childrens Referendum **poll added**

Smidge

Just for you K-9

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1025/1224325680575.html

Knew it was bound to be somewhere as it has been talked about.

I was just a nosy fu*ker and didn't wait for the media to tell me it!!!

K-9

Smidge wrote: »

Just for you K-9

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1025/1224325680575.html

Knew it was bound to be somewhere as it has been talked about.

I was just a nosy fu*ker and didn't wait for the media to tell me it!!!

“The new conditions are that where there has been three years of parental failure and the child has been in the care of the prospective adopters for 18 months, and where the failure of the parents is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, the High Court can make an adoption order.

Good stuff, now we are dealing with ifs and buts, not definite 3 years and 2 months.

Smidge

K-9 wrote: »

Good stuff, now we are dealing with ifs and buts, not definite 3 years and 2 months.

I said that the 3 years, 2 months thing was me making a point!

But another point as you say is that it is exactly that, if's and but's.

There is nothing solid in the wording of this amendment, that's a huge problem in and of itself.

Look, when I heard first about this referendum I thought "that's got my vote".
Then I read up on it and asked questions.

The "if's" and "but's" leave huge wriggle room for this to be used to the states advantage after it has been passed.

Too many open endings imo.

How many times in this country have we been asked to vote on referenda and NOT been given the full details?
Maastrict, Nice????

I genuinely want what is best for the children of this state(I'm a parent too!) but this amendment is not it.

It is a cost saving measure against the cost of foster care in Ireland and I cannot see one damn thing that will protect a single vunerable child living in a desperate situation anywhere across this country tonight.

If they wanted to protect kids, for God sakes get them out of the abusive homes.
But they cant.
Why?
HSE are dysfunctional.

Also about the If's and but's re the time frame, 3 years?
They could change that and make it whatever they want if this is passed.
Would a year be enough time for a family who have encountered problems resolve them, I dont think so.

caste_in_exile

I bet there's a fair few o ye sweatin bullets now.


"the ould lad dipped me in the slurry tank"

"me daa told me to pick him up after work"

"mi padre strung me up as the human piñata.."


No hiding place, for the wicked.

Smidge

caste_in_exile wrote: »

I bet there's a fair few o ye sweatin bullets now.


"the ould lad dipped me in the slurry tank"

"me daa told me to pick him up after work"

"mi padre strung me up as the human piñata.."


No hiding place, for the wicked.

caste_in_exile

Smidge wrote: »

just a smidgeon.

Smidge

caste_in_exile wrote: »

just a smidgeon.

fair enough, thanks for the insight

Annasopra

Smidge wrote: »

The proposed amendment to the article states:

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

This period will be three years.

And that law might be changed to 5 years or could be changed in the future

bbam

Smidge wrote: »

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

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

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

In fairness smidge you don't seem to understand the intensive vetting and training that prospective adoptive parents in Ireland receive. This is a rigerous system, not something that every couple can pass through. Adoptive parents in Ireland are prepared for Adoption and post Adoption issues should they arrive...

Also saying that ALL the children WILL have "issues" is an ignorant point to make and in fact the opposite is true. Children are resilliant and when placed in a loving caring environment they flourish, most leave their problems behind and for those that do need help then the Child and Family services within the HSE are byond excellant with the support they provide..

I have experienced this first hand. This is why I fully trust the professionals within the HSE to exercise their duties. And if additional support in the form of a constitutional change is required I have no problem voting yes to provide it...

What I find frustrating is that so many posters spout all sorts of nonsence against this referrendum but actualy know little of what they are talking about. Few if any have saught help from the "agents of the state" whom they knock and critizise, many are baseing their opinions on sensationalised second hand reports of social workers lying to have children taken from good homes... There seems to be an anti-state sentiment no matter what the issue, real tin foil hat stuff...
Yes there have been cases where more should have been done and that is terrible, however its not an excuse to refuse further support to the genuine hard working Sw's who need it.

