childrens Referendum **poll added**

Dravokivich

mightdomighty wrote: »

Love how you assumed all who voted no "researched" it

Oh snap, I didn't agree with it, meaning I obviously don't care about the welfare of children.

goodie2shoes

Curly Judge wrote: »

Eh, could you read the second paragraph of post 648 again and come back to me.
When we get that sorted out we can move on to your interesting conspiricy theory about Enda and the IMF.
No sign of the Bilderberg Group yet then?

Enda & the IMF???
some of these daft "theories" these conspiratorial types dredge up? really.
i'm surprised they didn't roll out Jim Corr for the campaign.

seamus

Royal Legend wrote: »

Does anyone not think it is strange that an amendment to the constitution has been passed by approx 19% of the voting population?

And based on this we have the minister involved in this jumping up and down with joy on the tv stating that the majority of people (?) have spoken

Ideologically speaking, not voting is the same as voting for the winner.

That is, by abstaining from a vote, what you are doing is saying, "I support the outcome of this vote, whichever way it lands". So in ideological terms, the 19% who voted Yes have been supported by the 66% who didn't vote because they were happy to let the decision be made for them.

Curly Judge

seamus wrote: »

Ideologically speaking, not voting is the same as voting for the winner.

That is, by abstaining from a vote, what you are doing is saying, "I support the outcome of this vote, whichever way it lands". So in ideological terms, the 19% who voted Yes have been supported by the 66% who didn't vote because they were happy to let the decision be made for them.

Very interesting theory!
Perhaps it could be used in the next plebiscite as a "Get off your arse and vote" incentive.

If You Don't Vote You Will Be Voting For The Winner!
I like it!:)

Bullseye1

seamus wrote: »

Ideologically speaking, not voting is the same as voting for the winner.

That is, by abstaining from a vote, what you are doing is saying, "I support the outcome of this vote, whichever way it lands". So in ideological terms, the 19% who voted Yes have been supported by the 66% who didn't vote because they were happy to let the decision be made for them.

Interesting and I agree.

Fishooks12

JohnDozer wrote: »

29% researched it and thought 'yes' thats a good idea
29 % did what they were told like good little citizens
42% researched it and thought, surely our children deserve better, No

1 voter was a condescending ****er, who ironically seems to be an idiot

K-9

Over 300 extra social workers are already hired in fairness to the Government. If the will isn't there to resource them and make it a priority not much will change.

Smidge wrote: »

So, now its done.
The people have decided a "Yes".

Tell me AH's...

What do you think we will see as a result(and I mean tangible, visible results)of the passing of the referendum?
(This is a genuine question btw!)

Will we see an increase in resources to Social Workers, HSE staff who deal with children?

Do you think we will see an increase in the amount of children taken into care from abusive and dangerous home situations?

Will we see extra funding to help support families "at risk"?

Will we see more adoptions within the next couple of years?

Or will we see nothing, no change whatsoever?

goodie2shoes

K-9 wrote: »

Over 300 extra social workers are already hired in fairness to the Government. If the will isn't there to resource them and make it a priority not much will change.

look in fairness there are some problems in society you'll never totally solve/eradicate.
to expect all these issues of abuse and neglect to disappear simply because we've rightly amended DeValera's rag of a constitution is a bit naive imo. especially as we've no money left (except for Banker's & Minister's pensions of course).

it's a step in the right direction. that's all.

ebbsy

I was heading out to vote, then the darts came on so I said f&&K that votin lark.

goat2

i do hope that we never again hear the horror stories of the past and that this referendum means that, not one more child will suffer once they come to the attention of the services, be it through teachers, neighbours, or the children themselves making the services aware that there are problems,
there are some nasty people out there and some of them happen to be parents,

Smidge

@curly judge
In post 649 that you made you have quoted me with posts I DID NOT MAKE.

I made the first one that has my name on it, as for the other two, I have no idea who made those posts but it was not me.
I have already asked you to amend that and you have not.
It's not a cool thing to do, so kindly remove from post 649 the quotes that I did not make.

I have no problem with being quoted in what I actually do post and discussing that.

Smidge

K-9 wrote: »

Over 300 extra social workers are already hired in fairness to the Government. If the will isn't there to resource them and make it a priority not much will change.

Out of curiosity K9, when were these 300 new social workers taken on, and how did you find out about it?
Hadn't heard about this.

