Children's "rights" referendum

gizmo555

Excellent piece by John Waters in yesterday's (11/06/10) Irish Times on this - for me, this is the nub of the issue:

Advocates of this amendment rely on a loose, sentimental use of language, of which the term “children’s rights” is an example. Since children are by definition incapable of exercising such “rights” for themselves, the outcome of a constitutional change in this area is likely to be a transfer of rights from parents to the State, in effect to the Health Service Executive, an organisation with zero credibility in child-welfare matters. There is therefore nothing intrinsically or self-evidently “progressive” about this amendment.

As the father of three children, I would take serious issue with an institution which can't even keep count of the number of children who died in its care being granted any further powers to interfere in families. I'll be voting no.

Nodin

I still haven't a bogs notion as to what the point of the thing is.....

Het-Field

Nodin wrote: »

I still haven't a bogs notion as to what the point of the thing is.....

From my reading of it, it would appear to give increasing powers to the state to look after the moral and social (and probably religious) wellbeing of a Child, who is deprived of such on upbringing by incapable parenting.

The OP makes a fair point, as the state has shown itself somewhat incapable of looking after Chidlren who enter into it's care. It is similar to the argument in favour of private prisons. While people like Gary Douche end up dead in State Care, it shows that the statist option is not always the best.

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

From my reading of it, it would appear to give increasing powers to the state to look after the moral and social (and probably religious) wellbeing of a Child, who is deprived of such on upbringing by incapable parenting.

The OP makes a fair point, as the state has shown itself somewhat incapable of looking after Chidlren who enter into it's care. It is similar to the argument in favour of private prisons. While people like Gary Douche end up dead in State Care, it shows that the statist option is not always the best.

It's not a question of state vs parents, as it seems to be framed here. The point of the referendum is to allow the rights of the child to be considered independently of the rights of the family, ie acknowledge that the rights of the child are not always best served by acting on the rights of the family. This is also crucial because in Irish law, the "family" is defined as a married man and woman. As a result, children whose parents are not a heterosexual married couple are afforded far less protection by our constitution. This is effectively a form of discrimination.

In addition, the proposed amendment would allow for the rights of the child to be included in the constitution as an express right, rather than simply implied. This would have implications for the rights of children to express their opinion on judicial or administrative matters that will affect the child.

John Waters is correct that people have the right to object to it, but they had better do so with very good reason.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

It's not a question of state vs parents, as it seems to be framed here. The point of the referendum is to allow the rights of the child to be considered independently of the rights of the family, ie acknowledge that the rights of the child are not always best served by acting on the rights of the family. This is also crucial because in Irish law, the "family" is defined as a married man and woman. As a result, children whose parents are not a heterosexual married couple are afforded far less protection by our constitution. This is effectively a form of discrimination.

In addition, the proposed amendment would allow for the rights of the child to be included in the constitution as an express right, rather than simply implied. This would have implications for the rights of children to express their opinion on judicial or administrative matters that will affect the child.

John Waters is correct that people have the right to object to it, but they had better do so with very good reason.

The easiest solution is the best

why not recognise same sex couples as a family

instead of going thru this convoluted exercise of using children and giving a failed state more powers

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The easiest solution is the best

why not recognise same sex couples as a family

instead of going thru this convoluted exercise of using children and giving a failed state more powers

Because there are more types of families than just heterosexual and same sex couples.

Plus that solution would ignore the need to have children's rights to be expressly mentioned in the constitution and other necessary changes. So no it's not the case that the easiest solution is the best.

Again, this is NOT about parents vs state - an argument that Coir will no doubt be relishing in. In fact, the proposed change would oblige the state to provide better support for families so that the child's needs can be better met within the context of the family.

Iwasfrozen

taconnol wrote: »

Because there are more types of families than just heterosexual and same sex couples.

Plus that solution would ignore the need to have children's rights to be expressly mentioned in the constitution and other necessary changes. So no it's not the case that the easiest solution is the best.

Again, this is NOT about parents vs state - an argument that Coir will no doubt be relishing in. In fact, the proposed change would oblige the state to provide better support for families so that the child's needs can be better met within the context of the family.

The OP is correct though. This new legislation would give the Government the right to interfere where it is not wanted with the upbringing of the child.

That's not mentioning the increase in taxes that it will take to fund these new roles. I for one will be voting against this in the referendum.

Denerick

The family is a private institution and God help the bureaucrat who tries to interfere in the rearing of those said children, except in the case of abuse. I worry about precedents, perhaps too much. I wonder where this will leave us in 20 years time - will the State intervene if a parent forgets a dentist appointment? If a child is prevented from going to a cinema? What exactly is a child's rights? If its a matter of protecting individuals from physical or sexual abuse, that is already covered in existing legislation.