We should be supporting these professionals in any way possible and THEN holding to account those who fail in their duties. Not just labeling all to be unworthy of support just because a few have fallen short in the past.

If this constitutional change results in only ONE child being removed from an abusive situation then it will have been a success.

hooradiation

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

It's simple. Your stance is based on "state incompetence" being always and forever.

Whether you admit that or not is inconsequential - that's what your initial and subsequent posts have shown.
And no amount of crying about being " paraphrased, misquoted and misinterpreted" will do much about that

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So thats your argument for voting yes?

it's my argument for having a problem with the words you are saying.
Hopefully it'll inspire you to think your position through more carefully.

SafeSurfer

hooradiation wrote: »

It's simple. Your stance is based on "state incompetence" being always and forever.

Whether you admit that or not is inconsequential - that's what your initial and subsequent posts have shown.
And no amount of crying about being " paraphrased, misquoted and misinterpreted" will do much about that



it's my argument for having a problem with the words you are saying.
Hopefully it'll inspire you to think your position through more carefully.

My stance is based on experience of state incompetence. I have never described or alluded to this incompetence as being "always and forever".

I am not trying to change your mind or question your motivation for voting yes. That is your decision and I respect that.

I have thought about my position in light of your reply and I have still reached the same conclusion and for exactly the same reasons.

The Cool

Got the Catholic paper Alive through the postbox yesterday with quite a lot to say on the issue. Had never read it before but it caught my eye on the children's referendum. Absolute rag of propaganda. Anybody else see it? It calls it the "Anti-Parents Referendum" and says that it's the State trying to take power away from the Church.

Here's a bit of their anti-referendum arguments.
"Parents have a last chance to protect their children!"
http://www.alive.ie/headline2.html

"Politicians and social workers to be given the role of parents?"
http://www.alive.ie/headline1.html

The anti-parents referendum is a massive confidence trick on children and parents, a reckless assault on family life in Ireland.

http://www.alive.ie/uploads/6/5/1/1/6511516/alive_nov_12.pdf This is the paper. Front page has a picture of the character of Lola from Eastenders with her baby and the caption reads "Lola storyline a stark warning to Irish voters about dangers of giving too much power to State"

Absolute rag.

mel1

this was in my inbox this morning! dont know if there is any truth in it.

10 Reasons to vote No in the Children's Rights Referendum

1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.

2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary dec
ision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)

5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.

6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights.

8/ The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9/ The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10/ The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote n

bbam

mel1 wrote: »

this was in my inbox this morning! dont know if there is any truth in it.

10 Reasons to vote No in the Children's Rights Referendum

1/ Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC.

2/ Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary dec
ision can be made my one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3/The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records, this could be extended to school admission.

4/ The State can decide to give give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for abortions without parental consent and even if the child disagrees. (X case, C Case, D case)

5/ The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation.

6/ The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism, it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7/The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights.

8/ The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9/ The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRCC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10/ The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote n

I'd say its as factual as saying that if you vote yes then the BOGEY man will definitely come and get your children..
Looks like scaremongering gone into overdrive..

But unfortunitely due to our current anti-state and anti-authority sentiment some people will beleive it...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bbam wrote: »

If this constitutional change results in only ONE child being removed from an abusive situation then it will have been a success.

What if it causes TWO children to be placed in an abusive situation by State services? I'm not sure people are contemplating that what we are talking about is a balance of circumstances, which this Amendment could upset.
Also, I can't help noticing that people are still talking about adoption as if it was a frequent occurance. Adoption was very popular, even into the 1980s. Typically, there were over 1,000 adoptions a year in those days.Now there are only a handful of adoptions would be by non-family members. The idea that its a normal or frequent response to these situations is just mistaken - and that's nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with there no longer being a culture of hiding away the family secret.

bbam

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What if it causes TWO children to be placed in an abusive situation by State services? I'm not sure people are contemplating that what we are talking about is a balance of circumstances, which this Amendment could upset.
Also, I can't help noticing that people are still talking about adoption as if it was a frequent occurance. Adoption was very popular, even into the 1980s. Typically, there were over 1,000 adoptions a year in those days.Now there are only a handful of adoptions would be by non-family members. The idea that its a normal or frequent response to these situations is just mistaken - and that's nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with there no longer being a culture of hiding away the family secret.