Also, do you know to where they have been allocated?

bernardo mac

Referendum to be discussed on VB tonight.Will not watch.Am finished with political discussion and this government.Did vote[yes].but am turned off Irish politics,this government ,the economic mess,law and disorder, blatant inequality and injustice etc. just as the many thousands who did not vote

K-9

Smidge wrote: »

Out of curiosity K9, when were these 300 new social workers taken on, and how did you find out about it?
Hadn't heard about this.

Also, do you know to where they have been allocated?

Francis Fitzgerald said it IIRC when interviewed. I wouldn't know the details.

goodie2shoes

bernardo mac wrote: »

Referendum to be discussed on VB tonight.Will not watch.Am finished with political discussion and this government.Did vote[yes].but am turned off Irish politics,this government ,the economic mess,law and disorder, blatant inequality and injustice etc. just as the many thousands who did not vote

that's a really constructive attitude.

Smidge

K-9 wrote: »

Out of curiosity K9, when were these 300 new social workers taken on, and how did you find out about it?
Hadn't heard about this.

Also, do you know to where they have been allocated?

Francis Fitzgerald said it IIRC when interviewed. I wouldn't know the details.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that.
Makes sense now that you tell me who said it

I'm afraid I'll have to call BS on Ms Fitzgerald there.
Been searching, just to be doubly sure, and no mention of these 300 new SW's anywhere. I would have heard about it tbh if there had been word of these new situations.
When I read your post I got excited at the prospect of these new SW's.

I hope someone has her on tape making that statement and puts it to her if she doesn't produce as making these claims while canvassing for a yes vote is downright shameful.

Curly Judge

Smidge wrote: »

@curly judge
In post 649 that you made you have quoted me with posts I DID NOT MAKE.

I made the first one that has my name on it, as for the other two, I have no idea who made those posts but it was not me.
I have already asked you to amend that and you have not.
It's not a cool thing to do, so kindly remove from post 649 the quotes that I did not make.

I have no problem with being quoted in what I actually do post and discussing that.

I have no desire to misquote you, [or anybody else for that matter]
Can you read again posts no 645, 647,648, 649.
If there is something in there attributed to you which you now deny posting then you will have to take it up with Admin. I certainly didn't alter any of your posts and if someone else did that is a very serious matter which should be vigorously investigated.
I can only say as I see!

Annasopra

Smidge wrote: »

@curly judge
In post 649 that you made you have quoted me with posts I DID NOT MAKE.

I made the first one that has my name on it, as for the other two, I have no idea who made those posts but it was not me.
I have already asked you to amend that and you have not.
It's not a cool thing to do, so kindly remove from post 649 the quotes that I did not make.

I have no problem with being quoted in what I actually do post and discussing that.

Use the report post button!

Smidge

mango salsa wrote: »

Use the report post button!

I was trying to be nice about it
Thanks for the advice and taken.

randylonghorn

Smidge wrote: »

Eh you are quoting me for posts I DIDN'T make, please amend that.
And even after doing that, it still didn't make sense :rolleyes:

Curly Judge wrote: »

Eh, could you read the second paragraph of post 648 again and come back to me.
When we get that sorted out we can move on to your interesting conspiricy theory about Enda and the IMF.
No sign of the Bilderberg Group yet then?

Smidge wrote: »

@curly judge
In post 649 that you made you have quoted me with posts I DID NOT MAKE.

I made the first one that has my name on it, as for the other two, I have no idea who made those posts but it was not me.
I have already asked you to amend that and you have not.
It's not a cool thing to do, so kindly remove from post 649 the quotes that I did not make.

I have no problem with being quoted in what I actually do post and discussing that.

Curly Judge wrote: »

I have no desire to misquote you, [or anybody else for that matter]
Can you read again posts no 645, 647,648, 649.
If there is something in there attributed to you which you now deny posting then you will have to take it up with Admin. I certainly didn't alter any of your posts and if someone else did that is a very serious matter which should be vigorously investigated.
I can only say as I see!

I'm sure you didn't deliberately alter anything, Curly, but you inadvertently messed up the quote tags so that some of your own responses seemed to be quotes from another poster and vice versa. I think I've fixed it now, you can both double-check.

Hardly the end of the world, but maybe something just to be careful about.

