interest of any child.

I feel there are many changes in Ireland to come... This will be a cashout for judges, solicitors, and barristers as well as social work sectors. Some of the organisations supporting the Yes vote are in favour of more State control and accept donations from very influential business people pushing their hidden agenda.

WAKE UP! WAKE UP AND BE PROUD TO BE IRISH AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE...ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS... AND THE STATE HAS NOT SHOWN THEIR RESPONSABILITY IN HAVING SUCH RIGHTS AND EXCLUDING THE NATURAL FAMILY FROM ITS LAWS.

I am quite concerned as well for the children to be adoptded if this referndum passes as the government has cut funding in these sectors...Where will the money come from when the demand for adoption increases? I feel we may be back at square one.

REMEMBER once it is changes it is changed...

Morag · 25-10-2012 2:17am

Who has your Children's best interest you or the State?

Me but not all parents take into consideration their child's best interests, when this happens children have to have clear cut rights and a voice and input to what happens next. Never again should children be left to suffer as ones in the Roscommon case.

I too have kids and one which has special needs and I am voting yes.

With austerity we need to have the rights of children cleared up so we can use the Convention on the rights of the child to fight and push for our children and really your argument lost all credibility once you mention Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Jimoslimos · 25-10-2012 2:46am

Seems to be one or two useful bits of legislation worth voting Yes for but overall fluffed up with vague wishy-washy nonsense. I do think however it is slightly misleading to call it a "Children's Referendum", (Adoption Ref would have been more accurate)

The referendum itself isn't the waste of money, it's the creating of a whole new ministerial department to come up with something that could easily have been done by Social Protection or Justice.

SusieBlue · 25-10-2012 4:48am

One of the cases that sparked this was the Baby Ann case. I don't know all the details for sure, so don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but basically what happened was:

-A woman in a relationship with a man got pregnant. The relationship broke up and the mother placed the child up for adoption.
-The child was adopted into a new loving family and bonded with her new parents.
-When the child was about 1yr old (I think), the parents got back together and decided they wanted the baby back.
-Under the instruction of their lawyer, they quickly got married so they'd have more rights.
-They began legal proceedings to get their daughter back. By now, she had bonded with her new family and her adoptive parents didn't want to give her back.
-The birth parents lost their case, and Ann was supposed to stay with her adoptive parents.
-The birth parents appealed and took the case to the supreme court.
-Despite the fact that the judge agreed that being seperated from her adopted family would cause great emotional distress to baby Ann, according to the constitution birth parents (in particular, married birth parents) have ultimate rights to their child and they won their appeal.
-Now 2 years old, baby Ann was returned to her birth parents.

I challenge anyone to say this was a good outcome. The current laws protect parents rather than children. The outcome of that case came to be because of parental rights, what rights did baby Ann have? None. Despite the fact that it was detrimental to her wellbeing, she was taken away from her adoptive family because her parents had the right to do it. That to me is so wrong.

I for one will be voting yes. I think that this will benefit children, and no decent parent has anything to fear from this.

Nollog · 25-10-2012 4:56am

Sharrow wrote: »

We can't have legislation which is in conflict with the constitution that is why we are having the referendum.

I done read the actual changes they're proposing, and all I see is them adding a few extra words to an already existing article and moving it around.
The rest could be done through the normal bill process.

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

becomes

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty
towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

The rest isn't in the constitution already and I don't see anything in it that would stop us making a simple law for legalising adoption for "unabandoned" children.

K-9 · 25-10-2012 5:18am

Onesimus wrote: »

There is a lot more to it than that. Follow the link I provided on page 4.

Child abuse is already a crime, and people who witness things like that going on in their neighbourhood should notify the appropriate authorities. This new referendum is under the disguise of enforcing childrens rights when in fact it is an attack on children and their families.

follow the link provided and read up on it. You don't need me to tell you here.

I followed the link and the "who are we" section doesn't inspire confidence, http://www.aps.ie/page2.php, given Barnardos and so many are for it.

I'd read up on it and make my own mind up, not go on what the aps and Kathy Sinnott says, or Barnardos and Fergus Finlay for that matter.

NOmeansNo · 25-10-2012 12:55pm

Sharrow wrote: »

Me but not all parents take into consideration their child's best interests, when this happens children have to have clear cut rights and a voice and input to what happens next. Never again should children be left to suffer as ones in the Roscommon case.

I too have kids and one which has special needs and I am voting yes.

With austerity we need to have the rights of children cleared up so we can use the Convention on the rights of the child to fight and push for our children and really your argument lost all credibility once you mention Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

*********************************************************
Sharrow,

"Me but not all parents take into consideration their child's best interests" is a very cynical argument. I as well as many others have their Children's best interests at hand. You seem to keep making references to the "Roscommon Case" in which BOTH the parents AND the STATE failed at their duty. It is a well known fact the Social Workers Records were clearly lacking details in this case, so there was more than one factor here. HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

" -196 children have died while in care of the State
- 440 of the 513 children who disappeared, while in care of the State between 2000-2010 are still missing

"One of the stated purposes of the Referendum is for Ireland to be fully compatible with the UNCRC. You also need to bear in mind that once Article 42 is changed to remove parents rights, that other Treaties and Conventions will now apply to children, without the consent and even knowledge of their parents. The UN Treaty on Persons with Mental Disability will also apply to children without parental consent. This means that children will be able to consent to Psychosurgery (Lobotomy), Electro-Shock Therapy and even have themselves committed to a Mental Institution without parental consent or knowledge."

