What is the problem with the Children's Referendum?

James Jones

“I would have thought it would be in the interests of the nonmarital father, who we do know obviously has difficulties under the Irish Constitution in terms of asserting rights, to support the referendum.”

The Minister doesn't seem to be very sure of what effect the passing of the amendment will have for non-married fathers. If she said "This referendum will improve the interests" rather than "I would have thought it would be in the interests", we might have more faith in her but if the Minister for Children is so unsure, how can the rest of us know what effect this amendment will have?

AlekSmart

James Jones wrote: »

The Minister doesn't seem to be very sure of what effect the passing of the amendment will have for non-married fathers. If she said "This referendum will improve the interests" rather than "I would have thought it would be in the interests", we might have more faith in her but if the Minister for Children is so unsure, how can the rest of us know what effect this amendment will have?

The Ministerial quote is,yet again,evience to me that this is a political hot-potato which has been engineered by an over active self-serving alliance.

The need to constantly remind the electorate that the referendum is all about improving Childrens "Rights" deflects all attention from the greater question about our constitutional "Rights" in general.

I would suggest that many of the Ministers,now so reluctantly involved,in this campaign would much rather be in charge of Finance,Agriculture or The Arts rather than having to explain the inexplicable to a somewhat less than enthusiastic electorate.

thebman

The problem as I see it with the amendment is it seems to not really change anything significant which is probably why it has all party support.

However, the issue with this is that it gives the appearance of the government doing something so they can move on as if the whole ignoring child abuse and everything in the state is behind us.

At least that is what it seems to be like they plan to do. I definitely am cynical though

James Jones

thebman wrote: »

The problem as I see it with the amendment is it seems to not really change anything significant which is probably why it has all party support.

There are a number of subtle changes that will be extremely significant but these aren't being explored by the media. Check out APS.IE

gizmo555

Interesting piece by Victoria White in today's Examiner (01/11/12) on her personal experiences with social workers in connection with her autistic child, as well as analysis of a report on the social work profession published by UCD this year.

The woman with the staring eyes finally came out and said my problem was my "traditional role in the home".

"Traditional role?" I spluttered.

"I didn’t mean to offend you," she said. "Fifty per cent of Irish women still work in the home."

I’m pathetic enough to be proud that I smiled and said: "You didn’t offend me. I just differ from you philosophically."

I never saw the woman with the staring eyes again, but her replacement picked up where she left off. I remember saying, "This is a problem which comes from outside the family", and being told, "Here we believe everything comes from inside the family".

I tried to explain, "What’s wrong with us is what’s wrong with our son," and the new social worker said, "So now you’re blaming him, are you?".

The minute he had a diagnosis of autism they dropped us like hot potatoes. We haven’t seen a single social worker in six years, though my son has had the welcome attention of social care workers at school . . .

The International Federation of Social Workers says the social work profession should "promote social change". That’s fine, as long as the change is not along ideological lines. The fear is that a young social worker will go into a families to impose his/her values, like a missionary.

Entrants into the profession are, says a UCD report on the retention of social workers published this year, usually "politically liberal or left-wing". They often see their work as a pathway to "personal growth". One social worker is quoted as saying, "They [the young people] needed support and all that so it suited my altruistic ego".

The report confirms that social work students have a strong chance of having been influenced in their choice of course by difficulties in their own background. And though this may make them more empathetic, the report does mention the need for better "gate-keeping" to the profession . . .

IT IS worrying that young social workers can still be sent to deal with families, though the UCD report underlines the importance of sending experienced professionals out on cases involving vulnerable children.

The intake of the profession doesn’t mirror the general population, being disproportionately made up of childless people, with over half of UCD respondents marking "number of children" as "not applicable" to them. And it has to be a source of worry that the profession is overwhelmingly female.

Clear statistics on social workers will not be available until they all register with CORU, but in the UCD report there were 146 female professional respondents as against 36 male ones.

It’s not exactly the same profile as that of the Medical Missionaries of Mary in their heyday, but it’s not a million miles away. And my experience would suggest some have a similarly coherent ideology.

Remember when you read all the references to the "best interests of the child" in connection with this referendum, it's zealots and ideologues like these who will in the first instance be purporting to decide what those interests are.

