childrens Referendum poll added

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 1:20am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

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.

but we cannot trust the state. John Walters said so. he has first hand experience of these matters.

Sierra Oscar · 06-11-2012 1:24am

goodie2shoes wrote: »

but we cannot trust the state. John Walters said so. he has first hand experience of these matters.

John Waters is a rabble rouser who opposed everything and agrees with nothing. Until he can put forward a coherent argument which explains how children will end up better off by voting no, then I will be voting yes.

The fact is that voting no achieves nothing. Voting yes creates the opportunity, by forcing the state to legislate on the matter, to better protect the wellbeing of vulnerable children.

petebricquette · 06-11-2012 1:24am

goodie2shoes wrote: »

but we cannot trust the state. John Walters said so. he has first hand experience of these matters.

For the first time ever, I'm gonna click that ignore button. You're a troll, goodie2shoes.

steddyeddy · 06-11-2012 1:26am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

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.

Thats true but the state has failed to prtect those who sought protection from abuse and has failed to protect those removed from abusive situations.

steddyeddy · 06-11-2012 1:27am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

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.

What will happen if certain individuals within state bodies simply continue to ignore childrens rights though? Is this not just a token gesture? I mean can it be enforced?

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 1:32am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

John Waters is a rabble rouser who opposed everything and agrees with nothing. Until he can put forward a coherent argument which explains how children will end up better off by voting no, then I will be voting yes.

The fact is that voting no achieves nothing. Voting yes creates the opportunity, by forcing the state to legislate on the matter, to better protect the wellbeing of vulnerable children.

cant you see the state will be telling you are not a fit parent. maybe you had a few drinks too many after skysunday, or maybe you couldn't afford the fuel bill that month? they can then take your kids. it will be in the amendment.

did you not hear the Frontline debate?

Sierra Oscar · 06-11-2012 1:33am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats true but the state has failed to prtect those who sought protection from abuse and has failed to protect those removed from abusive situations.

Indeed. So it is important to vote yes in order to ensure that the state introduces robust legislation to better protect the child.

Voting no will not improve the situation. It will allow the status quo to continue.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

cant you see the state will be telling you are not a fit parent. maybe you had a few drinks too many after skysunday, or maybe you couldn't afford the fuel bill that month? they can then take your kids. it will be in the amendment.

did you not hear the Frontline debate?

You are lying, as what you highlighted will not be in the amendment.

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 1:34am

Smidge wrote: »

+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.

just cos u dont like them doesn't invalidate their argument.
i mean i dont like Elton John, but i hum to his/her tunes now 'n then.

deal with the issues!

Smidge · 06-11-2012 1:41am

I haven't read anything that would support the idea that a yes vote will protect children any better than is already there(just not being implemented by the state bodies).

goodie2shoes · 06-11-2012 1:54am

Smidge wrote: »

I haven't read anything that would support the idea that a yes vote will protect children any better than is already there(just not being implemented by the state bodies).

yes because our kids have ample protection as it is.
this referendum is totally uneccessary.
John Walters said so.

starviewadams · 06-11-2012 1:58am

Un-decided,but slightly leaning towards a Yes vote currently,mainly after reading the posts in regards to the 'Baby Ann' case,and the judge not being able to act in the child's best interests due to the constitution in it's present form.

Will have to read up on the referendum commission site a bit more before Saturday.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-11-2012 3:05am

starviewadams wrote: »

Un-decided,but slightly leaning towards a Yes vote currently,mainly after reading the posts in regards to the 'Baby Ann' case,and the judge not being able to act in the child's best interests due to the constitution in it's present form.

Grand, you can be assured that what you've read is not an accurate description of the Baby Ann case. Here's a quote from the actual Judgement of Mr. Justice Hardiman in that very case

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/837eb16d950ee06a8025722500536f67?OpenDocument

There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.