This is a stealth attack by typically interventionist nanny's with nothing better to do with their time. Leave the family alone. Keep the dead hand of the State out of its affairs as much as possible.

Macha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The OP is correct though. This new legislation would give the Government the right to interfere where it is not wanted with the upbringing of the child.

I'm pretty sure most abusers don't want the state authorities to "interfere" in the upbringing of the child in question but it isn't exactly a valid argument for the state not to get involved. As I've already said twice before, this is not about state v parents - it's about giving families the support they need to look after children within the family and allowing judges the ability to consider the rights of the child as separate to that of the rights of the family, among other things.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's not mentioning the increase in taxes that it will take to fund these new roles. I for one will be voting against this in the referendum.

Your argument for not giving children the constitutional rights and protection they need and deserve, and should have according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is that you don't want to pay for it? Jesus.

Chuchoter

Denerick wrote: »

The family is a private institution and God help the bureaucrat who tries to interfere in the rearing of those said children, except in the case of abuse. I worry about precedents, perhaps too much. I wonder where this will leave us in 20 years time - will the State intervene if a parent forgets a dentist appointment? If a child is prevented from going to a cinema? What exactly is a child's rights?go If its a matter of protecting individuals from physical or sexual abuse, that is already covered in existing legislation.

This is a stealth attack by typically interventionist nanny's with nothing better to do with their time. Leave the family alone. Keep the dead hand of the State out of its affairs as much as possible.

The current system is obviously not working and if legislation is the problem fix it. Saving children from neglect and abuse ≠ the government hunting you down for going to the cinema.

Its a real shame they didn't use this referendum to finally fix the definition of the family, then we could do away with all this civil partnership nonsense for same sex couples. There really just aren't any arguments for leaving it the way it is.

Denerick

crayolastereo wrote: »

The current system is obviously not working and if legislation is the problem fix it. Saving children from neglect and abuse ≠ the government hunting you down for going to the cinema.

Its a real shame they didn't use this referendum to finally fix the definition of the family, then we could do away with all this civil partnership nonsense for same sex couples. There really just aren't any arguments for leaving it the way it is.

The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years. Those children are now adults, and the series of reports speaking of their trauma is enough to sicken even the most iron of hearts. But amending the constitution so as to give the state greater control over the interests of the family is not the right path. How does a referendum of this manner save children from neglect and abuse? We have laws that protect children and punish abusers. I'll definately be voting against this referendum, as I said its clearly a stealth attack by do-gooders to push the states nose into where it clearly doesn't belong.

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years.

What exactly does this sentence mean? Do you think child abuse is not widespread today, or that it didn't happen earlier than 60 years ago? You are confusing the institutional abuse of the past with the reality of today, which is that the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child, ie within the context of family and friends. In fact, according to the SAVI report, 80% of abusers were known to the child. Basing our judgement and indeed our laws on the past, rather than on the present is a mistake.

Denerick wrote: »

But amending the constitution so as to give the state greater control over the interests of the family is not the right path. How does a referendum of this manner save children from neglect and abuse? We have laws that protect children and punish abusers.

Actually, under the current wording of the constitution, the state is only allowed to intervene in "in exceptional circumstances" (Art 42.5). As a result, the authorities have had to ignore or minimise the rights of the child and instead pursue the rights of the family, which may have little or no overlap.

A referendum would change this situation and bring about other changes, such as allowing the child the right to express its opinion on legal and administrative matters that concern it (not to be confused with the idea that the child gets to decide the outcome of such matters).

In particular it would make the state legally obliged to provide the sort of support so many families need today in order to ensure a safe environment for a child. The concerns expressed to the Ombudsman for Children is not about the state interfering, but about the lack of state support of families in need, for example provision of equipment for a disabled child etc.

Denerick wrote: »

I'll definately be voting against this referendum, as I said its clearly a stealth attack by do-gooders to push the states nose into where it clearly doesn't belong.

Why does the state "clearly not belong" in intervening in a case where the child's best interests are not being served?

The Corinthian

Denerick wrote: »

The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years.

Do you think that Rock 'n Roll could really be responsible for it all?

Denerick

Answer me this:

Who defines what the childs best interests are?

What will be the remit of the State in future cases?

To what extent will the state be enabled to intervene in private family matters?

If this were limited to sexual and physical abuse I'd vote for it. But knowing the way precedents work, before long governments will be passing legislation intervening in very basic, routine family matters.

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

Who defines what the childs best interests are?

Society - we live in a democracy. Regardless, the constitution will not change much what the child's best interests are considered, but rather give them primacy as a principle of law.