K-9

Social workers are in a bit of a no win situation, not a job I could do. They'll naturally be viewed with suspicion as the Government agent sent to look about your children, the District Nurse often got the same when visiting the home of new borns. Interfering busy bodies, what would they know, I'm the childs mother, I know best.

You've a strange mix of extremes on the No side, people concerned about too much Government and courts power, on the other extreme, the Government and courts getting even softer on kids.

2 totally opposing views united in opposition to the Government. Basically your normal Referenda then.

I have to admit, having read it, I don't see the point in it. I would be inclined toward a no vote.

I am not interested in some idyllic view of "the family", but hearing repeatedly about the children in care going missing even today, I am highly skeptical of giving them even more ability to remove children. The criteria for removing a child from the home seem very wishy washy. Do I think there is some state conspiracy to take children away? - no, but I think anyone who does want to could probably do it a lot more easily than they should be able to, with any pretext. Or so it seems from this.
What exactly would prevent the state from removing children from abusive homes now? Everything we hear indicates either lack of resources for HSE/social workers, or inability of social workers to manage. The problem here, then, is not amendments but training and resources to cope with what we already have.
See here:

In this case, child protection services had been informed of concerns about the welfare of the children by various parties but had failed to act at all for five years from the time of the first complaint, at which point it was the insistence of the mother that she could not cope that resulted in the children being placed in emergency care.

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/10/28/the-roscommon-child-care-inquiry-an-article-3-perspective/


Interesting letter in the IT:

Sir, – Carl O’Brien, (“How new wording might have helped other children”, September 22nd) asks whether the proposed wording of a constitutional amendment on children’s rights would have changed the outcomes of previous high-profile cases. The article refers to key reports and court cases over the years where the issue of children’s rights – or their absence – was cited as a vital factor. However, it contains factual inaccuracies and fails to challenge a number of myths that have been successfully propagated by the Yes side in this debate.

The Kilkenny Incest Case: “In March 1993 a Kilkenny father was jailed for pleading guilty to rape, incest and assault of his daughter over a 15-year period”, your report states.

This shows the State is allowed to protect children when the family fails in its duty towards their children in accordance with Article 42.5. However, the State failed in its duty to the children by not intervening earlier. This failure was explained with “The Kilkenny Incest Investigation group found there were basic problems of poor communication, little consistent record-keeping and a lack of co-operation between arms of the State”. The Investigation Group found that the State failed but indicated that “the Constitution may consciously or unconsciously be interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights of parents than to the rights of children”. Just because the Constitution may be unconsciously interpreted incorrectly, does not mean that the Constitution requires an amendment. What it means is that the State employees involved need retraining and instruction on how to properly interpret the Constitution as it stands. It also means that parents’ rights do not hold a higher value than the rights of children.

The Baby Ann case: “This child was born to an unmarried couple in July 2004 who decided to give their child up for adoption. Within days, the baby was placed in care; later, a couple were found who wished to adopt the girl. Then, two years later, the unexpected happened: the birth parents withdrew their consent”, your report states.

This is simply not true. It was not two years later, as claimed. Neither was it unexpected. Baby Ann was born on July 7th, 2004. She was placed with the prospective family in November 2004. Consent for the adoption was withdrawn less than a year later in September 2005 but the child was still with the prospective family in February 2006. Judge Hardiman (in his Supreme Court judgment) remarked “This was not a wholly surprising development: there seem to have been uncertainties on the topic from the beginning”.

So, the natural parents did not leave it two years but informed the HSE of their wishes less than one year later. However, the State, through the HSE, failed to take any action when they became aware of the withdrawal of consent.

The Ryan Report: “Between 1936 and 1970 170,000 children were consigned to the 50 or so industrial schools”, your report states.

These children were taken from their families by the State (aided and abetted by the ISPCC). They were abused in State-funded institutions over a period of 35 years, even though the Constitution had not been amended, proving that the threshold for interfering in the family is not as high as it is made out to be. All that was needed back then to claim that children had been failed was that the family was poor.

Adoption of children: “An estimated 2,000 children have been in foster care for long periods of time, with little or no contact from their birth parents”, your report states.