You'll find a little more background on the Baby Ann case here:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/natural-parents-of-baby-ann-spied-upon-137140.html

Or just read the full judgment for yourself.

humanji · 06-11-2012 10:40am

goodie2shoes wrote: »

yes because our kids have ample protection as it is.
this referendum is totally uneccessary.
John Walters said so.

Stop trolling. You'll be banned if you keep it up.

SafeSurfer · 06-11-2012 11:35am

I have decided to vote no because I do not trust the state's ability to act in the best interests of children.

The state has shown its incompetence in acting in the best interests of its citizens in so many areas.

Where children are in state care this incompetence continues as reveled in the investigation into abuses at St. Patrick's institution.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1016/human-rights-of-st-pats-prisoners-violated.html

And now they want more power over the lives of citizens and families.

NO thank you.

hooradiation · 06-11-2012 11:38am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have decided to vote no because I do not trust the state's ability to act in the best interests of children.
The state has shown its incompetence in acting in the best interests of its citizens in so many areas.

Then would I be right in assuming that you would vote against any referendum by the same reasoning?

SafeSurfer · 06-11-2012 11:57am

hooradiation wrote: »

Then would I be right in assuming that you would vote against any referendum by the same reasoning?

No. I voted against the Oireachtas Investigation Referendum, but I decide my position on each proposed change to our constitution on its own merits.

totus tuus · 06-11-2012 4:36pm

It's a bad call, It's a no vote from me! :mad:

hooradiation · 06-11-2012 4:54pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. I voted against the Oireachtas Investigation Referendum, but I decide my position on each proposed change to our constitution on its own merits.

Which doesn't make sense.

If you can't vote for this referendum on the basis that "The state has shown its incompetence in acting in the best interests of its citizens in so many areas" then how could you ever vote for any change to the constitution?

Your criteria for rejecting this amendment is simply that "I believe the state has shown itself to be incompetent in the past, and therefore cannot be given any scope to change anything, because this perceived incompetence is systematic and forever"
With that attitude, there is no deciding of positions based on their merit, just a simple belief that the state is always wrong.

Which makes me wonder why the pretence that you've thought about this?

squod · 06-11-2012 6:10pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Which doesn't make sense.

If you can't vote for this referendum on the basis that "The state has shown its incompetence in acting in the best interests of its citizens in so many areas"

*face palm* The constitution is the to protect the citizen from greedy, stupid arrogant governments like this one. This government in particular aren't doing their fuhken job properly. How many times does this need to be brought up?

SafeSurfer · 06-11-2012 6:15pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Which doesn't make sense.

If you can't vote for this referendum on the basis that "The state has shown its incompetence in acting in the best interests of its citizens in so many areas" then how could you ever vote for any change to the constitution?

Your criteria for rejecting this amendment is simply that "I believe the state has shown itself to be incompetent in the past, and therefore cannot be given any scope to change anything, because this perceived incompetence is systematic and forever"
With that attitude, there is no deciding of positions based on their merit, just a simple belief that the state is always wrong.

Which makes me wonder why the pretence that you've thought about this?

Firstly, I don't like your attempt to use quotation tags around a statement that you attribute to me. Those are your words, not mine!

Secondly, there have been referendums that change the constitution to lessen the powers of the state and give competences to, for example the EU.

You assume that change in the constitution can only be made to increase the power of the state to act in an incompetent way which is not the case.

For example I would support the abolition of the senate. One less incompetent state institution gets my vote.

hooradiation · 06-11-2012 6:29pm

squod wrote: »

*face palm* The constitution is the to protect the citizen from greedy, stupid arrogant governments like this one.

It's more complex than that, but that's the simplistic version. Sure.
I mean, assuming the way you feel about the current government is some kind of objective absolute.
Which it's not.
Also, there is the little problem of that not having the slightest fucking thing to do with anything that's being talked about.
Thanks for playing.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Firstly, I don't like your attempt to use quotation tags around a statement that you attribute to me. Those are your words, not mine!