Now can everyone kindly put away the blunt instruments, crisis averted! :rolleyes:

Slick50

Curly Judge wrote: »

No bother.
In post no 130 you highlighted an earlier post by "White Roses" which laid out the horrific history of how a child who was adopted by, and had bonded with, a loving family was handed back to its birth parents through the machinations of the law as it now stands.

That's right, the child was returned to her biological parents, who had never abused her, at a very early stage in life.

Curly Judge wrote: »

You asked: How is that a problem?

What I asked was

How was this a bad outcome?

The child was never abused! While I am sure it was traumatic initially, she got to grow up with her birth parents! Many adopted children grow up to seek their birth parents, wishing they had known them earlier in their lives.

Where is this family now. Has something come to light to show she would have been better off with the adoptive family.

I stand by that question in the context it was asked, maybe you could answer it......

Curly Judge wrote: »

My point is, that if you are not capable of seeing the problem in this case you do not possess the moral compass or indeed the compassion to deal with, or indeed have anything to do with, child custody cases. No matter how many children you have reared.

....rather than ranting about the abilities of somebody you know nothing about.

Curly Judge wrote: »

No doubt you’ll find my opinion wrong, unfair and perhaps even offensive. You are unlikely to be alone in that conviction.
A sizeable proportion of the people in this debate would agree with you.

Perhaps if you read the post properly, before rushing off to saddle your high horse, you could address the question asked.

Curly Judge wrote: »

They would agree with you because they follow the Abrahamic thinking that has prevailed for thousands of years, i.e. that the child is somehow the property of its parents and that its interests are subject to, and lesser than, the interest of the parents. In most cases this matters little as good parents, of whom I'm sure you are one, balance this equation very well, or at least reasonably.

Maybe they would agree with me because they too understand that innate biological need to nurture our offspring, and could show some of that compassion you talk of in seeing the young mothers plight

Curly Judge wrote: »

The problem raises its ugly head in the exceptional circumstances outlined in the "White Roses" post. Here, a child was wrenched from the arms of its adoptive parents without having due regard for its interests and certainly with no regards for its feelings.

If the adoptive parents hadn't contested the return of the infant so vehemently, she would have been reunited with her natural parents much sooner. Who's welfare and feelings do you think were uppermost in their thoughts at that stage?

Curly Judge wrote: »

Hopefully, from today that will change.

Take a good deep breath.

K-9

Smidge wrote: »

Thanks for that.
Makes sense now that you tell me who said it

I'm afraid I'll have to call BS on Ms Fitzgerald there.
Been searching, just to be doubly sure, and no mention of these 300 new SW's anywhere. I would have heard about it tbh if there had been word of these new situations.
When I read your post I got excited at the prospect of these new SW's.

I hope someone has her on tape making that statement and puts it to her if she doesn't produce as making these claims while canvassing for a yes vote is downright shameful.

62 extra social workers were hired so I assume they are part of the promised 300. The figure rang a bell when she said it so I assume it was announced at some stage. The increase in the budget helped increase the percentage of children with an allocated social worker, despite an increase of numbers in care.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/07/10/00003.asp

http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-insists-childrens-rights-referendum-will-take-place-this-year-391216-Mar2012/
I know good news stories are rare with cuts these days, probably why it stuck out for me.

Curly Judge

randylonghorn wrote: »

I'm sure you didn't deliberately alter anything, Curly, but you inadvertently messed up the quote tags so that some of your own responses seemed to be quotes from another poster and vice versa. I think I've fixed it now, you can both double-check.

Hardly the end of the world, but maybe something just to be careful about.

Now can everyone kindly put away the blunt instruments, crisis
averted! :rolleyes:

Thanks Randy.
Are you sure you're not related to Ban Ki-moon?:)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Slick50 wrote: »

If the adoptive parents hadn't contested the return of the infant so vehemently, she would have been reunited with her natural parents much sooner. Who's welfare and feelings do you think were uppermost in their thoughts at that stage?

Spot on; the facts of the Baby Ann case have been completely distorted in many articles on the topic. As you say, the impression is usually created that there was some reason why she shouldn't have been returned to her natural parents. The facts of the case are that the Constitution protected Baby Ann and her parents from high-handed and arbitrary treatment by the Adoption Board.

