childrens Referendum poll added

squod · 05-11-2012 7:22pm

Foster, adopt, remove.
Foster, adopt, remove.
Foster, adopt, remove.

bbam · 05-11-2012 7:32pm

Slick50 wrote: »

Do you believe it would have been better for this child to have been brought up by anyone other than her actual parents.? I don't!

Two things spring to mind about that comment...
Firstly, Adoptive and Foster parents are "Actual" parents.. It shows a degree of ignorance not knowing the basic terminology of the process..

Secondly, who are you to think anything about the case. Are you a health professional with a speciality in this field ?? Have you been studying the details of the case with a balanced openminded approach as a professional would... I'd wager not, just another joe soap with an opinion and little fact to interpret the case.

Irish people need to understand that not every child is better off with their birth parents. Through their neglect and abuse a minority have demonstrated their inability to successfully parent, placing children with Foster and potentially Adoptive parents who have been vetted and trained, who can provide a child with a loving and secure home and family is an excellent solution.

goodie2shoes · 05-11-2012 7:43pm

i see failed Presidential candidate and has-been eurovision singer Dana is at it again with her paranoid, conspiracy theories again!

next thing she'll be tellin us, it's a plot by an alien species to abduct our children.

Annasopra · 05-11-2012 8:00pm

Slick50 wrote: »

Then that judgement would have been made on different circumstances, and in my opinion incorrect.

Do you believe it would have been better for this child to have been brought up by anyone other than her actual parents.? I don't!

I'm not sure - I don't make a presumption unlike you that the child is always better off with his/her natural parents. This case was not determined by her best interests - it was determined by the marital status of her biological parents.

The central issue to be considered by the court underwent a metamorphosis; it was no longer the best interests of the child but the lawfulness or otherwise of the Doyles’ custody of her. When deciding whether the Doyles’custody of Ann is in accordance with law it is no longer possible for the court to follow the original approach of Lynch J. in In Re J.H. – “to look at it through the eyes, or from the point of view of the child”. It is clear that the court is bound by the decision in In Re J.H.; the full rigour of the test established in that case must be applied.

Justice Catherine McGuinness was quite clear that her judgement could not be based on Anns best interests

Baby Ann was not represented herself in the courts - if this referendum was passed she would have to be

Corkfeen · 05-11-2012 8:03pm

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm not sure - I don't make a presumption unlike you that the child is always better off with his/her natural parents. This case was not determined by her best interests - it was determined by the marital status of her biological parents.

One thing, i'm not certain of. Are married couples allowed to put children up for adoption if the amendment is made? I'd assume it would be viewed as in the child's interests if the parents want to put the child up for adoption. It is bloody absurd that they can't do so at this point in time.

goodie2shoes · 05-11-2012 8:05pm

i wish the anti side would stop scare-mongering and pedalling conspiracy theories.

Bullseye1 · 05-11-2012 8:11pm

In fairness ordinary Joe Soap is being asked to vote on the legislation. From listening to both sides of the debate I am inclined to vote no. It appears to me that there is already enough legislation in place to protect children.

bbam wrote: »

Two things spring to mind about that comment...
Firstly, Adoptive and Foster parents are "Actual" parents.. It shows a degree of ignorance not knowing the basic terminology of the process..

Secondly, who are you to think anything about the case. Are you a health professional with a speciality in this field ?? Have you been studying the details of the case with a balanced openminded approach as a professional would... I'd wager not, just another joe soap with an opinion and little fact to interpret the case.

Irish people need to understand that not every child is better off with their birth parents. Through their neglect and abuse a minority have demonstrated their inability to successfully parent, placing children with Foster and potentially Adoptive parents who have been vetted and trained, who can provide a child with a loving and secure home and family is an excellent solution.

goodie2shoes · 05-11-2012 8:14pm

i'll be voting YES.
we need to protect our children, sometimes from their family.

squod · 05-11-2012 8:32pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

In fairness ordinary Joe Soap is being asked to vote on the legislation. From listening to both sides of the debate I am inclined to vote no. It appears to me that there is already enough legislation in place to protect children.