I'd apologise, but unless context is something you cannot grasp there's nothing to be sorry about.
So.. yeah. Have fun with that.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Secondly, there have been referendums that change the constitution to lessen the powers of the state and give competences to, for example the EU.

Actually, that's not technically true.
All a referendum really does is tell the government of the day to sign a treaty on our behalf. Given the idea you have that government incompetence is always and forever I'm not sure how you resolve giving the government power with the idea they must never be given power because they're eternally awful.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You assume that change in the constitution can only be made to increase the power of the state to act in an incompetent way which is not the case.

That is your assumption as you plainly said.
But it's good to see we both agree that it's nonsense.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

For example I would support the abolition of the senate. One less incompetent state institution gets my vote.

And then we're back to this again....

SafeSurfer · 06-11-2012 6:42pm

hooradiation wrote: »

It's more complex than that, but that's the simplistic version. Sure.
I mean, assuming the way you feel about the current government is some kind of objective absolute.
Which it's not.
Also, there is the little problem of that not having the slightest fucking thing to do with anything that's being talked about.
Thanks for playing.

I'd apologise, but unless context is something you cannot grasp there's nothing to be sorry about.
So.. yeah. Have fun with that.

Actually, that's not technically true.
All a referendum really does is tell the government of the day to sign a treaty on our behalf. Given the idea you have that government incompetence is always and forever I'm not sure how you resolve giving the government power with the idea they must never be given power because they're eternally awful.

That is your assumption as you plainly said.
But it's good to see we both agree that it's nonsense.

And then we're back to this again....

I understand context but why misquote? Its a common tactic to bolster a weak argument.

Nowhere did I say that government incompetence is always and forever. Again these are your words not mine. Repeatedly attributing statements to me that I did not make does not help your argument.

The constitution is a living document and it's interpretation changes. It has in built flexibility. How the wording is interpreted by the supreme court today can differ from how it may be interpreted in 50 years time. Governments appoint judges who in turn interpret the constitution.

Also you misquote me again by you referring to government incompetence. I referred to state incompetence.

hooradiation · 06-11-2012 6:57pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I understand context but why misquote? Its a common tactic to bolster a weak argument.

If you understand the context then stop pretending your offended.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Nowhere did I say that government incompetence is always and forever. Again these are your words not mine. Repeatedly attributing statements to me that I did not make does not help your argument.

This is the basis for your argument, as you laid out.
because you can't remember the words you wrote.

I have decided to vote no because I do not trust the state's ability to act in the best interests of children.
The state has shown its incompetence in acting in the best interests of its citizens in so many areas.

Now, seeing as you go on to point out that the constitution is a living document, and it's the framework for legislation, how do you then square that reality with the above?
In order for the criticism you offer to be legitimate it must always be true.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The constitution is a living document and it's interpretation changes. It has in built flexibility. How the wording is interpreted by the supreme court today can differ from how it may be interpreted in 50 years time. Governments appoint judges who in turn interpret the constitution.

If the document is flexible and the interpretations can change how does your interpretation of the past performance of the state become a reason to vote against a constitutional amendment that will, by your own admission, be open to interpretation in the future?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Also you misquote me again by you referring to government incompetence. I referred to state incompetence.

Well if complaining about "misquoting" is all you have to offer, you can just stop responding.
I won't think any less of you.

SafeSurfer · 06-11-2012 8:14pm

hooradiation wrote: »

If you understand the context then stop pretending your offended.

This is the basis for your argument, as you laid out.
because you can't remember the words you wrote.

Now, seeing as you go on to point out that the constitution is a living document, and it's the framework for legislation, how do you then square that reality with the above?
In order for the criticism you offer to be legitimate it must always be true.

If the document is flexible and the interpretations can change how does your interpretation of the past performance of the state become a reason to vote against a constitutional amendment that will, by your own admission, be open to interpretation in the future?

Well if complaining about "misquoting" is all you have to offer, you can just stop responding.
I won't think any less of you.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. You have paraphrased, misquoted and misinterpreted what I have said.