Denerick wrote: »

What will be the remit of the State in future cases?

The state will, among other things, be legally obliged to carry out the measures internationally recognised as best practice that currently are only enforced as guidelines. This includes actions such as the mandatory reporting of child abuse - something that many people have failed to do in the past. The lack of a law in this area helped keep the rampant child abuse of the catholic institutions secret and is why so many who knew cannot be prosecuted under Irish law.

Denerick wrote: »

To what extent will the state be enabled to intervene in private family matters?

These things are on a case-by-case scenario. When you're dealing with a document like the Constitution, we're not talking about scenarios nor specific laws. The laws to implement the principles as laid out in the Constitution will come later. But I'll try to find a more detailed response for you.

As an example, in the report into the infamous Killkenny Incest case, Catherine McGuinness (Supreme Court Judge) argued that under current laws, the strong emphasis on the rights of the family can lead to a scenario where a higher value is given to the rights of the parent than those of the child. This is not an acceptable situation.

Another example was the Baby Anna case whereby the child was given up for adoption by her biological parents. Two years later, the biological parents decided they wanted Anna back. They were advised by their lawyers to get married as this would greatly improve their chances of getting her back. They did so and as a result, and despite multiple testimonies from psychologists that Anna would suffer significant psychological trauma by being taken away from the two adults she now considered her parents, the judge concluded that under current Irish law, there was no choice but to hand her over to her biological married parents.

Denerick wrote: »

If this were limited to sexual and physical abuse I'd vote for it. But knowing the way precedents work, before long governments will be passing legislation intervening in very basic, routine family matters.

I'm afraid child abuse, and abuse in general, is not limited to sexual and physical. Moreover, the "slippery slope" argument is never a convincing one.

Het-Field

Notwithstanding the vaildity of Taconnel's rehtoric, there remains one very broad classification, which could be used over zealously, and is more then just "exceptional" circumstances. That is where my problem with this thing lies.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The OP is correct though. This new legislation would give the Government the right to interfere where it is not wanted with the upbringing of the child.

The state doesn't get involved for no reason - The state get's involved where there are problems and sometimes it is necessary to remove a child from his or here parents because the child will be better off

Cuddlytroll

Het-Field wrote: »

Notwithstanding the vaildity of Taconnel's rehtoric, there remains one very broad classification, which could be used over zealously, and is more then just "exceptional" circumstances. That is where my problem with this thing lies.

I understand that people here are getting worried about a nanny state, but I am personally very much in favour of putting children's rights first. What this means that in a situation where a child's parents believe that they don't need a life-saving blood transfusion because a few splashes of holy water will do the job then a court can look at the situation objectively and give primacy to what they consider to be in the best interests of the child. Shock stories about the State kicking the door down and dragging away children because their parents forgot to give them their vaccinations or whatever have no basis.

Annasopra

Denerick wrote: »

The vast majority of child abuse in this country took place over the last 50-60 years

Are you saying that child abuse in the home is not happening nowadays?

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The state doesn't get involved for no reason - The state get's involved where there are problems and sometimes it is necessary to remove a child from his or here parents because the child will be better off

We already have legislation in place to protect children. This new piece of legislation will do nothing to help that. Instead it will only cost the tax payer more money to fund an over-laping law. It's pointless.

Taconnol wrote:

I'm pretty sure most abusers don't want the state authorities to "interfere" in the upbringing of the child in question but it isn't exactly a valid argument for the state not to get involved. As I've already said twice before, this is not about state v parents.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I would have no problem with this legislation if it only affected known child abusers. But it doesn't, it encompasses all parents the vast majority of whom are sound, honest people. What gives the state the right to moniter these people and then charge them for it?

Taconnol wrote:

it's about giving families the support they need to look after children within the family and allowing judges the ability to consider the rights of the child as separate to that of the rights of the family, among other things.

And it's these "other things" that worries me. I'm not the paranoid type but me thinks there are ulterior motives at work. In fact you've said so yourself.

expectationlost

i wish we could get together as community to look after our kids like we used to do in the old days, ya know, 'takes a village', we get together in regional groups, we can all look after our kids, but we may need to hire people to make sure no one falls through the cracks. we'd need to pick delegates to make sure our wishes are carried out.

anything but get the state involved.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We already have legislation in place to protect children. This new piece of legislation will do nothing to help that.

This isn't legislation - We are talking about a constitutional amendment and please can you tell me how did our laws protect the children in the Kilkenny Incest case?

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

This isn't legislation - We are talking about a constitutional amendment and please can you tell me how did our laws protect the children in the Kilkenny Incest case?