I'm not sure if the new wording would demand a different result. If it does, it is a disimprovment. One of my reasons for voting No was the possibility that the Baby Ann decision might be overturned.

Smidge

K-9 wrote: »

62 extra social workers were hired so I assume they are part of the promised 300. The figure rang a bell when she said it so I assume it was announced at some stage. The increase in the budget helped increase the percentage of children with an allocated social worker, despite an increase of numbers in care.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/07/10/00003.asp

http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-insists-childrens-rights-referendum-will-take-place-this-year-391216-Mar2012/
I know good news stories are rare with cuts these days, probably why it stuck out for me.

I know we have to try to see "the silver lining" but 62 in comparison to 300 is fairly mediocre.
The highest ever amount of children (in the space of one year) to be taken into care was last year, 2011. Over 2000 children in 12 months.
The SW's are stretched as thin as any worker can be imo, these 62 wouldn't even cover where there was shortfall before.
Never mind the 2000 last year.

Annasopra

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Spot on; the facts of the Baby Ann case have been completely distorted in many articles on the topic. As you say, the impression is usually created that there was some reason why she shouldn't have been returned to her natural parents. The facts of the case are that the Constitution protected Baby Ann and her parents from high-handed and arbitrary treatment by the Adoption Board.

I'm not sure if the new wording would demand a different result. If it does, it is a disimprovment. One of my reasons for voting No was the possibility that the Baby Ann decision might be overturned.

That is ridiculous. I don't see how under any circumstances the Baby Ann decision could be overturned. You can't overturn a supreme court judgement because the constitution has changed.

Anyway under this new consitutional provision there is absolutely no way it would be overturned. It would not be in Baby Anns best interests at this stage to be moved away from her parents after the trauma of leaving her adoptive parents; causing her more trauma could cause her severe damage.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

That is ridiculous. I don't see how under any circumstances the Baby Ann decision could be overturned. You can't overturn a supreme court judgement because the constitution has changed.

What I (pretty clearly) meant was the future application of the Baby Ann decision is now in doubt, as inevitably happens once you change the Constitution.

I certainly didn't mean that I expected the Adoption Board to turn up on the door of that specific couple, and try to make off with their child. Again.

Annasopra

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I (pretty clearly) meant was the future application of the Baby Ann decision is now in doubt, as inevitably happens once you change the Constitution.

I certainly didn't mean that I expected the Adoption Board to turn up on the door of that specific couple, and try to make off with their child. Again.

Yes.

It is. It means children in married families and unmarried families will be treated equally and the rights of the child will be paramount (not the family or the parents)

Curly Judge

When

Slick50 wrote: »

That's right, the child was returned to her biological parents, who had never abused her, at a very early stage in life.

Slick50 wrote: »

What I asked wasQuote:
How was this a bad outcome?

The child was never abused! While I am sure it was traumatic initially, she got to grow up with her birth parents! Many adopted children grow up to seek their birth parents, wishing they had known them earlier in their lives.

Where is this family now. Has something come to light to show she would have been better off with the adoptive family.

I stand by that question in the context it was asked, maybe you could answer it......

They never abused her except by abandoning her. Their attitude was one of expediency. It wasn’t convenient to disrupt their exams or their lifestyle.
They were so in love with their baby that they didn’t even have the courage to stand up to their parents?
When the lawyer advised them to get married to provide a little legal window dressing they nipped up to Belfast for a Las Vegas quickie.
The adoptive parents never failed the child. But with you it's all about blood, isn't it? Under the system you are so anxious to retain, the child’s welfare will be sacrificed on the altar of parental rights. Your claim that the child didn’t suffer much psychological trauma is callous. “What’s a little psychological trauma to a two year old? Shure hasn’t she plenty of time to get over it and she’s back with her blood mother and it’ll all be grand!”

By Slick50

....rather than ranting about the abilities of somebody you know nothing about.
Perhaps if you read the post properly, before rushing off to saddle your high horse, you could address the question asked.

On mature reflection I wish to withdraw my original contention that you were not entitled to comment on this subject. I was wrong on this!
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. [No matter how is mis guided it may be.]

By slick50
Maybe they would agree with me because they too understand that innate biological need to nurture our offspring, and could show some of that compassion you talk of in seeing the young mothers plight

So, this innate biological need to nurture overrides the welfare of the child?
Walk into any teenagers night club any Saturday night and you’ll see your innate biological need at work in all its glory.:rolleyes:
Perhaps we should legislate for this too?