So thats your argument for voting yes?

ISDW · 06-11-2012 8:35pm

I've been a foster carer in the UK and in Ireland, and will most definitely be voting yes.

A baby can be born here and removed from their family under the current law. But, without parental consent they cannot be adopted, so, even though they will never be returned to their birth family, they will also never truly be part of another family. Their foster parents cannot give them permission to go on school trips, stay overnight with friends, etc etc etc. The children are constantly made to feel different. Why should their lives be blighted throughout their childhood? A lot of foster parents are only approved to care for children of a certain age, so the child within the care system will be moved when they no longer fall under that age bracket. To anyone who has grown up with their own family, or has raised or is raising their own family, things like permission for trips and overnight stays may seem insignificant. To a child, who has to wait for a social worker to okay everything, it really is not.

All this scaremongering about the state removing your kids - they can do that now, but of course they don't and they won't take children away from their families at the drop of a hat. Most of the time the children are actually left with dysfunctional, abusive families for too long and become damaged. Anything that actually looks after the children above abusive parents surely has to be a good thing?

Slick50 · 06-11-2012 9:13pm

ISDW wrote: »

I've been a foster carer in the UK and in Ireland, and will most definitely be voting yes.

A baby can be born here and removed from their family under the current law. But, without parental consent they cannot be adopted, so, even though they will never be returned to their birth family, they will also never truly be part of another family. Their foster parents cannot give them permission to go on school trips, stay overnight with friends, etc etc etc. The children are constantly made to feel different. Why should their lives be blighted throughout their childhood? A lot of foster parents are only approved to care for children of a certain age, so the child within the care system will be moved when they no longer fall under that age bracket. To anyone who has grown up with their own family, or has raised or is raising their own family, things like permission for trips and overnight stays may seem insignificant. To a child, who has to wait for a social worker to okay everything, it really is not.

All this scaremongering about the state removing your kids - they can do that now, but of course they don't and they won't take children away from their families at the drop of a hat. Most of the time the children are actually left with dysfunctional, abusive families for too long and become damaged.

You make some very good points, which are due to systemic failings, and can be resolved without any referendum/changes to the constitution.

ISDW wrote: »

Anything that actually looks after the children above abusive parents surely has to be a good thing?

No, not anything. What is there already does this, except where people fail in their duties, which is the biggest problem.

TheGunns · 06-11-2012 9:18pm

Is there a minimum percent of the electorate that have to vote so that the outcome is valid? Or is whatever outcome the real outcome?

Slick50 · 06-11-2012 9:25pm

TheGunns wrote: »

Is there a minimum percent of the electorate that have to vote so that the outcome is valid? Or is whatever outcome the real outcome?

It depends on a straight forward majority of those that bother to vote, unless we give the "wrong" answer.

squod · 06-11-2012 9:30pm

ISDW wrote: »

Most of the time the children are actually left with dysfunctional, abusive families for too long and become damaged.

A yes vote won't help that. A yes vote certainly won't help in cases where children challenge the state.

tan11ie · 06-11-2012 10:06pm

ISDW wrote: »

I've been a foster carer in the UK and in Ireland, and will most definitely be voting yes.

A baby can be born here and removed from their family under the current law. But, without parental consent they cannot be adopted, so, even though they will never be returned to their birth family, they will also never truly be part of another family.

Do you think foster parents will want to adopt? If they do, I wonder would they loose the €352 a week? maybe it's a good saving for the Government.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-11-2012 10:37pm

tan11ie wrote: »

Do you think foster parents will want to adopt? If they do, I wonder would they loose the €352 a week? maybe it's a good saving for the Government.

The short answer is no. There are very, very few adoptions by non-family members at this stage. The overwhelming majority of adoptions are by the "natural mother and her husband" - i.e. where a couple get married, and the wife already has a child.

This referendum won't change the fact that society has moved on - back in the 1960s, there were literally over a thousand adoptions a year. Now, it's just a handful. It's just not something people do much, anymore.