+1

Do the yes side propose a radical change after the referendum? Some magic wand of democracy that'll put everything to right? It won't happen.

Interestingly it won't help children who have issues with the state. The biggest abuser of children.

goodie2shoes · 05-11-2012 8:35pm

squod wrote: »

+1

Do the yes side propose a radical change after the referendum? Some magic wand of democracy that'll put everything to right? It won't happen.

Interestingly it won't help children who have issues with the state. The biggest abuser of children.

nonsense

squod · 05-11-2012 8:38pm

goodie2shoes wrote: »

nonsense

It's fact.

Death and Taxes · 05-11-2012 8:43pm

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i'll be voting YES.
we need to protect our children, sometimes from their family.

We already have legislation to do that, explain why we need to change the constitution.

R0ot · 05-11-2012 8:51pm

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i wish the anti side would stop scare-mongering and pedalling conspiracy theories.

I wish the yes side would have a proper discussion on the matter.

MadYaker · 05-11-2012 8:52pm

I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

squod · 05-11-2012 8:53pm

MadYaker wrote: »

I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

What a hero.

Slick50 · 05-11-2012 8:53pm

bbam wrote: »

Firstly, Adoptive and Foster parents are "Actual" parents.. It shows a degree of ignorance not knowing the basic terminology of the process..

You will have to try and overlook a degree of ignorance of "terminology" (This is "boards.ie") But I'm sure most people would have understood I was refering to her biological parents.

bbam wrote: »

Secondly, who are you to think anything about the case. Are you a health professional... I'd wager not, just another joe soap with an opinion and little fact to interpret the case.

One of the electorate. I came on here to see if there was anything more compelling than I have heard so far, to change the constitution.

bbam wrote: »

Irish people need to understand that not every child is better off with their birth parents.

I would imagine most do.

bbam wrote: »

Through their neglect and abuse a minority have demonstrated their inability to successfully parent, placing children with Foster and potentially Adoptive parents who have been vetted and trained, who can provide a child with a loving and secure home and family is an excellent solution.

Yes I understand this also. And is already being done.

You haven't enlightened me on anything so far.

mango salsa wrote:

I'm not sure - I don't make a presumption unlike you that the child is always better off with his/her natural parents

I never said "always", but the default position should be that the parents will live up to their responsibilities, untill they prove otherwise.

Your not sure, but you seem to be presuming that her biological parents were not the best people

goodie2shoes wrote:

we need to protect our children, sometimes from their family.

Nobody is disputing this! It's this type of emotive bluster that is being peddled all the time, rather than reasoning the proposed amendment.

bbam · 05-11-2012 9:00pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

In fairness ordinary Joe Soap is being asked to vote on the legislation. From listening to both sides of the debate I am inclined to vote no. It appears to me that there is already enough legislation in place to protect children.

Yes the ordinary citizen is being asked to vote. They are being asked to vote on a change in the legislation which will afford the state better care for one of its vournerable sections of society.

It may appear to be enough legislation, but again that's a Joe Soap interpretation. I refuse to go along with the nay sayers that the legislation is being enacted for anything but positive reasons. Its disingenuous to say that this extra power will be abused or used in negative ways.

R0ot · 05-11-2012 9:01pm

MadYaker wrote: »

I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

This almost swayed me back to a Yes vote, but just because the crazys are on the same side doesn't make it wrong, they are of course voting and campaigning for No for the wrong reasons but doesn't make the amendment any less wrong/more right.

Slick50 · 05-11-2012 9:02pm

MadYaker wrote: »

I didn't care until I had a load of right-wing catholic nut jobs, and John Waters in the Irish Times, telling me to vote no, so I will be voting Yes.

Isn't that just the thing though. Are these people really the best that can be offered to provide compelling debate on the issue. Are we going to be told later that there was real discussion on this.? Why ?

R0ot · 05-11-2012 9:05pm

bbam wrote: »

Its disingenuous to say that this extra power will be abused or used in negative ways.

