What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

monument wrote: »

I've made my point.

Well, you've made a post, certainly.

I think the point is the continued absence of any positive reason for voting in favour of this amendment.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the point is the continued absence of any positive reason for voting in favour of this amendment.

I'm curious about this line of argument. Is it the case that you have no reasons for voting against the amendment other than superfluity, and therefore would vote in favour of it if given one good reason to do so?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious about this line of argument. Is it the case that you have no reasons for voting against the amendment other than superfluity, and therefore would vote in favour of it if given one good reason to do so?

Just so's we don't end up misunderstanding each other, I'm not saying

if (amendmentProposal.getAnyOldReason() == true ) voter.castVote("Yes");

Any change in a legal wording is disruptive; so there has to be some substantial problem before an amendment is contemplated, as any change must raise some doubt over cases based on the earlier wording . I suspect this proposal falls at this first hurdle - that there isn't a substantial problem that requires a new wording. The Constitution already allows the Courts to take a decent and humane approach to cases where parents need to be overruled and even excluded.

If an issue gets past that hurdle, there is still an issue with the impact of any measure. We're balancing rights - it's not that some absolute can be established to cater for one situation that will have no impact on anything else. For example, consider that case of the adult Jehovah's Witness forced to have a blood transfusion

http://www.independent.ie/health/jehovahs-witness-forced-to-have-lifesaving-transfusion-79512.html
Judge Abbott said there was a risk to the life of the mother and an imminent threat to the genuine welfare of the child and he felt the court could and should intervene in such circumstances. "The interests of that child is paramount in this situation," he said. <….> The Irish courts have previously made similar orders in respect of children whose parents have refused blood transfusions on their behalf, but this is the first time the High Court has made such an order against an adult who is refusing treatment. <….> The Association of Irish Humanists branded the ruling a dangerous precedent. "It is incredible that the decision of a mature adult can be overruled in this way, said its vice-chairman, Dick Spicer. "They are treating her like a child, individual choice has been extinguished."

As can be seen here, the rights of the child (incidently, based on the present wording in the Constitution) outweigh the rights of the mother to refuse medical treatment for herself, let alone her child, on religious grounds.

That's the kind of issue that is in play. It's not just a straight "Yes" or "No", even though ultimately we have to vote one way or another. The question to be answered (for a proposal that gets over the first hurdle) is whether whatever good is achieved is outweighed by whatever damage the change will inflict.

Now, all of the foregoing (apart from my passing reminder that the case cited above is based on our present Constitution) is just to set out the context, as I see it, that needs to be addressed when amending the Constitution in any respect. I've already stated some specifics about the concerns I have with this particular proposal.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As can be seen here, the rights of the child (incidently, based on the present wording in the Constitution) outweigh the rights of the mother to refuse medical treatment for herself, let alone her child, on religious grounds.

That's a straw man. A clever straw man, but a man of straw nonetheless.

The High Court doesn't interpret the Constitution. A decision made by a High Court judge isn't indicative of the meaning of the present wording of the constitution. The judge in the case you've cited did what he felt was the right thing to do - he didn't cite any constitutional provisions (that I can see) to justify his decision. The nature of the case precluded a timely appeal, but I'd be fairly confident that the SC would have overruled him.

I'm also far from convinced that the proposed amendment would have any impact on the SC's reasoning in any similar case in the future.

That's the kind of issue that is in play. It's not just a straight "Yes" or "No", even though ultimately we have to vote one way or another. The question to be answered (for a proposal that gets over the first hurdle) is whether whatever good is achieved is outweighed by whatever damage the change will inflict.

Well, yes. And if you want to convince people to vote against the referendum, you need to be outlining the damage you believe will be inflicted by passing it. That was my earlier point.

I've already stated some specifics about the concerns I have with this particular proposal.

Can you point to them? I don't recall seeing them.

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

The High Court doesn't interpret the Constitution.

Art 34.3.

1° The Courts of First Instance shall include a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal.

2° Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised (whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High Court or the Supreme Court.

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

Art 34.3.

1° The Courts of First Instance shall include a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal.

2° Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised (whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High Court or the Supreme Court.

I stand corrected, thank you.

I still don't believe the judge in that case was interpreting the constitutionality of a law, or invoking a provision of the Constitution to justify his decision, so I believe my point stands.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

The judge in the case you've cited did what he felt was the right thing to do - he didn't cite any constitutional provisions (that I can see) to justify his decision.

[You do know that the Constitution recognises the existence of "natural" rights?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/pagecurrent/D5F78352A387D74480257315005A419E?opendocument&l=en

Article 40 provides that all citizens are to be held equal before the law and obliges the State to vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. The term "personal rights", as interpreted by the courts, has led to the recognition and vindication of many rights not expressly provided for in the text of the Constitution.

I’m not saying (because I don’t know) if that was part of the Judge’s consideration; I’m just pointing out that your statements don’t display a grasp of the context.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The nature of the case precluded a timely appeal, but I'd be fairly confident that the SC would have overruled him.

I’m glad that the Supreme Court have taken you into their confidence on this point. However, can you give any comfort to the rest of us that your expertise in legal matters is such that we shouldn’t just dismiss your statement as wishful thinking?

Do bear in mind that, from our perspective, you are the guy who, up to a few minutes ago, was emphatic that the High Court can't interpret the Constitution.We're now expected to accept your insight into how the Supreme Court approaches cases? When you also don't seem to appreciate that the Courts deem the Constitution to recognise unenumerated rights?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm also far from convinced that the proposed amendment would have any impact on the SC's reasoning in any similar case in the future.

What I am saying (and what is simply true) is that changing any wording in the Constitution introduces a doubt into previous case law. All of the cases thus far become moot, as they have to be qualified by the statement "But that was under the old wording; the new wording hasn’t been tested yet".