ISDW · 06-11-2012 10:50pm

tan11ie wrote: »

Do you think foster parents will want to adopt? If they do, I wonder would they loose the €352 a week? maybe it's a good saving for the Government.

Sorry, I didn't necessary mean the foster parents would adopt, I meant the child would be out of the system, and their adoptive parents could grant permissions. Although I do know a lot of foster parents who would have liked to have adopted a child in their care.

Not sure if you're intimating that people only foster for the money? Work out how much that equates to working 24 hours a day 7 days a week, including Christmas, birthdays, holidays etc. And I think that rate is only for teenagers? I know I certainly wasn't getting that much 2 years ago. Still a much cheaper option than residential care.

ISDW · 06-11-2012 10:57pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The short answer is no. There are very, very few adoptions by non-family members at this stage. The overwhelming majority of adoptions are by the "natural mother and her husband" - i.e. where a couple get married, and the wife already has a child.

This referendum won't change the fact that society has moved on - back in the 1960s, there were literally over a thousand adoptions a year. Now, it's just a handful. It's just not something people do much, anymore.

Do you not think that the reason people don't adopt is because they can't, without the permission of the birth parents?

Smidge · 06-11-2012 11:33pm

ISDW wrote: »

I've been a foster carer in the UK and in Ireland, and will most definitely be voting yes.

A baby can be born here and removed from their family under the current law. But, without parental consent they cannot be adopted, so, even though they will never be returned to their birth family, they will also never truly be part of another family. Their foster parents cannot give them permission to go on school trips, stay overnight with friends, etc etc etc. The children are constantly made to feel different. Why should their lives be blighted throughout their childhood? A lot of foster parents are only approved to care for children of a certain age, so the child within the care system will be moved when they no longer fall under that age bracket. To anyone who has grown up with their own family, or has raised or is raising their own family, things like permission for trips and overnight stays may seem insignificant. To a child, who has to wait for a social worker to okay everything, it really is not.

All this scaremongering about the state removing your kids - they can do that now, but of course they don't and they won't take children away from their families at the drop of a hat. Most of the time the children are actually left with dysfunctional, abusive families for too long and become damaged. Anything that actually looks after the children above abusive parents surely has to be a good thing?

This is an untrue statement, children in foster can do these things.
They can go on school trips, stay with friends, even go abroad with the foster family(having obtained a passport.

Okay, everything has to be cleared by the childs team and sorted out but what you have said above is,in the vast majority of your post, very disingenuous.

At least with foster care there is a chance of reunification of a child with their natural family and as you say you are a foster carer so you above all people should know that this is the sole aim of foster care.

I do not view foster care as a springboard to grant prospective adoptive couples with an offspring but exactly what it should be....
Out of home care for the child/ren until they can return to their families after a difficult time in their lives.

You also say that the children will feel "different" in foster care.

Do you think they will feel any less different having been adopted?
I think it would be a hundred times worse for the child knowing that they are NEVER going back to the family the came from.

Smidge · 06-11-2012 11:52pm

I would like everyone to take off their " yes and no hats" for a minute and answer me this(regardless of which side you are on at the minute)

If a sibling group of three children are taken into foster care and it (as it is at the minute)is deemed that these children should be under a long term care order, these children can remain with the foster family until they are 18 years of age.

These children BECOME part of the foster family and DO have security within this family group.
They are loved and nurtured.

One of the main things with foster care is to keep sibling groups together and find foster families to take this group of children into their life.

The majority of people looking to adopt are looking to adopt very young babies.

Do people really think that there are prospective adoptive parents out there that are going to take on these sibling groups???????

I can tell you they will not.

So what happens next?

These children who have been taken from their entire birth family and have found security within a foster family TOGETHER with their brothers or sisters(the last semblance of what family they have ever know) will be separated if a prospective adoptee is found.

If within this family of three children there is a 7 year old, a 2 year old and a 6 month old, that 7 year old will be left behind as his two younger and more desirably aged siblings are adopted(and they probably will go to different homes from each other as well).