This will not change, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Prospective adoptive families generally want to adopt babies, not troubled children who have been “in foster care for long periods of time”. Those children will most likely remain in foster care until they are unceremoniously dumped by the State at the age of 18. – Yours, etc,

johnnyskeleton

K-9 wrote: »

Social workers are in a bit of a no win situation, not a job I could do. They'll naturally be viewed with suspicion as the Government agent sent to look about your children, the District Nurse often got the same when visiting the home of new borns. Interfering busy bodies, what would they know, I'm the childs mother, I know best.

You've a strange mix of extremes on the No side, people concerned about too much Government and courts power, on the other extreme, the Government and courts getting even softer on kids.

2 totally opposing views united in opposition to the Government. Basically your normal Referenda then.

Perhaps the moderate no side is overlooked? Those people who think it is poorly worded and, without the extra funding to childcare (which is not on the cards) it is only going to lead to legal uncertainty, more litigation (with costs borne by the hse) and as a result less money to spend promoting children's welfare.

As an example, for all the talk about the economc necessity of the judicial pay referendum, judges pay has not yet actually been cut. So that referendum cost a few million to run with no practical benefit. But it was an easy vote winner.

I suspect that the poor wording is a way of watering the refenedum down so that there will be no strong opposition, a high yes vote and a feather in the governments cap (unlike the embarrassing failure of the oireachtas inquiries amendment).

Thus, I suspect this new article is a political, rather than legal, amendment with no real benefit and whose sole purpose is to make the government look like they care about children. Unfortunately for them, very few have played into their hands by opposing this on ideological views, thus meaning that their great preorganised speeches on how much they care for kids are falling somewhat flat.

The fact that I agree with AlekSmart on this is also slightly worrying!

johnnyskeleton

bluewolf wrote: »

I am not interested in some idyllic view of "the family", but hearing repeatedly about the children in care going missing even today, I am highly skeptical of giving them even more ability to remove children. The criteria for removing a child from the home seem very wishy washy. Do I think there is some state conspiracy to take children away? - no, but I think anyone who does want to could probably do it a lot more easily than they should be able to, with any pretext. Or so it seems from this.
What exactly would prevent the state from removing children from abusive homes now? Everything we hear indicates either lack of resources for HSE/social workers, or inability of social workers to manage. The problem here, then, is not amendments but training and resources to cope with what we already have.

To look at the wording itself, it is easy to think that nothing will change. It is at best merely restating what the current law is more or less. But the fact that it is being trumpeted as a significant change makes us look more closely at the wording.

One change is that it says whether or not it is a marital family and has express provision for due regard to the rights of the child (note that it doesn't say that the best interests of the child shall be paramount in this subarticle), but this is due to confusion on the drafters part between the baby Anne case and cases of social worker intervention. Thus, this doesn't change the law.

Arguably the words if the welfare or safety of the child are likely to be prejudicially affected could make a difference, but it is hard to see how they do anything other than impose a limitation that was always implied or else, more dangerously, change it from a situation where there is present harm to a child, to one where there is likely future prejudice.

3greenrizla's

I am swaying towards a no vote, I don't think that the referendum is going far enough.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

note that it doesn't say that the best interests of the child shall be paramount in this subarticle

I also think that we should be taking this opportunity to deal with the Rights/Responsibilities of Unmarried/Not living as a "family" parents along with gay adoption.

Annasopra

3greenrizla's wrote: »

I am swaying towards a no vote, I don't think that the referendum is going far enough.



I also think that we should be taking this opportunity to deal with the Rights/Responsibilities of Unmarried/Not living as a "family" parents along with gay adoption.

I don't think the constitution should be the place to deal with gay adoption

Hotblack Desiato

3greenrizla's wrote: »

I am swaying towards a no vote, I don't think that the referendum is going far enough.

That's a bit like turning down a 500,000 euro lotto prize because you'd hoped to win 750,000.

Ciaran O Reilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3greenrizla's
I am swaying towards a no vote, I don't think that the referendum is going far enough.

That's a bit like turning down a 500,000 euro lotto prize because you'd hoped to win 750,000.

It's more like turning down 500,000 and also the massive interest when you invest it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/cradub?feature=watch

Treora

Basicly it looks like article 41 is the problem. I stops unverisal marriage, controls divorce. It sets single, widowed and separated people as second class and stops some forms of adoption.