This is simply a fact.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. And if you want to convince people to vote against the referendum, you need to be outlining the damage you believe will be inflicted by passing it. That was my earlier point.

Unfortunately, my key point seems to be getting lost there. My mistake was probably giving too much comment on how, generally, proposals to amend the Constitution should be approached. I’ll try not to repeat the error.

The discussion of harm only arises once a serious problem has been identified. My point is that the case for this amendment fails at the first hurdle – no-one has identified any serious problem, such that prevents the Courts from promoting the welfare of children.

Can you state what problem this amendment is supposed to be curing? If not, no further discussion is needed.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You do know that the Constitution recognises the existence of "natural" rights?

Yes. That's relevant, how?

I’m not saying (because I don’t know) if that was part of the Judge’s consideration; I’m just pointing out that your statements don’t display a grasp of the context.

So you're not claiming to know the context of the judge's decision, but you're berating me for not knowing the context of the judge's decision?

I’m glad that the Supreme Court have taken you into their confidence on this point.

I don't recall claiming that they did, but if you feel that misrepresenting my position is the best way to argue yours, feel free.

Do bear in mind that, from our perspective, you are the guy who, up to a few minutes ago, was emphatic that the High Court can't interpret the Constitution.We're now expected to accept your insight into how the Supreme Court approaches cases?

I've accepted that I was wrong about that, and I haven't asked you to accept anything. You claimed that the High Court judge's decision was based on an interpretation of an unenumerated constitutional right; you've also dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court might have taken a contrary view. Both these assertions seem to me to be based on nothing other than confirmation bias.

Can you state what problem this amendment is supposed to be curing?

It seems to be required for us to fully implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems to be required for us to fully implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Seems to whom to be required? How is it that no similar amendment was needed, for example, to fully implement the European Convention on Human Rights? (This was done by way of an act of the Oireachtas.)

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

Seems to whom to be required?

To the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

http://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/IRLCONCOBS_0.pdf

gizmo555

The document linked to merely "recommends" that the Convention's right of children to be heard in matters affecting them be reflected in the Constitution. It certainly doesn't state that constitutional change is required and in any case the amendment as proposed goes far beyond this specific point.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're not claiming to know the context of the judge's decision, but you're berating me for not knowing the context of the judge's decision?

I’m not claiming to know the precise basis on which the Judge took that decision. I am demonstrating a grasp of the context. I am stating – which is evident – that you don’t know the context in which such decisions are taken.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've accepted that I was wrong about that …

but you haven’t considered:
a) that this must impact on your bald “strawman” statement
b) that it reveals you know damn all about the Courts, and should stop posted as if you had some appreciation of how the Supreme Court might view an issue.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You claimed that the High Court judge's decision was based on an interpretation of an unenumerated constitutional right; you've also dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court might have taken a contrary view.

I’ve done neither. I’ve actually said “I’m not saying (because I don’t know) if that was part of the Judge’s consideration”

I haven’t said anything at all about what view the Supreme Court might have taken. I’ve just dismissed your capacity to make any comment in that respect, because of your demonstrated lack of basic knowledge of the legal system.

Look, if you’ve already made up your mind to vote “Yes”, that’s fine. Further discussion here is probably pointless. All that might be achieved by this thread is to demonstrate how the “Yes” side haven’t produced any real case for change.

You’d think we were amending the Constitution because there was something we needed to change. Apparently, that’s no longer a requirement.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gizmo555 wrote: »

The document linked to merely "recommends" that the Convention's right of children to be heard in matters affecting them be reflected in the Constitution. It certainly doesn't state that constitutional change is required and in any case the amendment as proposed goes far beyond this specific point.

Spot on. It absolutely isn’t raising any Constitutional impediment.

And no wonder. Iran and Saudi Arabia would purport to have signed up to the Convention. I’d be curious to see what the UN say about the implementation in those countries, in particular as regards gender.

oscarBravo

I can see this is going to be one of those tiresome Internet discussions where someone claims that there are absolutely no arguments whatsoever that could possibly be made in favour of something; someone rebuts that with an argument in favour of it; and the first party reiterates that that argument isn't one they agree with and therefore there are still absolutely no arguments in favour.

More than 90 member organisations of the Children's Rights Alliance feel that we need an amendment to the Constitution. Almost every political party feels that we need an amendment to the Constitution. Respected figures in the judiciary feel that we need an amendment to the Constitution. The United Nations feel that we need an amendment to the Constitution.

Call it an argument from authority if you will, but if you're going to claim that all of the above are wrong, you're going to have to come up with some actual arguments against them.

Boulevardier

I don't normally accept arguments from authority, and I did not do so on Lisbon, but in this case I am inclined to do so.

Either the bodies calling for a yes vote are part of a conspiracy to undermine the family or they reaally believe the amendment is necessary, in which case the question arises of whether they are all mistaken.

GCU, could you recap your reasons for why we should vote no?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

Call it an argument from authority if you will, but if you're going to claim that all of the above are wrong, you're going to have to come up with some actual arguments against them.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Either the bodies calling for a yes vote are part of a conspiracy to undermine the family or they reaally believe the amendment is necessary, in which case the question arises of whether they are all mistaken.

You've absolutely anticipated my response. A few years ago, I'd have accepted an appeal to authority if you'd said to me that the Central Bank, the IMF and Standard & Poors were all agreed that our banks were financially strong and capable of riding out a severe downturn. And that would have been an appeal to a deeper and wider pool of expertise than the "Children's Rights Alliance".