So, this 7 year old loses his Mother, Nana, Grandad and then has to live with knowing that his two siblings are now gone and he has been left behind and will not have contact with them ever again.

This is supposed to be a referendum in the best interest of all children.

Can you tell me that this is in these kids best interests?

finnegan101 · 07-11-2012 12:00am

using the examples of three kids, 6 months, say 18 months and 4 years...
if the first two kids are born out of marriage, and the third ( 6 month old) born after the parents are married, and the parents are deemed not to be fit parents etc etc and kids are in care, foster or other.... at the moment doesnt it mean the three of these kids can never be adopted together... but if a yes vote goes through they could potentially all be adopted........ or am i wrong with that....

i know this is only one aspect, and a simplified take on it......

tan11ie · 07-11-2012 12:11am

ISDW wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't necessary mean the foster parents would adopt, I meant the child would be out of the system, and their adoptive parents could grant permissions. Although I do know a lot of foster parents who would have liked to have adopted a child in their care.

Not sure if you're intimating that people only foster for the money? Work out how much that equates to working 24 hours a day 7 days a week, including Christmas, birthdays, holidays etc. And I think that rate is only for teenagers? I know I certainly wasn't getting that much 2 years ago. Still a much cheaper option than residential care.

No not at all, to be honest I've spent the past 16 years around foster kids and I know it's a tough job and I'm well aware of the costs involved....my comment was in regards to the government cutting costs by trying to have kids adopted instead of fostered long term.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2012 12:20am

I agree that systemic failures were the problem children in Ireland were victimised. I can tell you though as a former victim without any shred of doubt that for these failures to be addressed people will have to be sacked from state agencies. These include gaurds and Hse workers and the fact is most Irish people are in denial about this. In light of this mass denial maybe the best I can hope for is a yes vote.

Again I'm still on the fence on this one.

K-9 · 07-11-2012 12:37am

Smidge wrote: »

You also say that the children will feel "different" in foster care.

Do you think they will feel any less different having been adopted?
I think it would be a hundred times worse for the child knowing that they are NEVER going back to the family the came from.

I'd have thought adoption is pretty final and offers finality and security to the child.

Smidge · 07-11-2012 12:51am

finnegan101 wrote: »

using the examples of three kids, 6 months, say 18 months and 4 years...
if the first two kids are born out of marriage, and the third ( 6 month old) born after the parents are married, and the parents are deemed not to be fit parents etc etc and kids are in care, foster or other.... at the moment doesnt it mean the three of these kids can never be adopted together... but if a yes vote goes through they could potentially all be adopted........ or am i wrong with that....

i know this is only one aspect, and a simplified take on it......

Current adoption law allows for the child of unmarried parents to be placed for adoption and be adopted. At present, there is no law permitting married parents to voluntarily place a child for adoption. Adoption law at present provides that orders for adoption of a child of married parents may be done in only very limited circumstances involving the effective abandonment of parental rights.

So in effect this is already possible for children of married parents who have what the state term "abandoned" the child(and the child is presumably in care)to be adopted, as above. So you above scenario means that afaik they COULD be adopted together.

But my point was, how many adoptive parents want THREE kids(who by the way, will ALL come with "serious issues". I can practically guarantee that).

When these children come into foster care even as babies, they have serious issues(some you cant even imagine and some that may not be diagnosed for years down the line after the child has been adopted)but a couple who have no children and are desperate for a family(and I am aware of this as I have friends who went through IVF)may just see a beautiful child who they could adopt from foster care.

A failed adoption(and they do happen)would be an absolute travesty for a child.

John Waters(and I have no love for him,believe me)made a point on Fontline last night(I'm just watching it now as I type and some of my previous posts points are being made by the audience:o:D) about the fostering allowance.
I have to agree with him(galls me to say so:D)that this is a cost saving measure by the government.