I'm too young to be familier with that case and I'm not going to BS my way through somthing I know nothing about so why don't you tell me how the current legislation failed while I look up old articles.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm too young to be familier with that case and I'm not going to BS my way through somthing I know nothing about so why don't you tell me how the current legislation failed while I look up old articles.

The current legislation didn't fail - The current constitutional framework failed - That is the problem though - You don't seem to know much about the issues of whether or not a referendum (not legislation) is needed and you've already made up your mind that we don't a need a referendum

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The current legislation didn't fail - The current constitutional framework failed - That is the problem though - You don't seem to know much about the issues of whether or not a referendum (not legislation) is needed and you've already made up your mind that we don't a need a referendum

.
Definition of referendum:

dictionary.com wrote:

the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection.

Definition of legislation:

dictionary.com wrote:

the act of making or enacting laws.

Considering you can only discuss the issue by trying to undermine my knowledge of the said proposed referendum does not bode well for your campaign.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

.
Considering you can only discuss the issue by trying to undermine my knowledge of the said proposed referendum does not bode well for your campaign.

I'm not trying to undermine your knowledge - I'm trying to actually point out firstly that this is about a referendum and not legislation and secondly you seem not to be aware of any reasons why this referendum has been proposed in the first place. You seem to think that current legislation protects children adequately despite numerous groups and numerous reports suggesting otherwise


http://www.childrensrights.ie/files/ConstitutionStrengthenChildRightsBklt0610.pdf

http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.17/Ireland_ISPCC_NGO_Report.pdf

http://www.barnardos.ie/policies_and_campaigns/our-campaigns/Childrens-Rights-in-the-Constitution.html

http://www.childrensrights.ie/files/GShannon-1stRappReport1107.pdf

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I'm not trying to undermine your knowledge - I'm trying to actually point out firstly that this is about a referendum and not legislation and secondly you seem not to be aware of any reasons why this referendum has been proposed in the first place. You seem to think that current legislation protects children adequately despite numerous groups and numerous reports suggesting otherwise

But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups. I wonder how the average Joe Soap parent thinks about the states desire to intrude on how they raise their children.

expectationlost

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups.

how very dare they

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups. I wonder how the average Joe Soap parent thinks about the states desire to intrude on how they raise their children.

Why is there not a need?

Also - The Childrens rights alliance has members of many parents groups

National Association for Parent Support
National Parents Council (Post-Primary)
National Parents Council (Primary)
Mothers' Union
O.P.E.N.
One Family
Parentline

Manach

I'd also not be voting for this ammendment. The vast majority of times, as per the present article in the constitution it is the family (ie a traditional one), that decides the best welfare of the child. There was a fairly recent case that went to the Supreme court, where a health authority in Donegal was trying to impose mandatory injections against the wishes of the parents, and the parents won the case based on this wording.

Annasopra

Manach wrote: »

The vast majority of times, as per the present article in the constitution it is the family (ie a traditional one), that decides the best welfare of the child.

But the family in the Kilkenny Incest case did not and according to the SAVI report there are lots of incidences of child abuse cases going on but hey lets just brush under the carpet

Macha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I would have no problem with this legislation if it only affected known child abusers. But it doesn't, it encompasses all parents the vast majority of whom are sound, honest people. What gives the state the right to moniter these people and then charge them for it?

You seem to think that this world is black and white. On the one hand you have abusers and on the other you have "sound, honest people". If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that 80% of abusers are known to the children, ie they are a relative or close family friend.

We see this myth in rape as well, that it's the stranger hiding in the bushes that will rape you - no, it's your uncle, cousin, father, parent's old school friend in the vast majority of cases.

If you are not abusing your child, how exactly will this change affect you, as you claim above?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And it's these "other things" that worries me. I'm not the paranoid type but me thinks there are ulterior motives at work. In fact you've said so yourself.

Er..where exactly did I say that?

Manach wrote: »

I'd also not be voting for this ammendment. The vast majority of times, as per the present article in the constitution it is the family (ie a traditional one), that decides the best welfare of the child. There was a fairly recent case that went to the Supreme court, where a health authority in Donegal was trying to impose mandatory injections against the wishes of the parents, and the parents won the case based on this wording.

Do you understand why it is not always the case that the family, that may or may not be a traditional one, has the best interests of the child at heart? Is that scenario so impossible for you to conceptualise? And you're going against this because you consider the right of parents to refuse their children vital vaccines more important?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But there isn't a need for the protection of children to be placed in the constitution and current legislation does protect children adequately.

Explain why you think there isn't a need for it to be placed in the constitution when the childrens rights organisations AND parents organisations believe there is.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is interesting that those pushing for the referendum are all childrens rights interest groups. I wonder how the average Joe Soap parent thinks about the states desire to intrude on how they raise their children.