By slick50
If the adoptive parents hadn't contested the return of the infant so vehemently, she would have been reunited with her natural parents much sooner. Who's welfare and feelings do you think were uppermost in their thoughts at that stage?

I don't believe I'm reading this!
What should the adoptive parents have done?
The biological mother turns up at her pleasure and the adoptive mother shouts upstairs, "Hey Ann, there's a strange woman down here whom you don’t know and she wants to take you away. Get your coat and shoes. You’re out of here!”??
Of course the adoptive parents fought to retain the child they loved. I would have been surprised, [and disappointed] if they didn’t.

Take a good deep breath

.

Thankfully I don’t need to take any more deep breaths, The referendum has been passed.

K-9

Smidge wrote: »

I know we have to try to see "the silver lining" but 62 in comparison to 300 is fairly mediocre.
The highest ever amount of children (in the space of one year) to be taken into care was last year, 2011. Over 2000 children in 12 months.
The SW's are stretched as thin as any worker can be imo, these 62 wouldn't even cover where there was shortfall before.
Never mind the 2000 last year.

Thing is, they do cover the shortfall if you read the Oireachtas link. Numbers are up but the percentage of children with allocated social workers went up.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

It means children in married families and unmarried families will be treated equally and the rights of the child will be paramount (not the family or the parents)

Ah, yeah, we all know that's the slogan. The point is whether, in actuality, the new wording would similarly protect some future Baby Ann and her parents from high handed and arbitrary action by the Adoption Board. The Court is out on that, as obviously the new wording hasn't been tested yet.

Undoubtedly the best decision was made in the Baby Ann case. We don't know if the best decision would have been made under the current wording. For all we know, the current wording might dictate that abortion is never justified, on grounds that its not in the best interests of the child, regardless of how slim the chance of the birth proceding to full term or the level of risk to the mother.

Curly Judge

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, yeah, we all know that's the slogan. The point is whether, in actuality, the new wording would similarly protect some future Baby Ann and her parents from high handed and arbitrary action by the Adoption Board. The Court is out on that, as obviously the new wording hasn't been tested yet.

Undoubtedly the best decision was made in the Baby Ann case. We don't know if the best decision would have been made under the current wording. For all we know, the current wording might dictate that abortion is never justified, on grounds that its not in the best interests of the child, regardless of how slim the chance of the birth proceding to full term or the level of risk to the mother.

Do you have some personal contact with this child or it's family?
Forgeting of course, as all you people do, the poor unfurtunate adoptive parents
How can you be so sure that the story had such a happy ending?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Curly Judge wrote: »

Do you have some personal contact with this child or it's family?

None at all. My view is solely based on the facts of the case as established by the Supreme Court.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Forgeting of course, as all you people do, the poor unfurtunate adoptive parents

And why is there a need to remember them? Are you saying you should break up a natural family just to make two unrelated adults happy?

Curly Judge wrote: »

How can you be so sure that the story had such a happy ending?

And how can you not see you're being absurd? If we don't judge the case with reference to the facts of the matter, we've no basis for judgment whatsoever.

Curly Judge

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

None at all. My view is solely based on the facts of the case as established by the Supreme Court.And why is there a need to remember them? Are you saying you should break up a natural family just to make two unrelated adults happy?And how can you not see you're being absurd? If we don't judge the case with reference to the facts of the matter, we've no basis for judgment whatsoever.

So, in your scales of justice, an unplanned biological accident carries more weight than the considered, selfless, and committed deliberation of a couple who were willing to give the child a good home, thought there was no obligation on them to do so? Its okay for their life to be torn apart and put to enormous financial and emotional expense, not to speak of the unwanted publicity they must have suffered.
Of course, I forgot.... Your pal John Waters thinks they are all in it for the money.
Nice one!

Smidge

K-9 wrote: »

Thing is, they do cover the shortfall if you read the Oireachtas link. Numbers are up but the percentage of children with allocated social workers went up.

I did read the Oireachtas link. There was a shortfall at the start of last year with regard to how many children already in care did not have an allocated SW.
Then last year over 2000 extra children came into care.
I would imagine that the additional 64 SW would have covered the shortfall before these children came into care.
But if these 64 Sw's were to cover these new cases solely, that's a hell of an ask.
It's 30 plus children for each of these new SW's, never mind the ones who didn't already have an SW.