I think the best I can do is to say again that my position is that the Constitution, as it stands and as found in caselaw, sets the right balance of rights. My basis for saying that is my comfort with the decisions that have been reached in the Baby Ann case etc. I will give a brief run-down of why I think the Children's Rights Alliance (just to pick them as an example of Yes advocates) do not convince me that there is a need for change with the reasons they put forward at the link below; I'd appreciate if folk address the substantive points I'm making and not nitpick as I'm trying to make a helpful contribution quickly without posting a minor novel.

http://www.yesforchildren.ie/getinformed/voteyes.html

1. It will provide the highest level of legal protection to vulnerable children and their families.

This point is frequently justified by claiming the constitution requires that it be proven that married parents have "failed" before the State can intervene. But, actually, the Courts do overrule Jehovah's Witnesses to allow transfusions for their children, while accepting that the same parents are diligent and are not failing.


2. It will allow the almost 2000 [edit:marital] children trapped in long term state care to be adopted and given a second chance at having a loving stable family.

Adoption of non-family members is quite rare nowadays, so this reason is a complete red herring - the overwelming majority of non-marital children are not adopted either. I'd expect the Children's Rights Alliance would be composed of people who jolly well know this, making this argument particularly cynical and manipulative.

3. This referendum is a statement of intent - it says who we are as a country and how we value children - for too long children have been seen and not heard and their welfare ignored.

Firstly, the Constitution is not an advertising hoarding and should not be used as such. Secondly, the historical problem had nothing to do with Constitutional failings blocking State intervention. The wide-scale abuse of children in State-funded institutions was, lets recall, about the abuse of children already in State care.

4. This referendum will ensure the best interest of children is the primary concern in judicial decisions.

The cases normally cited on this point (I don't know if the CRA use them - but others certainly have) are the PKU case and the Baby Ann case. The PKU case requires doctors to obtain consent from rational parents when administering routine medical treatment to children. That strikes me as a necessary check in the system. Doctors cannot just force whatever treatment they like on adults; there has to be some equivalent for children, and the parents (if rational, as they are in the overwhelming majority of cases) seem an obvious choice. As per Jehovah's Witness, it's already clear that even rational, caring parents can be overruled if they make gonzo decisions.

Baby Ann required the return of a two year old child, put up for adoption, to her natural parents. It would strike me as grotesque if the State refused the return of a child to her natural parents; picture yourself explaining to that same child, twenty years later, that she could have been raised by her real parents.

If the intention of the CRA, or anyone else, is for an amendment that reverses either the PKU or Baby Ann cases, I'm simply opposed in principle to that.

This is the best I can do - and, in truth, would you want me to write an even longer post? All I'd hope is that, at least, someone might see something in there to suggest that an appeal to authority is not enough on this matter.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All I'd hope is that, at least, someone might see something in there to suggest that an appeal to authority is not enough on this matter.

I wouldn't claim that an appeal to authority is sufficient, but your core argument thus far has been that there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for an amendment to the constitution, and that the most compelling argument for rejecting the proposed amendment is the total absence of any argument in favour of it.

If I were to accept this at face value, I'm required to take your word for it that the 100-odd members of the CRA - including Barnardos, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Educate Together, ICTU, the ICCL, the National Parents Councils, One In Four, the SVP, the ISPCC and UNICEF - are all collectively mistaken about the desirability of an amendment to the Constitution.

As you've pointed out, it's possible for a consensus to be wrong. Pointing out the possibility of error doesn't an error make, however, and if you're going to convince people that such a wide-ranging group of organisations are completely wrong, you'll have to demonstrate some fatal flaws in their reasoning. Merely disagreeing with them isn't particularly persuasive.

If there are errors of logic, or indeed of law, in their policy document, perhaps you could point them out.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

As you've pointed out, it's possible for a consensus to be wrong. Pointing out the possibility of error doesn't an error make, however, and if you're going to convince people that such a wide-ranging group of organisations are completely wrong, you'll have to demonstrate some fatal flaws in their reasoning. Merely disagreeing with them isn't particularly persuasive.

I'll certainly read their document, and come back with any reaction.

However, I would point out that I've just made a reasonably lengthy post commenting on the four key reasons that they set out in support of a Yes vote. So I don't think it's especially fair for you to suggest that I'm "merely disagreeing with them".

For instance, I am pointing out that their claim that 2,000 marital children would find adoption suddenly becoming an option is cynical and manipulative in a context where, as the CRA must surely know, there are very few adoptions of non-family members in this day and age. There is no possibility whatsoever of any Constitutional block on the adoption of non-marital children - which has been legally provided for since the 1950s, when it probably fit in more with the culture.

Just how lengthy a post do you expect, and how much detail in the refutation of their points, before you'll admit that I'm doing more than "merely disagreeing with them"?

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just how lengthy a post do you expect, and how much detail in the refutation of their points, before you'll admit that I'm doing more than "merely disagreeing with them"?

I don't expect length, I expect you to point out where they have said things that are factually incorrect or made arguments that are logically incongruous.

You haven't refuted the four points you've listed. In response to the first point, you've claimed that we don't need to improve the quality of the State's decision making where children are concerned by arguing that sometimes the courts do the right thing anyway. In response to the second, you've argued that we don't need to deal with the problem of marital children being unable to be adopted by dismissing the problem as too small to worry about - which is true, I guess, if you're not one of the small number of children in question. Your third response introduces a straw man, and your fourth seeks to disprove a general assertion by reference to two specifics - and I don't accept the premise that it's always correct to return an adopted child to his or her natural family.

So, to reiterate: I'm not blindly accepting the argument from authority, but authority carries some weight nonetheless. I found the case as set out in the document I linked pretty convincing, but if there's anything in the document that is factually untrue, or logically inconsistent, I'm open to hearing about it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

[QUOTE=oscarBravo;80952866]I don't expect length, I expect you to point out where they have said things that are factually incorrect or made arguments that are logically incongruous.[/quote]Well, that’s what I’ve done. Allow me to explain again.

In response to the first point, you've claimed that we don't need to improve the quality of the State's decision making where children are concerned by arguing that sometimes the courts do the right thing anyway.