Repeal article 41 and introduce legislation to replace it and let judges decide on adoption.

http://www.allout.org/invisibleparents

3greenrizla's

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't think the constitution should be the place to deal with gay adoption

I may be wrong, I have no idea what in the current system denies gay couples being considered as adoptive parents. I also do not understand what part of Irish law gives an unmarried father next to no rights in being involved in their children's lives. I am not a lawyer, I do not know if these issues are even relevant to the upcoming referendum, but part of me feels that we are missing a good opportunity here.

These are issues that effect children in Ireland today (I'm sure there are many more) & if the government had any b@lls they would take this opportunity to try to address some of these. Mainly relating to the Rights/Responsibilities of fathers, and again I do not know if this would require constitutional change (I'd presume it would).

But, as gutless as the previous shower, they continue with the status quo. IMHO, We are only having this referendum so we can be good UN members & fully comply with their children's convention. I do agree with the proposed amendment & this is a rare chance to change the rights of a (born) child, but feel that the government are doing the bare minimum & ignoring larger issues.

ninja900 wrote: »

That's a bit like turning down a 500,000 euro lotto prize because you'd hoped to win 750,000.

It might be like deal or no deal - accepting the bankers low offer when you have a big prize in front of you. As with previous referenda I think the we will get another offer if we say no.


*all that said, my opinions are not set in stone. This is my starting opinion whilst I consider how I vote on Saturday.

Lawyer1

This referendum is costing a lot of money, mostly in funding the "yes" side, maybe even financing a few people of the "no" side as well, money that could be put to better use in the care for children. Double that if they do another referendum until they get the desired response.

Ciaran O Reilly

Lawyer1

Given the wide-reaching effects of a constitutional change, you should be able to see such money spent as an investment. Blindly pumping every spare penny into the existing system will only ever produce short-term results, and ones which aren't even as effective or meaningful as they could be.

Lawyer1

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Lawyer1

Given the wide-reaching effects of a constitutional change, you should be able to see such money spent as an investment. Blindly pumping every spare penny into the existing system will only ever produce short-term results, and ones which aren't even as effective or meaningful as they could be.

It is not the right investment. There are a lot of things that should be addressed and that that the current legislation doesn't stop from addressing, the problem is NOT the Constitution.

ciarafem

It has just been announced that the Supreme Court has overturned the High Court decision on the Government's information booklet.

THE Supreme Court has ruled that certain sections of the Government’s booklet and website on the Children’s Referendum are not "fair, equal or impartial".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/government-booklet-on-referendum-biased-supreme-court-rules-3287409.html

Ciaran O Reilly

Lawyer1

With all due respect, please read up about the new Children and Family Support Agency, and about the Children's Bill, the Children First Guidance (and Bill), the National Vetting Bill, the Ryan Report implementation plans etc... these are the kind of additional and supportive steps also being taken. The amendment is not a panacea - it is a necessary and fundamental step which will underline all further developments, guiding and inspiring future legal and policy developments, and having its own positive and inclusive effects in public and private law for children in cases of welfare, guardianship, access, adoption and custody.

(side note, the constitution is not legislation)

ciarafem

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Lawyer1

.... it is a necessary and fundamental step which will underline all further developments, guiding and inspiring future legal and policy developments, and having its own positive and inclusive effects in public and private law for children in cases of welfare, guardianship, access, adoption and custody.

(side note, the constitution is not legislation)

No it's not - it is neither necessary or fundamental. As Hugh O'Flaherty pointed out the Constitution as it is does this, and in 2006 Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman stated in his opinion and judgement in the Baby Ann case:

1. There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency.

2. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second.

3. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights.

4. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children.

5. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights.

6. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child.

7. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

Firstly, as has already been pointed out, some of the organisations you mention are either not disinterested or hopelessly compromised. Barnardos with its guardian ad litem service stands to see its revenue greatly increased by the amendment . . .

Here's an indication of just how much these guardians ad litem will cost and how much Barnardos stand to make from the passing of the recent amendment:

Several independent social workers, some of whom used to work for the HSE, earned more than €100,000 during 2011 working as 'guardians ad litem' – appointed by the courts to a child who is likely to be placed in long-term care.