If you agree to children, or your children with undergoing medical procedures without parental consent my opinion this is NOT in the best interest of Children. As they may not fully understand the details of procedures they may undergo and will treated as adults in regards to law. Electroshock Therapy and Lobotomy may be treatments used in the cases of mental illness whether the parents agree to this or not.

"The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision." I do believe I have the utmost interest of my children by providing them the natural foundation of a family and good moral values. This treaty disregards parental authority and moral beliefs. It is a far cry from uniting a family... it does however unite the governments in the World for more control... But that is another issue.

As for YOU trying to grant me credibility or not, I will leave that up to the individual. Anyways, what is this great credibility you grant to yourself? As I do not believe something is ok because the government is telling me so. I still stand by by reference to the Nazi regime, as it was a time of economic crisis in which ideas were imbedded into the people. Where as false propaganda and ideas were spread at the cost of people's BEST interest deflecting from the true matters at hand. Unfortunately we find ourselves in these situations time and time again. No one would want to repeat the history in which a government strongly misleads the people with false propaganda and inducing the fear factor. "Godwin's law- is an ARGUMENT"....Yeah, that lost credibility there. There is a reason it is not called a fact, just an argumentative opinion is all. There is also a thing called Holocaust Denial look it up. However Instead of being petty and debunking ones credibility I'd rather focus on the real matters at hand and the children.

I do believe in changes and reforms, I however do not believe in the UNCRC and it handing over power to the state and overshadowing the Family Unit.

My partner is also adopted without getting into his personal story, adoption is not always successful and there are many issues that go with it such as attachment disorder. Is the state ready to handle these adoption cases with care, seeing they have already cut funding? People seem to think everyone willing to adopt are perfect which in fact they are just human beings which can also make mistakes. Will these children be followed up after adoption to ensure safety, security, and mental stability? It is not as straightforward as it is made out to be.

Like I said before 1.1 million(used from Public Spending) in pushing a Yes vote could have went to direct issues in regards to children. What about all the creches and pre-schools that have closed in recent times due to lack of funding. This vote is a clear diversion from issues at hand.

hooradiation · 25-10-2012 1:35pm

that's... certainly a disjointed mess you've posted there.

TwoShedsJackson · 25-10-2012 1:59pm

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

Peetrik · 25-10-2012 2:09pm

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

Any other completely unsubstantiated broad generalizations you want to dream up for anyone who doesn't agree with you?

People with dark brown hair seem to smell like cabbage?

TwoShedsJackson · 25-10-2012 2:12pm

It's hardly unsubstantiated - Youth Defence are opposed, the Alliance of Parents against the State are opposed, and seem to consist of the likes of Nora Bennis etc., the Christian Solidarity Party are opposed, and Fr. Brian McKevitt is opposed.

I don't think it's unfair to describe any of the above as either religious or right-wing.

bbam · 25-10-2012 2:14pm

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

Indeed..

the biggest argument I've seen is "I have my childrens best interest at heart, I don't want the state interfeering, so a NO vote is sensible"

People pushing this for a NO vote don't seem capable of recognising that not all parents think and put their childrens best interests first. They seem to be taking the notion personally and pushing back against it like stroppy teenagers.

The state or social workers have no interest in the decisions people make unless they are making decisions that are abusive and dangerous to their children. Its just the usual old "anti establishment" crap.
The state failed its duty in the past so why should we vote to give it more powers, the idiots can't see that the additional provisions will allow the state to exercise its duties..

And those who can't see that a very small minority of children wouldn't be better taken from their birth parents and adopted into suitable caring families, well, its just byond beleif that people can't or won't see that these cases are out there and need to be dealt with properly and promptly.

Peetrik · 25-10-2012 2:17pm

And all those people/groups were probably opposed to Ireland giving away all the recently discovered national resources as well.

The doesn't make it any more valid to say "The ONLY people opposed seem to be 'A' or 'B'" as every other sane person in Ireland was against it as well.

Broad unsubstantiated generalizations just detract from any argument you make.

Corkfeen · 25-10-2012 2:23pm

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The only people opposed to this seem to be religious cranks and various other extremists.

To be fair it's only particularly extremist religious cranks who claim they'll be robbed of religious freedom which they won't.

TwoShedsJackson · 25-10-2012 2:37pm

Peetrik wrote: »

And all those people/groups were probably opposed to Ireland giving away all the recently discovered national resources as well.

What? 'Probably' means nothing, and what have national resources got to do with it?

The doesn't make it any more valid to say "The ONLY people opposed seem to be 'A' or 'B'" as every other sane person in Ireland was against it as well.

Nor did I say that, I said that the ONLY people I have heard express a negative opinion are members of right-wing religious organisations. Also, just because you declare only those opposed to this to be the sane ones, does not make it so. Now who's coming in with the broad unsubstantiated generalisations?

childrens Referendum **poll added**

Comments

childrens Referendum poll added