No, you’ve misunderstood both the CRA’s contention and my refutation. The CRA’s first claim is that the Constitution prevents the Courts from intervening in marital families unless it can be demonstrated that the parents have "failed". The significance of the Jehovahs Witness cases, where the Courts routinely overrule parents with respect to blood transfusions, is that the Courts do so while acknowledging that the parents are as fit as anyone – they’ve just got screwy religious views that we don’t tolerate. You’d categorise that as the CRA being factually inaccurate, given that the Courts do intervene in marital families that haven’t failed, despite their contention.

In response to the second, you've argued that we don't need to deal with the problem of marital children being unable to be adopted by dismissing the problem as too small to worry about - which is true, I guess, if you're not one of the small number of children in question.

No, again you’ve misunderstood. Firstly, just as background and not pertaining directly to the CRA’s point the Constitution, as it stands, doesn’t prevent marital children from being adopted – and the CRA acknowledge this in the paper you linked – they’ve only said it’s legally complex.
However, in this instance, the CRA’s point is not that we should change the Constitution to enable a small amount of children to be adopted. They are claiming that 2,000 children would be enabled. That’s factually inaccurate. They know damn well that adoption outside families is just a rare event – it belongs back in the Jurassic period, when there was a ready supply of frightened young women with unwanted pregancies, no access to abortion and a culture devoted to hushing things up.

Your third response introduces a straw man

I disagree; the CRA are trying to appeal to past wrongs as having a connection to this proposal, while ignoring the actual nature of those wrongs and the fact that Constitutional action to increase the capacity for the State to intervene in marital families has nothing to do with ensuring that the State deals humanely with the children it has in care. Putting it into your categorizations, its logically incongruous.

and your fourth seeks to disprove a general assertion by reference to two specifics - and I don't accept the premise that it's always correct to return an adopted child to his or her natural family.

Firstly, I’m not suggesting it’s always correct to return a child put up for adoption. Just that it’s usually correct, where reasonable parents realise they made the wrong decision, and that’s what the Baby Ann case amounts to saying.

Your misunderstanding when you say "seeks to disprove a general assertion by reference to two specifics" is that, as I said, those two cases are the one’s typically cited as evidence of where the Courts have not acted in the child’s interest. One is where parents decided to ignore medical advice in relation to a standard medical test. The other is where reasonable natural parents realised they had made the wrong decision in putting their child up for adoption.
That’s all people like the CRA can point to if you ask them "where has the child’s best interest not been upheld by the Courts". Pathetic, isn’t it? In any event, it’s logically incongruous to use cases that demonstrate sensible parents asserting rights on behalf of their children as evidence of a need to reduce the capacity of parents to act in such circumstances.

I found the case as set out in the document I linked pretty convincing, but if there's anything in the document that is factually untrue, or logically inconsistent, I'm open to hearing about it.

I’ve cast a quick eye over the document. It does contain inaccuracies and distortions, and I could try to set that down at some point if I get time. However, you’ll appreciate, I don’t see the point of doing that if the reasonably comprehensible points already made aren’t getting across. The four points above are representative, and the points I’ve raised are substantive enough, if there’s a will for the discussion to progress.
If there isn’t such a will, clearly there’s no point in dialogue.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, you’ve misunderstood both the CRA’s contention and my refutation. The CRA’s first claim is that the Constitution prevents the Courts from intervening in marital families unless it can be demonstrated that the parents have "failed". The significance of the Jehovahs Witness cases, where the Courts routinely overrule parents with respect to blood transfusions, is that the Courts do so while acknowledging that the parents are as fit as anyone – they’ve just got screwy religious views that we don’t tolerate. You’d categorise that as the CRA being factually inaccurate, given that the Courts do intervene in marital families that haven’t failed, despite their contention.

I guess everyone has different ideas of where the bar for state intervention should lie, but being satisfied that the Courts will prevent parents from allowing their children to die seems a little high to me. It smacks of suggesting that the only intolerable failure of parenting is the death of the child, and anything short of that is none of the state's business.

No, again you’ve misunderstood. Firstly, just as background and not pertaining directly to the CRA’s point the Constitution, as it stands, doesn’t prevent marital children from being adopted – and the CRA acknowledge this in the paper you linked – they’ve only said it’s legally complex.
However, in this instance, the CRA’s point is not that we should change the Constitution to enable a small amount of children to be adopted. They are claiming that 2,000 children would be enabled. That’s factually inaccurate. They know damn well that adoption outside families is just a rare event – it belongs back in the Jurassic period, when there was a ready supply of frightened young women with unwanted pregancies, no access to abortion and a culture devoted to hushing things up.

I'm not sure how that differs substantively from what I've already disagreed with. You seem to be saying that if the adoption of 2,000 children were enabled, there might be a case for amending the constitution, but a smaller number - 200? 20? - doesn't justify it.

Do you reject out of hand the idea that some foster children want to be adopted by their foster parents?

I disagree; the CRA are trying to appeal to past wrongs as having a connection to this proposal, while ignoring the actual nature of those wrongs and the fact that Constitutional action to increase the capacity for the State to intervene in marital families has nothing to do with ensuring that the State deals humanely with the children it has in care. Putting it into your categorizations, its logically incongruous.

But you're still doing it. You've unilaterally decided what wrongs you want them to be referring to, and you're arguing against the idea that those specific wrongs will be addressed by a constitutional amendment.

Firstly, I’m not suggesting it’s always correct to return a child put up for adoption. Just that it’s usually correct, where reasonable parents realise they made the wrong decision, and that’s what the Baby Ann case amounts to saying.

Which amounts to an assertion that those cases where it's not the correct thing to do are an acceptable price to pay for avoiding a constitutional change. That seems illogical to me, because there would be nothing to prevent a child being returned to its biological parents after this amendment had passed - if to do so was in the best interests of the child.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess everyone has different ideas of where the bar for state intervention should lie, but being satisfied that the Courts will prevent parents from allowing their children to die seems a little high to me. It smacks of suggesting that the only intolerable failure of parenting is the death of the child, and anything short of that is none of the state's business.