Children's Minister Frances Fitzgerald has been working closely with the HSE and other agencies with a view to arranging the future organisation of the service, which is currently provided on an unregulated basis her spokeswoman said.

Ten individuals and organisations shared €2.6m spent by the HSE in 2011. Fees paid to guardians have decreased from 2010 when several individual social workers earned as much as €300,000.

The figures do not include fees paid by the HSE to guardians' legal teams.

In Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow, a structured payment system allows guardians to claim €110 an hour plus additional costs for travel/waiting and mileage while in the rest of the country payments are made at rates invoiced by guardians.

A spokeswoman for Barnardos, which provides the largest guardian ad litem service, said the organisation dealt with an unprecedented amount of new referrals in 2011.

€110 an hour plus expenses for a "profession" dealing with vulnerable children which doesn't require any specific qualifications and is completely unregulated! Nice work if you can get it . . .

gizmo555

Yesterday's (24/02/13) Sunday Business Post had as its lead story the insane amounts of money these people are still being paid. (Can't link, its website is subscriber only.)

[Last year] One guardian ad litem was paid €454,000 while the second-highest guradian (Gal) was paid €311,000.

Four other Gals were paid between €200,000 and €300,000. Many more were paid more than €100,000 according to figures seen by this newspaper.

Barnardo's, the Sunday Business Post goes on to explain, was paid €2.8 MILLION last year by the HSE for provision of Gal services. No wonder they were so keen to see the referendum passed . . .

valder

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yesterday's (24/02/13) Sunday Business Post had as its lead story the insane amounts of money these people are still being paid. (Can't link, its website is subscriber only.)

[Last year] One guardian ad litem was paid €454,000 while the second-highest guradian (Gal) was paid €311,000.

Four other Gals were paid between €200,000 and €300,000. Many more were paid more than €100,000 according to figures seen by this newspaper.

Barnardo's, the Sunday Business Post goes on to explain, was paid €2.8 MILLION last year by the HSE for provision of Gal services. No wonder they were so keen to see the referendum p
assed . . .

no wonder they are so supportive of the hse, wont hear anything said
against them, if the hse want your kids bring in barnardos you can kiss your
kids goodbye,i know they took our grandkids from our care for no good reason, now they wont let us see them, we havent seen them in 4 months,our grandson was with us since he was 9 months, they took him at 3 and a half, we adored him they also took his sisters, so if you think barnardos are good, think again, they are power mad just like the hse, i havent got a decent nights sleep since they took the kids nobody cares, beleive me ive tried them all, ombudsman, tds, all powerless, hse have more power than gestapo, irelands untouchables,

valder

no wonder they are so supportive of the hse, wont hear anything said

against them, if the hse want your kids bring in barnardos you can kiss your
kids goodbye,i know they took our grandkids from our care for no good reason, now they wont let us see them, we havent seen them in 4 months,our grandson was with us since he was 9 months, they took him at 3 and a half, we adored him they also took his sisters, so if you think barnardos are good, think again, they are power mad just like the hse, i havent got a decent nights sleep since they took the kids nobody cares, beleive me ive tried them all, ombudsman, tds, all powerless, hse have more power than gestapo, irelands untouchables,

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yesterday's (24/02/13) Sunday Business Post had as its lead story the insane amounts of money these people are still being paid. (Can't link, its website is subscriber only.)

[Last year] One guardian ad litem was paid €454,000 while the second-highest guradian (Gal) was paid €311,000.

Four other Gals were paid between €200,000 and €300,000. Many more were paid more than €100,000 according to figures seen by this newspaper.

Barnardo's, the Sunday Business Post goes on to explain, was paid €2.8 MILLION last year by the HSE for provision of Gal services. No wonder they were so keen to see the referendum passed . . .

Thanks again to the Sunday Business Post for keeping the spotlight on this issue. They publish figures today (02/02/14) showing that in 2013 Barnardos was paid more than €3.2m by the state for guardian ad litem services, and one named individual was paid in excess of €317k.

This, to reiterate, is a "profession" which is completely unregulated and requires no specific qualifications. I was stunned to read in today's SBP report that you don't even have to be Garda vetted!

The report also states that the HSE spent €10.8m in total on GAL services in 2012.

Frances Fitzgerald, Minister for Children, has been huffing and puffing about this situation for three years, but to date has done sweet f.a. to deal with it.