But why would you say that children would be put into abusive situations.. your just throwing out random might happen scenarios to muddy the waters. Its just this type of wild inventiveness of scenarios that scare people into not trusting the state's intentions.
so are you suggesting we stand by and do nothing to help children in abusive homes because you have a fear that they will be placed into abusive situations... Garda vetting, training, assessments all miss the fact that these placements are into abusive situations... absolute rubbish, scaremongering!

Smidge

bbam wrote: »

In fairness smidge you don't seem to understand the intensive vetting and training that prospective adoptive parents in Ireland receive. This is a rigerous system, not something that every couple can pass through. Adoptive parents in Ireland are prepared for Adoption and post Adoption issues should they arrive...

Also saying that ALL the children WILL have "issues" is an ignorant point to make and in fact the opposite is true. Children are resilliant and when placed in a loving caring environment they flourish, most leave their problems behind and for those that do need help then the Child and Family services within the HSE are byond excellant with the support they provide..

I have experienced this first hand. This is why I fully trust the professionals within the HSE to exercise their duties. And if additional support in the form of a constitutional change is required I have no problem voting yes to provide it...

What I find frustrating is that so many posters spout all sorts of nonsence against this referrendum but actualy know little of what they are talking about. Few if any have saught help from the "agents of the state" whom they knock and critizise, many are baseing their opinions on sensationalised second hand reports of social workers lying to have children taken from good homes... There seems to be an anti-state sentiment no matter what the issue, real tin foil hat stuff...
Yes there have been cases where more should have been done and that is terrible, however its not an excuse to refuse further support to the genuine hard working Sw's who need it.

We should be supporting these professionals in any way possible and THEN holding to account those who fail in their duties. Not just labeling all to be unworthy of support just because a few have fallen short in the past.

If this constitutional change results in only ONE child being removed from an abusive situation then it will have been a success.

My mistake.
I wish to amend my statement to:
The majority of children taken into care will have issues.

I also have first hand experience with child and family services so I'm afraid I am not one of the people spouting nonsense about something I know nothing about. I am also afraid that I have not shared your experience of this being a positive. I have found the service, for want of a better expression, to be wanting.

I found the "professionals" that I had to deal with to be "by the book" type people, as if the had a script and followed it no matter what family situation they dealt with.

I would support this referendum if I thought that even one child extra would be removed from a dangerous situation, but come on bbam, we both know that that will not happen.

The HSE do NOT have the resources to do this, simple as.
The are under embargo as we all know and by passing this referendum we will NOT empower the HSE and its agents to remove more children from dangerous environments. Its not going to happen, this referendum is not about this.

That's what cheeses me off.
This referendum has been portrayed to the public as going to do this, and it won't.

IMO, rather that run this referendum and waste so much money on it, do as you say, empower people within the services to help families.

Lawyer1

It doesn't look like the aim of this referendum has so much to do with "children being heard", as nothing stops them from "hearing" children now if they really wanted to. Do they need a law for that?
Children are very vulnerable and can be manipulated very easy, therefore they have the right to be protected, and nobody cares for them more than their parents, including the state. In cases where parents are not capable, the role of the state should be to help them to get back on their feet as soon as possible in the best interest of the child. There are already provisions to take care of them, family members, foster families, etc, the problem is how these provisions are being implemented, and that is not going to be solved by giving the state more power over ALL families. If the state cared so much about children how do they explain 500 children missing from their care since the year 2000?
They have a lot of issues to address that have nothing to do with the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is not going to solve any of these issues, but likely will just create more injustices.

bbam

Lawyer1 wrote: »

It doesn't look like the aim of this referendum has so much to do with "children being heard", as nothing stops them from "hearing" children now if they really wanted to. Do they need a law for that?
Children are very vulnerable and can be manipulated very easy, therefore they have the right to be protected, and nobody cares for them more than their parents, including the state. In cases where parents are not capable, the role of the state should be to help them to get back on their feet as soon as possible in the best interest of the child. There are already provisions to take care of them, family members, foster families, etc, the problem is how these provisions are being implemented, and that is not going to be solved by giving the state more power over ALL families. If the state cared so much about children how do they explain 500 children missing from their care since the year 2000?
They have a lot of issues to address that have nothing to do with the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is not going to solve any of these issues, but likely will just create more injustices.