Ah, here. The point is that, despite the contention of the CRA, "failure" is not a pre-requisite of intervention in marital families. Once it’s established that the Courts can intervene, the rest is down to the individual circumstances of each case. You’re distorting the material, instead of relating to it.

Do recall that this is a context where neither the CRA, nor any other Yes advocate, can point to any necessary case where intervention has not been possible. They were attempting to use the Roscommon case (and might still use it with the unwary), until folk starting pointing out that the HSE were already engaged with that family.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure how that differs substantively from what I've already disagreed with. You seem to be saying that if the adoption of 2,000 children were enabled, there might be a case for amending the constitution, but a smaller number - 200? 20? - doesn't justify it.

Yeah, I frankly don’t understand (having re-read my post) how you could still think the issue is about numbers. Can I simply suggest you re-read my post, having understood that the numbers is not what its about. What its about is that the CRA are talking rubbish, and must know they are talking rubbish, when they say that 2,000 children could or would be adopted on foot of the change.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you reject out of hand the idea that some foster children want to be adopted by their foster parents?

No, and I’ve no idea how to get across to you that the point I’ve made (quite clearly, in my eyes) doesn’t relate to that question at all.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you're still doing it. You've unilaterally decided what wrongs you want them to be referring to, and you're arguing against the idea that those specific wrongs will be addressed by a constitutional amendment.

No, and it’s quite ludicrous to say I’m unilaterally deciding the wrongs in question when Yes supporters cite documents such as the Ryan report – inquiring into institutional abuse.

Seriously, you’re in looney tunes territory if you’re suggesting there is something arbitrary about this point. I certainly haven’t unilaterally decided that a problem existed in the State’s handling of children in care over decades.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which amounts to an assertion that those cases where it's not the correct thing to do are an acceptable price to pay for avoiding a constitutional change.

Well, no, because the deliberations in the Baby Ann case very much included the interests of the child. So, no, it absolutely isn’t the case that the Constitution demands that children be returned to unfit parents. I made that very clear in my post, when I said it’s usually correct, where reasonable parents realise they made the wrong decision, and that’s what the Baby Ann case amounts to saying. I don’t know what you think is achieved by responding as if I’d said always correct, where natural parents realise they made the wrong decision.
I hate to say it, but you really come across as willfully obtuse when you try to argue against these absolute positions that don’t exist. It’s Don Quixote vs the windmills.

Boulevardier

Perhaps I misunderstood the baby Ann case, doubtless as a result of liberal media bias.

I understood that the Supreme Court believed that baby Ann would be happier with the prospective adoptive parents, but they also believed that the constitition as it stands required baby Ann to be returned to her birth parents anyway - that is, her best interests had to take second place. The unfitness of the parents did not arise in this case, as they were assumed to be as fit as most parents.

So am I right in saying that "reasonable parents" who have changed their minds about an adoption can, as things stand, reverse an adoption that is otherwise seen to be in the child's best interests?

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

Perhaps I misunderstood the baby Ann case, doubtless as a result of liberal media bias.

I understood that the Supreme Court believed that baby Ann would be happier with the prospective adoptive parents, but they also believed that the constitition as it stands required baby Ann to be returned to her birth parents anyway - that is, her best interests had to take second place. The unfitness of the parents did not arise in this case, as they were assumed to be as fit as most parents.

So am I right in saying that "reasonable parents" who have changed their minds about an adoption can, as things stand, reverse an adoption that is otherwise seen to be in the child's best interests?

In the Baby Ann case, the adoption hadn't yet taken place. The natural parents withdrew consent for the planned adoption when the child was 14 months. It took until the age of 28 months - over a year longer - to have her returned to her natural parents. A lot of this delay was caused by social workers deliberately trying to game the proceedings by stalling and delaying. They expected the longer the child was with the foster parents, the less likely the courts would be to order her return to the natural parents. They were heavily criticised in court for this.

A lot was made in this case of the possible psychological harm to the child from being taken from the foster parents. Much of any harm caused was the direct result of social workers who were supposed at all times to be acting in the best interests of the child deliberately gambling with her welfare in the expectation that the courts would find in favour of their preferred outcome.

This is a prime example of why the references to the "best interests of the child" in the proposed amendment give me, as a parent, no comfort at all - it's people like these who will be purporting to decide what those best interests are when the state gets involved.

He [Judge Hardiman] also criticised the Adoption Board for delaying the proceedings.

"One of the most disturbing features of this case is the time which has elapsed since the mother requested the return of her child. At that time, she had been with the proposed adopters for 10 months and was about 14 months old. She has now been in their care for 24 months and is about two years and four months old. Clearly this passage of time will make her reintroduction to her parents more difficult: that, indeed, was one of the principal arguments deployed by the respondents."

He added: "The [natural] parents felt that after they attempted to regain custody of the child, they were being 'stalled', to use a word the mother used in dealing with the Adoption Board. I cannot disagree with her."

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

Boulevardier

It may be that the social workers knew that baby Ann was happy with the foster parents and that leaving her with them was in her best interests.

Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

monument

Unless there was a question about the foster parents, which it seems there was not in this case:

After even 10 months of 14 months, it would seem the child's best interests would be to stay put.

After 20 of 24, there's no way the child should have been returned if the child's best interests was what was been looked at.

If you mess up so badly that your child has to be taken from you / you have to give him/her up and then later you clean up your act and want the child back, your interests should come second to the child's interist.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Boulevardier wrote: »

It may be that the social workers knew that baby Ann was happy with the foster parents and that leaving her with them was in her best interests.

Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

Gizmo has given you a good summary of the case.

But I find the best way of getting the point across to people quickly in conversation is to invite them to consider how they would explain to Baby Ann, twenty years later, that she could have been raised with her natural family. Try finding the words to explain to her why adoption was in her interest, despite her natural parents wanting her back.