Gearoil

Yes the GAL service in Ireland needs to be regulated, it is wrong that professionals undertaking such a task in representing the child's voice in decisions that will affect their lives have no regulation. Such regulation could reduce fees being charged to the tax payer. I've been trying work out how many GALS there are in this little island of ours but not getting very far. I suspect that there are a small few that earn the high sums reported with others earning far less, because it is the judges who appear to decide what GAL to use and so the highest earners are those who are the best in their field. So your sick child needs to see a consultant what are his/her fees? You need a solicitor what will their fees be? So why shouldn't the best GALS charge similar to that of a consultant or a lawyer!
What everyone appears to be shocked about is that these people used to work for the Health Boards. A medical consultant started out as a junior Doctor as did a lawyer start out as a junior in a law firm. So I say give these people a break and argue instead for regulation and make it a public service it should be every child's right to have an independent person ensuring their voice is heard and not down to an individual judge to decide.

gizmo555

Indeed. It's not the fault of individual GALs that there's no regulation in their field. The fault lies squarely at the door of Frances Fitzgerald who, as I said, has been talking about introducing it for three years but has done absolutely nothing.

I've no issue with ex-HSE staff doing this work. It's not unusual in other areas of the public sector, e.g. tax inspectors leaving Revenue to become private sector tax advisers.

I don't buy the comparison with doctors and lawyers though. You have to have an appropriate qualification to enter those professions and they have professional codes of conduct with the possibility of being struck off for those who don't adhere to them. GALs have neither. They're not even Garda vetted.

Neither can I accept your suggestion that the highest paid ones are of necessity the best. At least with doctors & lawyers, there's visibility about outcomes in past cases they've been involved with. Who knows with GALs and indeed how would you measure a "good" outcome? I'd say it's at least as likely that the highest paid ones are simply those who are willing to work the most hours.

Lastly, I posted the above figures to highlight again the enormous conflict of interest Barnardo's had in advocating for an amendment which would bring them significant revenue if passed. So far as I'm aware, only Susan Mitchell of the Sunday Business Post has highlighted this in the press and she's done a great public service in doing so.

Gearoil

I am shocked that they are not Garda vetted surely when summer camp volunteers of which my teenage daughter was last summer and had to have Garda vetting. My understanding of what GALS do is limited but they work and represent the most vulnerable children in our society and so we should be certain they are safe to be with these children.
Regarding the visibility of what they do and their accountability are they not accountable to the Court which I think has recently opened its doors to publishing what happens in the family court I think I recently heard a report on the radio from the family court in Dublin.
I was simply making the point that like every profession there are the good and the best ie experience and skill should get paid more.
I accept the point about Bernardo's and their motive for action in the referendum.

gizmo555

Gearoil wrote: »

I was simply making the point that like every profession there are the good and the best ie experience and skill should get paid more.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, firstly its not a profession and second of all, how do we know that the ones who are paid the most are the best?

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

Thanks again to the Sunday Business Post for keeping the spotlight on this issue. They publish figures today (02/02/14) showing that in 2013 Barnardos was paid more than €3.2m by the state for guardian ad litem services, and one named individual was paid in excess of €317k.

This, to reiterate, is a "profession" which is completely unregulated and requires no specific qualifications. I was stunned to read in today's SBP report that you don't even have to be Garda vetted!

The report also states that the HSE spent €10.8m in total on GAL services in 2012.

Frances Fitzgerald, Minister for Children, has been huffing and puffing about this situation for three years, but to date has done sweet f.a. to deal with it.

Another year passed, and nothing has changed, except the extraordinary increase in the amount of money being spent on this. The Sunday Business Post today (01/03/2015) reports in relation to costs paid by the state for Guardian ad Litem services that in 2014:

• Barnardos was paid €3.023m
• Overall spending increased from €10.8m in 2012, to €11.9m in 2013, to €16m last year
• One named individual was paid €299k

So, spending has increased by over 48% on this area in just two years and there is still no qualification required to be a GAL, nor is their any disciplinary or standard of service oversight.

Amazingly, the hourly rate paid has increased from €110 in 2011, to €125 in 2014, a 13.6% increase. Has anyone else in the public sector received this kind of (or indeed any) pay rise in the last three years?