Yes because a government has never used a vague document in a "wrong" way after it was implemented and put into law.... :rolleyes:

MadYaker · 05-11-2012 9:23pm

R0ot wrote: »

This almost swayed me back to a Yes vote, but just because the crazys are on the same side doesn't make it wrong, they are of course voting and campaigning for No for the wrong reasons but doesn't make the amendment any less wrong/more right.

I'm just doing it to spite them. Not very mature I know, but as I said earlier, I don't care.

tan11ie · 05-11-2012 10:26pm

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and explained clearly in order for me to give a yes vote. The lack of public/media debate on this referendum leads me to believe a yes vote will win....most will just place their trust in the Government as usual.

squod · 05-11-2012 10:50pm

Yes for Europe Jobs Children

Slick50 · 05-11-2012 10:53pm

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i see failed Presidential candidate and has-been eurovision singer Dana is at it again with her paranoid, conspiracy theories again!

It seems she's not entirely wrong though

Sharrow wrote: »

About bloody time, it's only taken 23 years, these are part of the changes needed so we can finally ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child.

Sharrow wrote:

Ireland signed up to the UN convention of the Rights of the child in 1990 and as a result we needed to change the constitution and successive governments 'forgot' about it.
So it's finally happening now, it will make all kids equal in terms of adoption and will be the starting point for long need changes, like children having input to cases before the family courts.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

next thing she'll be tellin us, it's a plot by an alien species to abduct our children.

That's Jim Corrs area...

We are going to be treated to another "debate" with John Walters representing the no side on tonights frontline.... god help us.

Slick50 · 05-11-2012 10:55pm

squod wrote: »

Yes for Europe Jobs Children

And stability!!!

MadYaker · 05-11-2012 10:57pm

tan11ie wrote: »

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and explained clearly in order for me to give a yes vote. The lack of public/media debate on this referendum leads me to believe a yes vote will win....most will just place their trust in the Government as usual.

Well don't just sit there expecting to be spoon fed by the media, in fact if you want unbiased info the media is the last place you should be looking. The referendum commission set up this website: http://www.referendum2012.ie/ to provide unbiased info to people, have a read and make your own mind up.

Smidge · 05-11-2012 11:00pm

tan11ie wrote: »

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and explained clearly in order for me to give a yes vote. The lack of public/media debate on this referendum leads me to believe a yes vote will win....most will just place their trust in the Government as usual.

I agree. I think it will be a yes.

And I think this will be detrimental for children in the future.

What boggles the mind is WHY we have to write this into the constitution and why the government would want us to?
There are stringent enough laws for the protection of children without this referendum and the changing of the constitution.

If it were simply about child protection and improving their rights we would not need to amend the constitution.

Allowing new legislation regarding adoption?
That's a different matter altogether.

IMO this is a wolf in sheep's clothing, dressing up an adoption referendum(some see as forced and I'm not too sure it's not having read and listened to much about this referendum lately)as a children's rights referendum.

goodie2shoes · 05-11-2012 11:03pm

i have it on good authority that Frances Fitz is planning on kidnapping every child in the country starting with those whose name begins with the letter A.

she recently bought a very large house in terenure. 10 bedrooms and several outbuildings. some people have seen her driving a large people carrier.

so you have to ask why.:eek::eek::eek:

Vote NO and end this now!

tan11ie · 05-11-2012 11:16pm

MadYaker wrote: »

Well don't just sit there expecting to be spoon fed by the media, in fact if you want unbiased info the media is the last place you should be looking. The referendum commission set up this website: http://www.referendum2012.ie/ to provide unbiased info to people, have a read and make your own mind up.

Who the **** said I didn't read up on it all?

I have already read through the website,I have also read the four "vote yes" leaflets that arrived through my door, are you saying everything is explained as clear as day?? It's not to me !

My comment about media/public debate lies with the fact that their are a lot out their that take a glance at what is available to them (all those "vote yes"leaflets)and base their opinion on that, those who will just place their trust in the Government yet again.