Wow, yes fancy that. Hmm...it must be some conspiracy on their part to strengthen children's' rights!

And this world is full of people who claim to know and speak on behalf of "the average Joe Soap". What do you think?

gizmo555

taconnol wrote: »

Explain why you think there isn't a need for it to be placed in the constitution when the childrens rights organisations AND parents organisations believe there is.

No wonder busybody organisations like these are so keen on a constitutional amendment on children's rights. I'm sure they see a great role for themselves in enforcing them.

In the meantime, you can search in vain on the ISPCC website for any hint of an apology for the part the ISPCC played in having thousands of children committed to industrial schools. Here's what Frank Duff of the Legion of Mary (hardly a social radical!) had to say about them in 1941:

I profoundly distrust every word and action of one of the Society’s Inspectors, Mrs XX. I go further and I say that I regard her as a danger. She is quite capable (by which I mean that she has already done it) of distorting facts to suit any point of view she is trying to make. She exercised an ascendancy over ex-Justice YY, and between them they simply shovelled children into Industrial Schools. I consider that no proper attempt is made by the Society to restore a home or keep a home together. This was the view held by Fr. Tom Ryan, SJ who before his transfer to Hong Kong took a keen interest in juvenile delinquency and practically lived in the Courts. He gave it to me as his considered judgment based on his long and detailed observation that the Charter of the Society for the PCC should be withdrawn, that the Society constituted a public menace.

(The above passage is extracted from the Ryan Report, which the ISPCC had the neck to come out and mark the 1st anniversary of last month, without ever acknowledging its role in commiting kids to the likes of Letterfrack.)

Macha

gizmo555 wrote: »

No wonder busybody organisations like these are so keen on a constitutional amendment on children's rights. I'm sure they see a great role for themselves in enforcing them.

Generally state laws are enforced by state agencies. I really don't know where you're getting this stuff from.

gizmo555 wrote: »

In the meantime, you can search in vain on the ISPCC website for any hint of an apology for the part the ISPCC played in having thousands of children committed to industrial schools. Here's what Frank Duff of the Legion of Mary (hardly a social radical!) had to say about them in 1941:

What exactly does this have to do with the current proposed amendement to the constitution? Please explain exactly what the connection is.

Iwasfrozen

taconnol wrote: »

You seem to think that this world is black and white. On the one hand you have abusers and on the other you have "sound, honest people". If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that 80% of abusers are known to the children, ie they are a relative or close family friend.

Child abuse is currently illegal. It will remain illegal if the referendum does not pass.

taconnol wrote: »

We see this myth in rape as well, that it's the stranger hiding in the bushes that will rape you - no, it's your uncle, cousin, father, parent's old school friend in the vast majority of cases.

Again, rape is currently illegal. This referendum will not change it's status.

taconnol wrote: »

If you are not abusing your child, how exactly will this change affect you, as you claim above?

It takes away responsibility to look after the child from the parent and gives this responsibility to the government. A faceless man in a suit should not and can not know what is better for the child.

taconnol wrote: »

Wow, yes fancy that. Hmm...it must be some conspiracy on their part to strengthen children's' rights!

Or to interfere in the up-bringing of the child where they are not wanted. As well as ballon the public service futher. Oh and while they are at it make people pay for the privilage through raised taxes.

Thanks but I'd rather not pay to have rights removed from me. Parents know what is best for their children. Not the government.

taconnol wrote: »

And this world is full of people who claim to know and speak on behalf of "the average Joe Soap". What do you think?

I've already made clear that I will be voting against it.

By the way. Do you have the actual wording that will be put into the constitution? It would be interesting to read it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Does anyone have a link explaining what the proposed changes will be and what they will do?

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Child abuse is currently illegal. It will remain illegal if the referendum does not pass.

Yes it is illegal but because of the current constitutional framework it is very difficult within families for the state instititutions to intervene where necessary e.g. - The Kilkenny Incest Case - Do you think that the laws offered enough protection to those children in Kilkenny? Or do you think that the judge who made her report suggesting that constitutional structures hampered state intervention was wrong?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again, rape is currently illegal. This referendum will not change it's status.

Agreed

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It takes away responsibility to look after the child from the parent and gives this responsibility to the government. A faceless man in a suit should not and can not know what is better for the child.

In cases where there is problems such as abuse a qualified male or female social worker does actually know what is better for the child and as pointed out earlier the SAVI report illustrates that there is a lot of ongoing abuse within families

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Or to interfere in the up-bringing of the child where they are not wanted. As well as ballon the public service futher. Oh and while they are at it make people pay for the privilage through raised taxes.