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

It may be that the social workers knew that baby Ann was happy with the foster parents and that leaving her with them was in her best interests.

Where the question is in dispute, what is in the child's best interest should be for the courts to decide. It's not for social workers to drag their feet in an attempt to create a fait accompli and force the court to decide in their favour. What happened in this case is that they themselves deliberately caused a delay in returning the child and then attempted to use that delay as their main argument for not returning the child. If you regard that as acting in the best interests of the child, words fail me.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

In effect, what the judge found was that there was a plot to undermine this particular family.

Boulevardier

Based on what I know, I strongly believe that this child would have had a happier childhood with her foster parents, and that she was not given it mainly because of our present constitution.

There is no reason whatever to think the social workers were acting in anyone's interests other than those of the child. That is why I also think that if the social workers were acting on the "deliberate delay" rationale you outline, then fair play to them - they were right to try it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Boulevardier wrote: »

Based on what I know, I strongly believe that this child would have had a happier childhood with her foster parents, and that she was not given it mainly because of our present constitution.

You are simply setting your mind against the facts of the case, which don't support your contention.

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

There is no reason whatever to think the social workers were acting in anyone's interests other than those of the child.

Actually,there is. Judge Hardiman also had this to say about the actions of the social workers dealing with the natural parents:

They [the prospective adoptive parents] also had the advantage of knowing the social worker who was working with the natural parents. This is revealed in the judgment of Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman.

He referred to the fact that the social worker assigned to the natural parents had a connection with the adoptive couple which "clouded their relationship".

Judge Hardiman said: "It transpired that the proposed adopters, and in particular the lady, were known to certain of the social workers involved, including the social worker assigned to the natural parents. Considerations of anonymity make it undesirable to say precisely how this came about, but there is considerable evidence that it came to cloud their relationship with the practitioner [social worker] and others.

A number of commentators speaking in favour of the amendment have talked about a supposed "chilling effect" that the present constitutional provisions on children and the family have on social workers. I would be very fearful that if the amendment is passed, the opposite will become true - that it will be seen as carte blanche for an activist approach for social workers to play God with children's lives in the way which was attempted in this case.

Boulevardier

I do not share this fear of social workers. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

A well-resourced and activist social service is, in my view, crucial for child protection in modern Ireland, and if this referendum opens the way to that, then lets have it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Boulevardier wrote: »

I do not share this fear of social workers. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

I do not share this fear of natural parents. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

Boulevardier wrote: »

A well-resourced and activist social service is, in my view, crucial for child protection in modern Ireland, and if this referendum opens the way to that, then lets have it.

This referendum has, actually, very little to do with that. It has really nothing to do with resourcing at all.

Is it fair to say that, once we push past misunderstanding and the appeals to authority, there’s actually no reason for having this referendum at all.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I do not share this fear of natural parents. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

...so we can safely ignore the minority who don't?

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I do not share this fear of natural parents. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

...so we can safely ignore the minority who don't?

No, but we can safely ignore the pretence that the only choice is between ignoring them and this amendment.

James Jones

Boulevardier wrote: »

I do not share this fear of social workers. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

Have a look at the findings of A report based on an investigation into the implementation of Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children.
April 2010

CHAPTER VII. CONCLUSIONS
(a) Findings
1. The Review of Adequacy 2008 conducted by the HSE is contrary to sound administration within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 as the HSE failed to ensure determination of adequacy in any meaningful way in each of its functional areas.
2. This Office concludes that the failure in the period from 2003 up to (but not including) 2008 to put in place appropriate mechanisms to drive forward interagency implementation of Children First involved unsound administration within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002. Responsibility for the unsound administration as regards interagency matters lay with the Department of Health and Children to the extent that it related to problems such as with Garda/HSE cooperation, variable implementation by health boards in the period prior to the creation of the HSE and the failure to ensure interagency cooperation more generally – for example through Local Child Protection Committees and Regional Child Protection Committees.
3. Separately, up until the establishment of a HSE Taskforce in February 2009, this Office concludes that insufficient efforts were made to drive forward implementation of Children First by the HSE internally, such as failure to ensure that Local Health Offices had local procedures, and that this involved unsound administration by the HSE in the period since its creation.
4. In the period from the disbandment of the Health Boards Executive Resource Team in late 2002 to the disbandment of the Health Boards themselves on 1 January 2005, this Office concludes that there was unsound administration by the Health Boards in failing to resolve collectively problems that had arisen with Children First, including regarding its variable implementation.
5. This Office concludes that the failure by the HSE (and the Health Boards before 1 January 2005118) to put in place appropriate quality assurance through internal audit of casefiles more widely than in one part of the State (Cork/Kerry) and more frequently than once in a decade involves unsound administration and is therefore within s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, especially having regard to the worrying nature of the findings of the Cork/Kerry audit.
6. This Office concludes that the HSE in failing to ensure that Local Health Offices all have local procedures acted contrary to sound administration within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002.
7. This Office believes that in its analysis of submissions to the OMCYA review and in the OMCYA review document itself proper mention should have been made of the real industrial relations issues that had arisen in the former Eastern Regional Health Authority region, given their effects on the ground. This Office concludes that the failure to be transparent about the industrial relations dispute in the OMCYA review and analysis of submissions involved unsound administration within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 on the part of the Department of Health and Children through the OMCYA.
8. The failure to ensure consistent definitions of abuse in local procedures across the HSE involves unsound administration by that public body within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002.
9. The failure to ensure clarity and consistency regarding the basis for reporting child abuse concerns across the HSE in local procedures involves unsound administration within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act, 2002.
10. This Office believes that the failure of the HSE to ensure 24 hour external access to the Child Protection Notification System in most of the State involves unsound administration within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002.
11. While this Office has no power to investigate an Garda Síochána, it is satisfied that in a number of instances – notably concerning joint action sheets and notifications – responsibility lies in particular with the HSE for the failure to implement the requirements of Children First on Garda/HSE cooperation. To the extent that this flows from industrial relations difficulties, the lack of transparency regarding such difficulties involves unsound administration by the Department of Health and Children for reasons already stated. To the extent that it does not – and it appears that there are other reasons for non implementation of, for example, joint action sheets such as a belief that they serve no useful purpose - this Office believes that the failure to implement such important requirements is also an unsound administrative practice by the HSE within the meaning of s.8 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, not least because the failure to coordinate Garda and HSE action is unlikely to ensure effective protection of children.

forex

Boulevardier wrote: »

Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

This becomes a business ... social workers get paid as long as they have something to do ... and believe me nobody wants to lose a job ... so social works will do all possible to find any reason to take your child !