K-9

Smidge wrote: »

I did read the Oireachtas link. There was a shortfall at the start of last year with regard to how many children already in care did not have an allocated SW.

Yes, about 7.2%, in 2009 it was 17%.

Then last year over 2000 extra children came into care.

Where are you getting that figure from? It's 267 between February 2011 and May 2012 from the link.

I would imagine that the additional 64 SW would have covered the shortfall before these children came into care.

It was actually only 14 extra SW last year.

But if these 64 Sw's were to cover these new cases solely, that's a hell of an ask.
It's 30 plus children for each of these new SW's, never mind the ones who didn't already have an SW.

Well they would seem to have 50 extra already this year with another 200 with recruitment underway.

Smidge

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, about 7.2%, in 2009 it was 17%.



Where are you getting that figure from? It's 267 between February 2011 and May 2012 from the link.



It was actually only 14 extra SW last year.



Well they would seem to have 50 extra already this year with another 200 with recruitment underway.

Apologies, I meant over 200, obviously added an extra "0"

Slick50

Curly Judge wrote: »

They never abused her except by abandoning her. Their attitude was one of expediency. It wasn’t convenient to disrupt their exams or their lifestyle.
They were so in love with their baby that they didn’t even have the courage to stand up to their parents?
When the lawyer advised them to get married to provide a little legal window dressing they nipped up to Belfast for a Las Vegas quickie.
The adoptive parents never failed the child.

That's a fairly caustic analysis of the actions of a young mother who found herself in a very traumatic situation, possibly suffering post natal depression.

Curly Judge wrote: »

But with you it's all about blood, isn't it? Under the system you are so anxious to retain, the child’s welfare will be sacrificed on the altar of parental rights.

No. I already stated that I think it was in the best interest of the child's welfare, that she be brought up by her biological parents as is the norm, wherever possible.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Your claim that the child didn’t suffer much psychological trauma is callous. “What’s a little psychological trauma to a two year old? Shure hasn’t she plenty of time to get over it and she’s back with her blood mother and it’ll all be grand!”

I think it is the lesser of two evils, given the alternative of spending your life feeling you mother/parents didn't want or care for you.

Curly Judge wrote: »

On mature reflection I wish to withdraw my original contention that you were not entitled to comment on this subject. I was wrong on this!
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. [No matter how is mis guided it may be.]

Well thanks for that. [sort of]

Curly Judge wrote: »

So, this innate biological need to nurture overrides the welfare of the child?

No, it is mother nature's way of ensuring a child's welfare, usually.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Walk into any teenagers night club any Saturday night and you’ll see your innate biological need at work in all its glory.:rolleyes:

Curly Judge wrote: »

Perhaps we should legislate for this too?

I think you'll find we have.

]

Curly Judge wrote: »

What should the adoptive parents have done?
The biological mother turns up at her pleasure and the adoptive mother shouts upstairs, "Hey Ann, there's a strange woman down here whom you don’t know and she wants to take you away. Get your coat and shoes. You’re out of here!”??
Of course the adoptive parents fought to retain the child they loved. I would have been surprised, [and disappointed] if they didn’t.

Of course, but was the child's welfare their primary concern, or, they can't take this child we have grown to love away from us.?

Curly Judge wrote: »

Thankfully I don’t need to take any more deep breaths, The referendum has been passed.

The referendum is done, only time will reveal what possible ramifications will ensue. You could be taking some further deep breaths yet.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Curly Judge wrote: »

So, in your scales of justice, an unplanned biological accident carries more weight than the considered, selfless, and committed deliberation of a couple who were willing to give the child a good home, thought there was no obligation on them to do so?

Holy hyperbole, Batman, I think you've just declared the Succession Act to be unconstitutional.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Of course, I forgot.... Your pal John Waters thinks they are all in it for the money.

I've a feeling you're confusing John Waters comments on foster parents with adoption. But then, confusing fostering and adoption was a central plank in the case for a Yes vote, so you're playing to form.

Smidge

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Holy hyperbole, Batman, I think you've just declared the Succession Act to be unconstitutional.[/COLOR]I've a feeling you're confusing John Waters comments on foster parents with adoption. But then, confusing fostering and adoption was a central plank in the case for a Yes vote, so you're playing to form.