- This is nothing whatsoever to do with interfering - The Oireachtas committee very expressly reccomend "that a revised Article 42 be introduced into the Constitution to replace the current Article 42 and that this provision contain within it an express recognition of children’s rights while also expressly recognising that the primary and natural carers, educators and protectors of the welfare of a child are the child’s parents." -

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Thanks but I'd rather not pay to have rights removed from me. Parents know what is best for their children. Not the government.

ALL parents do not know what is best for their children - Parents who are drug addicts or alcoholics or abusers do not always know what is best for their children. The parents in Kilkenny did not what was best for their children. Sophia McColgans parents did not know what was best for her.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I've already made clear that I will be voting against it.

By the way. Do you have the actual wording that will be put into the constitution? It would be interesting to read it.

It seems very a very irrational decision to me that you have made to vote against this because from what I've seen you don't know any of the reasons as to why it was proposed in the first place and you don't know what is even in the referendum. As well as that your stance copperfastens the ability for abusive cases such as the Kilkenny Incest case to take place once again

Annasopra

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Does anyone have a link explaining what the proposed changes will be and what they will do?

The wording is in this report

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-conamendchildren/reports_2008/20100218.pdf

gizmo555

taconnol wrote: »

What exactly does this have to do with the current proposed amendement to the constitution? Please explain exactly what the connection is.

You posed this question to another poster:

taconnol wrote: »

Explain why you think there isn't a need for it to be placed in the constitution when the childrens rights organisations AND parents organisations believe there is.

My answer in respect of the ISPCC, one of the main children's rights organisations in the country and which has been central to the campaign for the amendment, is that it has no credibility and won't have until it acknowledges and apologises for its own past culpability in serious child abuse.

The Ryan report detailed falsification of committal papers by ISPCC inspectors, allegations that they sought bribes from industrial schools to commit children to them, and found as a fact that inspectors were seeking and receiving "expenses" payments for bringing children to industrial schools in contravention of the ISPCC's own rules.

The ISPCC told Ryan that gaps in its records meant it could not quantify the number of children it had committed to the industrial schools, but Ryan made these points:

Of note, is the fact that many of the witnesses who testified to the Investigation Committee concerning their time in Industrials Schools were committed by the NSPCC /ISPCC. A total of 15 Industrial Schools were investigated by the Investigation Committee. A total of 226 complainants testified about their time in these Industrial Schools. 84 of the 226 witnesses had been referred to these Industrial Schools by the NSPCC/ISPCC, which equates to 37 per cent or over one-third of the total number of complainants heard in respect of the 15 Industrial Schools.

As for parents organisations - the main one I know of, because its spokespeople turn up in the media from time and it has statutory recognition under the Education Acts, is the National Parents Council. I'm sure they're good people acting in good faith, but while I know many parents I don't know any that have anything to do with this organisation. They only have branches in 14 counties. In 2008, the NPC had a mere 1,111 members nationwide (and just 33 in Mayo, where I live), while primary school pupils numbered around half a million. To sum up, they are not representative of parents generally and they certainly don't represent me. In that context, their views on the amendment don't warrant any special regard.

Annasopra

So effectively Gizmo you are supporting the status quo and this means that cases like the Kilkenny Incest case can still happen because our current constitutional framework is inadequate

gizmo555

Rape and incest are serious crimes and were at the time of the Kilkenny incest case. There was and is no constitutional bar to state intervention where a child is being abused or neglected.

Macha

gizmo555 wrote: »

Rape and incest are serious crimes and were at the time of the Kilkenny incest case. There was and is no constitutional bar to state intervention where a child is being abused or neglected.

That is not entirely true. Are you happy with having the situation where the Kilkenny case could happen again? Please stop insinuating that rape and incest are the only forms of abuse a child can experience - this is wrong.

Your above post on the ISPCC in no way negates the need for this legislation. There are many, many childrens rights organisations, including Barndardos, One Foundation and the Childrens Rights Alliance that are in favour of this amendment. The Ombudsman for Children has also advised on the need for this amendment.

gizmo555

taconnol wrote: »

So you are happy with having the situation where the Kilkenny case could happen again?

You're putting words in my mouth. Of course I would not be "happy" to see another Kilkenny incest case, but I don't accept your premise that the proposed constitutional amendment would prevent one.

taconnol wrote: »

Your above post on the ISPCC in no way negates the need for this legislation. There are many, many childrens rights organisations, including Barndardos, One Foundation and the Childrens Rights Alliance that are in favour of this amendment. The Ombudsman for Children has also advised on the need for this amendment.

They have their opinions, I have mine.