This is the same as with passing a driving test - testers get salary paid from your failed attempts, so it is in their direct interest to make you pay several times ...

Friend of mine says that his 12 years old kid blackmail/chantages parents saying that if you don't buy me something I'll tell to social worker that you put me in the room corner (for bad behavior) ... and they buy ...

More over for every child they take from us government will pay very good amount for his/her support during some period of time (while he/she with social workers). Who will get all these money? Surely not social workers and not kids .... It will be the same as they are building a new children's hospital ... dedicated 650mln, 50mlns already stolen ... all other will be stolen after they destroy and existing children's hospital and build a new one. In any other countries, e.g. in Germany for such stilling someone would be in prison long time ago ...

Boulevardier wrote: »

It may be that the social workers knew that baby Ann was happy with the foster parents and that leaving her with them was in her best interests.
Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

steddyeddy

I posted on the subject of children's rights before having survived physical abuse and a range of other problems that come with living with an abuser. I feel strongly about this referendum and the rights it could give children.

Too long in this country children havent had rights. I am not old but when I was a kid I went to the gaurds about the abuse, who did nothing and who moaned when I asked for help, I went to the hse (health centre) and the receptionist was some bag who didnt want to know and finally I went to a social worker who could only do so much but really went out of her way to try and help. Luckily I had a really good friend in an adult social worker who sent me to America to live with a relative on the good side of the family. There I recieved a good education and now Im involved in scientific research.

Im not looking for sympathy saying this, nor am I looking for a medal as one poster put it previously. My point in telling this (for the nth time on boards :S) is that a lot of kids in my situation havent been lucky. I was lucky because I was placed in a different country. I know that many people who were in my situation became addicted to drugs or died by suicide.

I dont think this can deal with the problem of gaurds who protect child abusers or apathetic HSE staff but it will make the rights of our children an important aspect of our society.

Boulevardier

"This becomes a business ... social workers get paid as long as they have something to do ... and believe me nobody wants to lose a job ... so social works will do all possible to find any reason to take your child"

Forex, that is an absolutely ridiculous theory about why the referendum is being held. In fact itis laughable.

I think SteddyEddy's post says more or less all thet needs to be said on the subject.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont think this can deal with the problem of gaurds who protect child abusers or apathetic HSE staff but it will make the rights of our children an important aspect of our society.

But if it won't make any material difference to how the HSE operate, it won't have done anything at all. And if it gives an inadequate HSE more power to interfere in the lives of children, it might actually make things worse.

So, no, having an amendment just to seem to be doing something isn't an advance.

Ozymandius2011

The problem now is the lofty, aspirational and vague terminology in Paragraph 1 about the "imprescriptible rights" of "all children". I won't vote to insert vague language into the Constitution only for unelected judges to decide what it means. The remaining paragraphs are fairly detailed so I would vote for them but Paragraph 1 is unacceptable. It will be invoked in asylum-cases and to stop parents disciplining unruly, anti-social teenagers.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

...Paragraph 1 is unacceptable. It will be invoked... to stop parents disciplining unruly, anti-social teenagers.

That presumes that children have an imprescriptible right to be unruly and anti-social. What makes you think they have such a right, or - more accurately - that judges (of all people) will decide that anyone has a right to be unruly and anti-social?

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

That presumes that children have an imprescriptible right to be unruly and anti-social. What makes you think they have such a right, or - more accurately - that judges (of all people) will decide that anyone has a right to be unruly and anti-social?

No it assume that judges will interpret using corporal punishment to stop them being anti-social and unruly as a violation of their inprescriptible rights. As for what makes me assume what I have just said: the judiciary's string of suspended/soft sentences smacks of a soft-on-crime attitude to me, an the failure to impoe ASBOs which were supposed tackle the problem as likewise hardly a harbinger of good tidings ahead if we increase the power of the State over children.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

No it assume that judges will interpret using corporal punishment to stop them being anti-social and unruly as a violation of their inprescriptible rights.

So your argument is predicated on the assumption that the only way to prevent children being anti-social and unruly is to hit them.

We might have to agree to differ.

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your argument is predicated on the assumption that the only way to prevent children being anti-social and unruly is to hit them.

We might have to agree to differ.

I'm not saying that but I am saying that for the worst examples of anti-social behaviour corporal punishment should be allowed. I was a victim of anti-social adolescents for 3 years when in lived in a flat in town. I wondere where the parents were, and if the prevailing culture was deterring them to exerting reasonable chastisement to bring them under control.

When I say anti-social behaviour, I feel I need to be specific. I am not talking about children dropping sweet wrappers. I am talking about years of damage to private property by the same runts again and again who are emboldened because they are getting away with it. Where there is no deterrent anti social behaviour increases. Where is the deterrent to anti social behaviour at present? I think liberalism has gone far enough and perhaps too far. We don't want to return to parents thrashing their children, but neither do we want them out at all hours engaged in anti-social behaviour.

oscarBravo

I agree with you that anti-social behaviour is a problem; I disagree that corporal punishment is a requirement to prevent it. Preventing anti-social behaviour isn't best served by beating teenagers (or, as is increasingly the case, pre-teens) as punishment for what they've done wrong. It requires responsible parenting from a young age, including the setting of boundaries.