I wonder if any "Vote No" leaflets will arrive through the door before Saturday.

goodie2shoes · 05-11-2012 11:22pm

perhaps the Govt. are planning on kidnapping children and selling them to China?

i mean why else would the Chinese president visit this tiny country last year. all that stuff about beef, and milk exports was a smokescreen imho.

i used to think Dana was a crack-pot but now i'm not so sure.

we need to wake up to this.

Smidge · 05-11-2012 11:53pm

goodie2shoes wrote: »

perhaps the Govt. are planning on kidnapping children and selling them to China?

i mean why else would the Chinese president visit this tiny country last year. all that stuff about beef, and milk exports was a smokescreen imho.

i used to think Dana was a crack-pot but now i'm not so sure.

we need to wake up to this.

China has a one child policy(at the minute) so there really would be no point in that, I'm afraid.

MadYaker · 06-11-2012 12:00am

tan11ie wrote: »

Who the **** said I didn't read up on it all?

I have already read through the website,I have also read the four "vote yes" leaflets that arrived through my door, are you saying everything is explained as clear as day?? It's not to me !

My comment about media/public debate lies with the fact that their are a lot out their that take a glance at what is available to them (all those "vote yes"leaflets)and base their opinion on that, those who will just place their trust in the Government yet again.

I wonder if any "Vote No" leaflets will arrive through the door before Saturday.

Ah ok, i got the impression from your post that you were expecting their to be more debate in the media to help you make your mind up.

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 12:02am

Smidge wrote: »

China has a one child policy(at the minute) so there really would be no point in that, I'm afraid.

exactly!
there is a huge black-market for kids in China, and India. especially boys.

this is going to be a big money spinner for the Govt.
China will probably help us with our debts.

they'll be sneeking around houses stealing our kids!
that Frankie Fitz one is pure evil.

VOTE NOooooooooooo!

petebricquette · 06-11-2012 12:02am

Seems to me that John Waters is the king of rabble-rousing. And a complete pain in the arse to boot. (if anyone's watching Pat Kenny's show...)

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 12:06am

there is also a huge market for organs, body parts etc.

we could wipe out our budget deficit overnight, if all the kids from economically marginalized areas of limerick and dublin were "harvested".

God help us all!

for the love of sweet Jesus VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!

spacetweek · 06-11-2012 12:11am

Watching Pat Kenny right now, I swear I want to punch John Waters and I am not a man of violence.

Disgraceful audience clapping every silly, inflammatory thing he has to say.

Smidge · 06-11-2012 12:15am

spacetweek wrote: »

Watching Pat Kenny right now, I swear I want to punch John Waters and I am not a man of violence.

Disgraceful audience clapping every silly, inflammatory thing he has to say.

Feck, just missed it.

I am voting no and would PREFER if John Waters would f*ck right off and be quite.

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 12:16am

i'm waiting for that Fitz one to reach behind her coiffured head, peel off her face and reveal a lizard's smile.

Thank God for Walters.
He's true love and compassion is a beacon in these dark times.

petebricquette · 06-11-2012 12:21am

spacetweek wrote: »

Watching Pat Kenny right now, I swear I want to punch John Waters and I am not a man of violence.

Disgraceful audience clapping every silly, inflammatory thing he has to say.

It's absolutely shocking. My favourite was "In the time since you've announced this election, statistically two children have died in state care." Is he for real? Ffs.

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 12:23am

petebricquette wrote: »

It's absolutely shocking. My favourite was "In the time since you've announced this election, statistically two children have died in state care." Is he for real? Ffs.

IT's STARTING ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

"Hail Mary, full of grace..........."

steddyeddy · 06-11-2012 12:35am

I'm undecided as whether to vote yes or no. Im veering on the yes side but I think the referendum ignores more serious issues such as state incompetence when looking after children. Saying that the no side havent offered up an alternative and maybe a yes vote will give children even those in state care more rights.

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 12:47am

someone here has suggested that it's nothing at all to do with China, but Frau Merkel!!!

initially i was totally sceptical but after consideration it makes much more sense imho.

the German economy is in surplus, so they have the dosh. we need the dosh. Enda is very friendly with Angela and also best buddies with Fitz. we all know what them Germans are capable of.