Banned Account

Is the crux of the issue not the fact that in Ireland, under our current constitution, children have no rights outside those that accrue by virtue of being part of a family and that the family, in the eyes of the constitution is based on marriage.

Therefore, there is no space to consider the rights of children in isolation. The proposed ammendments are aimed at given direct and solid rights to the child as an individual.

Legislation will not work unless the constitution is changed to reflect this, otherwise any proposed legislation would just be struck down as being unconstitutional.

Macha

gizmo555 wrote: »

You're putting words in my mouth. Of course I would not be "happy" to see another Kilkenny incest case, but I don't accept your premise that the proposed constitutional amendment would prevent one.

This despite the Kilkenny Report clearly showing that:

the very high emphasis on the rights of the family in the Constitution may consciously, or unconsciously, be interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights of parents than to the rights of children.

And that the Report recommended an explicit declaration of the rights of the child in the Constitution.

You haven't explained why you don't think such a constitutional amendment would not help prevent one.

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

It's not a question of state vs parents, as it seems to be framed here. The point of the referendum is to allow the rights of the child to be considered independently of the rights of the family, ie acknowledge that the rights of the child are not always best served by acting on the rights of the family.

At present, a child has a full set of personal rights as has been recognised many times by law. The child's rights can be considered independently of the family, but there is a strong presumption in favour of the family. Arguably what this referendum really does (in addition to criminal law changes which are inappropriate in my view) is remove this presumption in favour of the natural family. I'm not sure that this is necessarily a good thing. For example, should a court really decide that a child who is 51% better off in state care and 49% better off in his or her family should be placed in state care on such a tight margin?

taconnol wrote: »

This is also crucial because in Irish law, the "family" is defined as a married man and woman. As a result, children whose parents are not a heterosexual married couple are afforded far less protection by our constitution. This is effectively a form of discrimination.

I agree that the absence of recognition of the de facto family is a bad thing in Ireland, but this referendum will not remedy that. Instead, they should be seeking to change the definition of a family in art 41

johnnyskeleton

taconnol wrote: »

Actually, under the current wording of the constitution, the state is only allowed to intervene in "in exceptional circumstances" (Art 42.5). As a result, the authorities have had to ignore or minimise the rights of the child and instead pursue the rights of the family, which may have little or no overlap.

Is that not fair enough though? Should the state intervene in unexceptional circumstances? Abuse and serious neglect will always be exceptional circumstances.

This issue arose in the Baby Ann case. The media portrayed that case as being the nasty, stuffy supreme court choosing the neglectful natural family to the detriment of the child's rights. However, the reality is that the Supreme Court held that, although there were factors suggesting that it might cause immediate trauma to the child to be returned to her natural parents, there was not sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that her best interests would be served living with her natural family.

This may be hard to swallow, but the alternative is having judges playing god, having to decide what is best for a child on often scant evidence. At least the presumption in favour of the natural family gives guideance to judges.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

At present, a child has a full set of personal rights as has been recognised many times by law. The child's rights can be considered independently of the family, but there is a strong presumption in favour of the family.

That is incorrect. Some childrens rights are recognised independently of the family but other cannot and are assumed to be best served by protecting the rights of the family.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Arguably what this referendum really does (in addition to criminal law changes which are inappropriate in my view) is remove this presumption in favour of the natural family. I'm not sure that this is necessarily a good thing. For example, should a court really decide that a child who is 51% better off in state care and 49% better off in his or her family should be placed in state care on such a tight margin?

I'm not sure where you got those percentages from or how that logic would even apply to a real-life situation. But it has been proven that the assumption that the child's rights are automatically best served within the context of the family have been shown repeatedly to be false in many tragic cases.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I agree that the absence of recognition of the de facto family is a bad thing in Ireland, but this referendum will not remedy that. Instead, they should be seeking to change the definition of a family in art 41

No, this referendum is seeking to bring about a number of necessary changes, not just the importance of childrens rights being considered equal to those of their parents. It also allows for the collection of soft information on suspected child abusers and reinforce the state's obligation to provide supports for children and families.

Macha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is that not fair enough though? Should the state intervene in unexceptional circumstances? Abuse and serious neglect will always be exceptional circumstances.

Unfortunately, child abuse in Ireland is no longer exceptional.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This issue arose in the Baby Ann case. The media portrayed that case as being the nasty, stuffy supreme court choosing the neglectful natural family to the detriment of the child's rights. However, the reality is that the Supreme Court held that, although there were factors suggesting that it might cause immediate trauma to the child to be returned to her natural parents, there was not sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that her best interests would be served living with her natural family.