The bottom line is: if your major objection to this amendment is that it might prevent parents from beating their children, then it's possible you've missed the point of the exercise in a spectacular way.

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

I agree with you that anti-social behaviour is a problem; I disagree that corporal punishment is a requirement to prevent it. Preventing anti-social behaviour isn't best served by beating teenagers (or, as is increasingly the case, pre-teens) as punishment for what they've done wrong. It requires responsible parenting from a young age, including the setting of boundaries.

The bottom line is: if your major objection to this amendment is that it might prevent parents from beating their children, then it's possible you've missed the point of the exercise in a spectacular way.

I'm not talking about thrashing their children but rather reasonable levels of force such as slapping.

You mention the setting of boundaries. This is part of that as far as I am concerned because the liberal culture is not addressing the problem. We have gone from being too culturally conservative to too culturally liberal. Part of the problem is that many of the parents are children themselves.

To see where I'm coming from I wish to outline some of my experiences of anti-social behaviour in 2005-8:

- being hit in the face by two children throwing fitfuls of stones at me after I confronted them for turning over my motorbike.
- My windows broken by crowds of children turning up outside my door several days a week around 10pm with weapons including knives and hurls.
- The outer pane of my double-glazed sliding door of the back of my flat being smashed in the early hours of the morning by a teenager wearing a baseball cap, sun glasses and a scarf around his mouth highwayman-style.
- The glass of my front door smashed in.
- My motorcycles smashed countless times after I refused to hand it over to teenagers.

All the Gardai would do is talk to the parents. This does not inspire confidence in how the State would exercise the increase powers given to it should the amendment pass.

James Jones

gizmo555 wrote: »

Boulevardier wrote: »

It may be that the social workers knew that baby Ann was happy with the foster parents and that leaving her with them was in her best interests.

Otherwise, why would the social workers do this - a plot to undermine the irish family?

Actually,there is. Judge Hardiman also had this to say about the actions of the social workers dealing with the natural parents:

They [the prospective adoptive parents] also had the advantage of knowing the social worker who was working with the natural parents. This is revealed in the judgment of Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman.

He referred to the fact that the social worker assigned to the natural parents had a connection with the adoptive couple which "clouded their relationship".

Judge Hardiman said: "It transpired that the proposed adopters, and in particular the lady, were known to certain of the social workers involved, including the social worker assigned to the natural parents. Considerations of anonymity make it undesirable to say precisely how this came about, but there is considerable evidence that it came to cloud their relationship with the practitioner [social worker] and others.

A number of commentators speaking in favour of the amendment have talked about a supposed "chilling effect" that the present constitutional provisions on children and the family have on social workers. I would be very fearful that if the amendment is passed, the opposite will become true - that it will be seen as carte blanche for an activist approach for social workers to play God with children's lives in the way which was attempted in this case.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I do not share this fear of social workers. I think the vast majority of them have the interests of those in their care at heart.

A well-resourced and activist social service is, in my view, crucial for child protection in modern Ireland, and if this referendum opens the way to that, then lets have it.

And you still maintain this position even after being told that Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman referred to the fact that the social worker assigned to the natural parents had a connection with the adoptive couple which "clouded their relationship"???
Remember, the entire "YES" campaign hinges on a number of cases such as Baby Ann as well as the Roscommon Incest case where the failings were by the Social Workers involved rather than the restriction of the Constitution.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm not talking about thrashing their children but rather reasonable levels of force such as slapping.

I understand your point; I'm disagreeing with it because I think you're wrong, not because I don't understand what you're trying to say.

You feel that corporal punishment will reduce anti-social behaviour, but evidence suggests that corporal punishment is a factor in producing anti-social behaviour.

You mention the setting of boundaries. This is part of that as far as I am concerned because the liberal culture is not addressing the problem. We have gone from being too culturally conservative to too culturally liberal. Part of the problem is that many of the parents are children themselves.

I don't disagree with much of that. I've seen some pretty terrible behaviour from children whose parents refuse to set boundaries for them. I've also seen some pretty terrible behaviour from children whose parents slap them when they transgress instead of putting the effort into educating their kids on how to be better people.

Giving children explicitly-enumerated rights isn't going to make them worse people. It's probably not going to make them better people either; that's up to their parents (and, to an extent, society).

To see where I'm coming from I wish to outline some of my experiences of anti-social behaviour in 2005-8:

- being hit in the face by two children throwing fitfuls of stones at me after I confronted them for turning over my motorbike.
- My windows broken by crowds of children turning up outside my door several days a week around 10pm with weapons including knives and hurls.
- The outer pane of my double-glazed sliding door of the back of my flat being smashed in the early hours of the morning by a teenager wearing a baseball cap, sun glasses and a scarf around his mouth highwayman-style.
- The glass of my front door smashed in.
- My motorcycles smashed countless times after I refused to hand it over to teenagers.

I genuinely sympathise with your problems, but how do you know that (a) the children involved have never been subject to corporal punishment, and (b) that hitting them would make them stop?

You don't think that exposing children to violence from an early age simply teaches them that violence is an acceptable means of achieving their desired outcome?

All the Gardai would do is talk to the parents. This does not inspire confidence in how the State would exercise the increase powers given to it should the amendment pass.

I'm not sure the argument that we shouldn't give the state the power to help children in case it doesn't use it is a compelling one.

Boulevardier

I think that prejudice against social workers is being deliberately used by no-voters to turn this into a "parents vs social workers" referendum.

The vast majority of social workers are professional and committed. I have no problem with them being given the powers they have said they need to help children in distress.

I am getting a bit impatient with people who are in effect calling for the constitution to be kept as it is, in spite of the definite views of the overwhelming majority of those involved with the welfare of children, who support this amendment.