My God this is like the most evil plan ever devised.

I feel sick .....................:eek:

squod · 06-11-2012 12:55am

1,050,000 children in the state. It's short odds that this has something to do with revenue or costs to the state.

Yes for children

Except when they're sick or injured.

Children's Hospital 2016 deadline cannot be met says James Reilly

Except when they're victims of abuse.

Refuge turns away 80pc of abuse victims
Sonas Housing revealed almost 600 vulnerable women living with abuse made contact in 2011, but only 130 women with 250 children could be taken in

Except when they're poor.

if children really do matter, how come so many are in poverty, or fail to get adequate education?

These are the realities of Ireland in 2012 and letting the state of the hook even further is hardly solving anything.

Vote yes? Hell no.

Smidge · 06-11-2012 1:00am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm undecided as whether to vote yes or no. Im veering on the yes side but I think the referendum ignores more serious issues such as state incompetence when looking after children. Saying that the no side havent offered up an alternative and maybe a yes vote will give children even those in state care more rights.

I had thought that I would vote yes but having read through it I felt that the yes side were not giving me a good enough reason to vote yes other than"this is about kids, vote yes, it will be good for them":rolleyes:

Having read through the referendum I dont feel the yes side have been honest about the full ramifications of putting this into our constitution.

squod · 06-11-2012 1:01am

Smidge wrote: »

Having read through the referendum I dont feel the yes side have been honest about the full ramifications of putting this into our constitution.

We haven't even seen the follow up legislation to the constitutional change.

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 1:02am

Smidge wrote: »

I had thought that I would vote yes but having read through it I felt that the yes side were not giving me a good enough reason to vote yes other than"this is about kids, vote yes, it will be good for them":rolleyes:

Having read through the referendum I dont feel the yes side have been honest about the full ramifications of putting this into our constitution.

i initially thought i had to vote Yes for the sake of the kids, but after mature reflection and having listened to John Walters explain exactly what the state is up to, i'm voting NO!

bottom line is we must never trust them.
they will take our kids away.
we MUST not allow them to.

R0ot · 06-11-2012 1:13am

Oh to be in a world where the extremists would realise they'd do more for their cause by shutting the hell up and letting the people decide through factual debate...

I swear every time I see Dana associated with the No vote makes me die in side for being even on the same side as her for completely different reasons.

Smidge · 06-11-2012 1:14am

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i initially thought i had to vote Yes for the sake of the kids, but after mature reflection and having listened to John Walters explain exactly what the state is up to, i'm voting NO!

bottom line is we must never trust them.
they will take our kids away.
we MUST not allow them to.

G2S
With all due respect do you have anything sensible to contribute?
FYI I wouldn't have replied only you have quoted me and I have been ignoring your posts in this thread as they are immature and nonsensical.
Trying to bate people won't work if that's what you want.

Sierra Oscar · 06-11-2012 1:16am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm undecided as whether to vote yes or no. Im veering on the yes side but I think the referendum ignores more serious issues such as state incompetence when looking after children. Saying that the no side havent offered up an alternative and maybe a yes vote will give children even those in state care more rights.

The amendment will force the Oireachtas to legislate to enshrine children's rights, and will in the process ensure that the state has to up its game in terms of correctly looking after the children it cares for.

Voting no will not ensure that incompetence within the authorities is solved.

EDIT: We spend an unproportionate amount of time talking about the state and how it looks after children. The vast majority of abuse directed at children takes place in the home itself.

Smidge · 06-11-2012 1:18am

R0ot wrote: »

Oh to be in a world where the extremists would realise they'd do more for their cause by shutting the hell up and letting the people decide through factual debate...

I swear every time I see Dana associated with the No vote makes me die in side for being even on the same side as her for completely different reasons.

+1
I feel the same way with regard to Dana and John Waters.
It's a strange situation to be in to want a no to this and for others to see you as a crackpot.
I'm a bit appalled to be honest at who the "no" side have allowed to represent them.

childrens Referendum **poll added**

Comments

childrens Referendum poll added