I would argue that your reading of the judgement is incorrect. The judges received numerous testimonies from psychologists stating that the child would suffer significant psychological trauma by being taken away from her foster parents. It was the fact that her parents were married and the constitutional presumption that her best interests would be therefore served by living with them that resulted in the decision.

Moreover, under the Constitution as it is currently worded, it is legally impossible to adopt a child whose parents are married. Once Baby Ann's parents were legally married, it was completely impossible for the Baby Ann's foster parents to fully adopt her.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This may be hard to swallow, but the alternative is having judges playing god, having to decide what is best for a child on often scant evidence. At least the presumption in favour of the natural family gives guideance to judges.

Having these cases reviewed by social welfare specialists is far better than just blindly assuming that the biological parents is always best.

conorhal

Cuddlytroll wrote: »

I understand that people here are getting worried about a nanny state, but I am personally very much in favour of putting children's rights first. What this means that in a situation where a child's parents believe that they don't need a life-saving blood transfusion because a few splashes of holy water will do the job then a court can look at the situation objectively and give primacy to what they consider to be in the best interests of the child. Shock stories about the State kicking the door down and dragging away children because their parents forgot to give them their vaccinations or whatever have no basis.

That is already the case in situations were an adult refuses treatment, let alone a minor, a hospital will have a court order within the hour entitling them to transfuse a patient against their will if needs be, the same applies to a dependent child.

My issue with this legislation is that it's yet another Irish solution to an Irish problem, a legislative band aid that allow politicians to say, "see, we are concerned about child protection, we've passed some legislation!".

In this country, we're very fond of passing legislation and calling it a solution, then promptly forgetting about it as soon as the ink dries on a bill.
It's far easier to pass a bill then it is to adequately fund child services , ensure that there is out of hours support for at risk children or insure that the HSE has a coherent and practical approach to care.

As far as I can tell, not one single case that has been highlighted would have been resolved by more legislation, but rather by the application of existing laws backed by effective resources. It won't matter a damn what rights you assign to a child if there isn't a bed in a care unit or, a case worker to assign or a foster family available to provide emergency care. It ends up like the prison system, endless laws that cannot be applied because a full third of prisoners that walk in the door of mountjoy walk back out on early release the second that they have been processed.

Macha

conorhal wrote: »

That is already the case in situations were an adult refuses treatment, let alone a minor, a hospital will have a court order within the hour entitling them to transfuse a patient against their will if needs be, the same applies to a dependent child.

This is a very grey legal area in Ireland. The Supreme Court ruled that according to the 1991 Child Care Act, parents cannot be considered to have failed in their duty to their children in this regard and therefore it does not go against the Irish Constitution to allow a parent to refuse a blood transfusion for their child, even if it means the child will die. To get around this, judges have had to make the children in question a ward of the court - a legal loophole as such.

I don't know about you but I don't consider religion a reason to allow a child to die, undergo genital mutilation or any other physical harm. So I personally have zero problem with parents being refused the right to make such decisions under the proposed amendment.

conorhal wrote: »

My issue with this legislation is that it's yet another Irish solution to an Irish problem, a legislative band aid that allow politicians to say, "see, we are concerned about child protection, we've passed some legislation!".

In this country, we're very fond of passing legislation and calling it a solution, then promptly forgetting about it as soon as the ink dries on a bill.

Actually, this constitutional amendment is the exact opposite of what you describe above. In so many areas, politicians pass ad hoc, knee-jerk, reactionary legislation and what we need instead is a proper principle of the rights of children in the constitution - exactly what the proposed amendment is about.

The legislation comes afterwards.

conorhal wrote: »

It's far easier to pass a bill then it is to adequately fund child services , ensure that there is out of hours support for at risk children or insure that the HSE has a coherent and practical approach to care.

Yes and under the current situation, there are many services that the HSE is not legally obliged to offer, or guidelines that are just that - guidelines - because there is no constitutional or legal obligation for them to fulfill these duties. Again, it comes back to a constitutional statement of the rights of children which would in turn create a legal impetus for the state to provide the best services and supports for children and families.

conorhal wrote: »

As far as I can tell, not one single case that has been highlighted would have been resolved by more legislation, but rather by the application of existing laws backed by effective resources. It won't matter a damn what rights you assign to a child if there isn't a bed in a care unit or, a case worker to assign or a foster family available to provide emergency care. It ends up like the prison system, endless laws that cannot be applied because a full third of prisoners that walk in the door of mountjoy walk back out on early release the second that they have been processed.

I'm sorry but this is wrong. I've clearly stated a number of examples, along with quotes from Supreme Court Judges, including the general legal framework within which the HSE operates that would all benefit from a proper constitutional standing for the rights of children.