I can say that imo if this referendum is passed NOT ONE SINGLE EXTRA CHILD will be taken into care and away from dysfunctional families.
Think about it for Gods sake folks, the HSE haven't got the staff ffs to do that job.
So the people who think this referendum will get children out of danger are being seriously mislead.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2012 12:52am

I actually dont know anything about adoption and the reasons for it in this country, and that in part is adding to my indecision.

Slick50 · 07-11-2012 12:53am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree that systemic failures were the problem children in Ireland were victimised. I can tell you though as a former victim without any shred of doubt that for these failures to be addressed people will have to be sacked from state agencies. These include gaurds and Hse workers and the fact is most Irish people are in denial about this. In light of this mass denial maybe the best I can hope for is a yes vote.

Again I'm still on the fence on this one.

There is in incredible lack of accountability, or any consequences in so many facets of life in this country, it is disgraceful. But I don't see anything in this referendum that will resolve that.

Smidge · 07-11-2012 1:02am

K-9 wrote: »

I'd have thought adoption is pretty final and offers finality and security to the child.

I agree with you, it is 100% final.

But now with a three year time frame for the parents to prove to a court that they should keep their own children.
It does offer finality for the child of never returning home even if the parents turn their life around after 3 years and 2 months.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2012 1:03am

Slick50 wrote: »

There is in incredible lack of accountability, or any consequences in so many facets of life in this country, it is disgraceful. But I don't see anything in this referendum that will resolve that.

Indeed but what will? Maybe a yes vote will make gaurds and hse workers ignoring sex abuse vicitms less tolerable?

Annasopra · 07-11-2012 1:03am

Smidge wrote: »

I agree with you, it is 100% final.

But now with a three year time frame for the parents to prove to a court that they should keep their own children.
It does offer finality for the child of never returning home even if the parents turn their life around after 3 years and 2 months.

we're not voting to put 3 years in the constitution!!!

Smidge · 07-11-2012 1:08am

mango salsa wrote: »

we're not voting to put 3 years in the constitution!!!

The proposed amendment to the article states:

That the parents have failed in their duty towards the child for a period of time, this period to be specified in law.

This period will be three years.

Slick50 · 07-11-2012 1:09am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but what will? Maybe a yes vote will make gaurds and hse workers ignoring sex abuse vicitms less tolerable?

I don't see how! It is a completely different and far wider problem.

K-9 · 07-11-2012 1:45am

Smidge wrote: »

I agree with you, it is 100% final.

But now with a three year time frame for the parents to prove to a court that they should keep their own children.
It does offer finality for the child of never returning home even if the parents turn their life around after 3 years and 2 months.

Where are you getting this 3 years and 2 months from? Some type of link please.

K-9 · 07-11-2012 1:46am

Smidge wrote: »

This period will be three years.

Unless we've a link it's Smidge thinks it will be 3 years and tbh, that doesn't carry much weight.

Smidge · 07-11-2012 2:14am

K-9 wrote: »

Unless we've a link it's Smidge thinks it will be 3 years and tbh, that doesn't carry much weight.

My "3 years, 2 months" was to demonstrate going over the 3 year time frame.

The period is "currently" at three years and I cannot provide you with a link to that.

Why can I not provide a link to it?
Because the have not specified the time frame within the amendment.
"That the parents have failed in their duty towards to child for a period of time, this period to be specified by law"

So how do I know that its three years?
I asked.
I asked people involved with children's rights groups, a social worker and a couple of other people.
I picked up the phone.

And if you believe me or not doesn't really matter to me because it is what it is.
It's three years, and the reason the have not put the actual figure of the time frame within the amendment is so that it can be revisited at a later date without the consent of the people(they can reduce the three years if it is deemed too long)by simply getting a judge to do it as it will be "deemed by law".

Also K-9, I thought it was common knowledge that the period was three years!
It has been stated several times by both sides in the debates and in the media, I didn't think people were not aware of this!!!

childrens Referendum **poll added**

Comments

childrens Referendum poll added