Have to agree there.
People are considering the two to be similar when the reality is they couldn't be more different.

I also think some people will find this to be true but it may be a bit too late then.

Slick50

Curly Judge wrote: »

They never abused her except by abandoning her. Their attitude was one of expediency

There is a huge difference between abandonment, and giving a child up for addoption.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Do you have some personal contact with this child or it's family?
Forgeting of course, as all you people do, the poor unfurtunate adoptive parents
How can you be so sure that the story had such a happy ending?

Curly Judge wrote: »

So, in your scales of justice, an unplanned biological accident carries more weight than the considered, selfless, and committed deliberation of a couple who were willing to give the child a good home, thought there was no obligation on them to do so? Its okay for their life to be torn apart and put to enormous financial and emotional expense, not to speak of the unwanted publicity they must have suffered.
Of course, I forgot.... Your pal John Waters thinks they are all in it for the money.
Nice one!

You seem to be more concerned about the "poor unfortunate adoptive parents" than the welfare of the child.

Curly Judge

w

Slick50 wrote: »

Well thanks for that. [sort of]

Curly Judge

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Holy hyperbole, Batman, I think you've just declared the Succession Act to be unconstitutional.

There you go again Cat woman!
Treating children as goods and chattels. Mere pawns to the property rights of the parents.
Psst. Why don't you bring an action claiming that the new wording is in conflict with the part of the constitution guaranteeing the right to hold property? Now there's an idea

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've a feeling you're confusing John Waters comments on foster parents with adoption. But then, confusing fostering and adoption was a central plank in the case for a Yes vote, so you're playing to form.

The country didn't go for your Old Testament ideology.
Despite hysterical claims to the contrary civilization didn't collapse after the Divorce Referendum. It won't this time either.
Let’s get on with it!

Curly Judge

Slick50 wrote: »

There is a huge difference between abandonment, and giving a child up for addoption.





You seem to be more concerned about the "poor unfortunate adoptive parents" than the welfare of the child.

My concern has always been solely for the child.
My suspicion is that some,[not all] of the NO side have another agenda.

randylonghorn

Curly Judge wrote: »

.

Curly, PLEASE stop inserting colour tags and fecking up the quote tags! Just click Quote or the Multiquote icon to the right of it, and insert your response OUTSIDE the quote tags. Thanks!!

Quote tags look like this: [noparse]

somebody wrote:

what they said

[/noparse]

Curly Judge

randylonghorn wrote: »

Curly, PLEASE stop inserting colour tags and fecking up the quote tags! Just click Quote or the Multiquote icon to the right of it, and insert your response OUTSIDE the quote tags. Thanks!!

Quote tags look like this:

Okay! Okay!
I'll go on a refesher course.
Bugger, bugger, grumble, growl!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Curly Judge wrote: »

Treating children as goods and chattels. Mere pawns to the property rights of the parents.

Spot the guy who doesn't know what the Succession Act is.

Curly Judge wrote: »

The country didn't go for your Old Testament ideology.

Erm, I'm atheist.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Despite hysterical claims to the contrary civilization didn't collapse after the Divorce Referendum. It won't this time either.
Let’s get on with it!

Get on with what? Reversing the implications of the Baby Ann case, even if there isn't a lot of comprehension of what they were?

Curly Judge

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Spot the guy who doesn't know what the Succession Act is.

If the Succession Act isn't about property, estate and inheritance, what is your interpretation.

Pawwed Rig

The succession act is about who inherits what with the wife and children receiving priority in the event a man dies without a will. Even with a will the wife and children MUST be adequately provided for. It really does not have any relevance in this thread though other than in the case of an adoption the adopted child has all the rights of a blood child

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The succession act is about who inherits what with the wife and children receiving priority in the event a man dies without a will. Even with a will the wife and children MUST be adequately provided for. It really does not have any relevance in this thread though other than in the case of an adoption the adopted child has all the rights of a blood child

With the point being that blood relatives can be assumed to be in the frame.

Bear in mind, the point at issue is that some are finding themselves in the position of attempting to deny that natural relationships exist. Support for the recent amendment has taken them to a strange place, from which they have yet to emerge.

Anyway, we actually won't know the effect of what they voted for until the first case. No point in delaying too long over the fact that it wasn't broke, but they fixed it.