More "children are better with their parents no matter how bad the parents are" nonsense. It's just not true, how long do children suffer waiting for these drunk, strung out and incapable parents to get their **** together, in the life of a child three years is a very long time.
Nobody is saying that the system is absolutely perfect, but changing nothing will hardly improve it.

nbar12

I'm voting no because I don't like children

Lawyer1

bbam wrote: »

More "children are better with their parents no matter how bad the parents are" nonsense. It's just not true, how long do children suffer waiting for these drunk, strung out and incapable parents to get their **** together, in the life of a child three years is a very long time.
Nobody is saying that the system is absolutely perfect, but changing nothing will hardly improve it.

Sorry that you don't know how to read. Alarming that you can vote when you seem unable to understand very simple concepts. Read my post again and compare it with what you just wrote. Keep doing it until you understand the difference between what I wrote and you say I wrote.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bbam wrote: »

But why would you say that children would be put into abusive situations.. your just throwing out random might happen scenarios to muddy the waters.

No, it is simply a fact that children taken into care were abused. This is fact, not some random might happen scenario.It happened. In recent years, the HSE couldn't even state how many children had died in its care.

bbam wrote: »

so are you suggesting we stand by and do nothing to help children in abusive homes because you have a fear that they will be placed into abusive situations.

You are actually the one engaging in scaremongering. My point, and the point of most No voters contributing here, is that this amendment does nothing to help. It's a pretence of doing something.

finnegan101

nbar12 wrote: »

I'm voting no because I don't like children

wow... was this the first plausible and substantiated reason for voting NO...
AT least it stands up ;-)

Sure you may as well vote yes so, as the no campaign claim it will do more harm !!!!

MikeyS9607

Has anyone seen any No posters around Cork? I haven't seen any, only Yes. Can't complain either way. Can't vote.

Gamayun

MikeyS9607 wrote: »

Has anyone seen any No posters around Cork? I haven't seen any, only Yes. Can't complain either way. Can't vote.

One of the Yes posters on Leitrim street is upside-down, that's essentially a No poster isn't it? Or am I reading too much into it?

I got a No leaflet through the door from the 'legion of saint Joseph' alright (They sound like a nice bunch..er.. I mean a nice legion of lads). They're complaining how religious parents won't be allowed bring up their kids as strictly religious as they want, I don't know where they got that info from. If this upbringing slips into the realm of actual legally defined abuse of course it should be tackled! The use the term 'Orwellian' in the leaflet too regarding the state, clearly no sense of irony in the legion HQ.

Lawyer1

Gamayun wrote: »

One of the Yes posters on Leitrim street is upside-down, that's essentially a No poster isn't it? Or am I reading too much into it?

I got a No leaflet through the door from the 'legion of saint Joseph' alright (They sound like a nice bunch..er.. I mean a nice legion of lads). They're complaining how religious parents won't be allowed bring up their kids as strictly religious as they want, I don't know where they got that info from. If this upbringing slips into the realm of actual legally defined abuse of course it should be tackled! The use the term 'Orwellian' in the leaflet too regarding the state, clearly no sense of irony in the legion HQ.

Would it be more fair if they brought up THEIR children according to YOUR philosophy of life? If this referendum passes the state can potentially intervene and decide the religion, political tendency, philosophy of life, etc a child should be brought up into. You may feel comfortable with that idea, a lot of people just don't.

Gamayun

Lawyer1 wrote: »

Would it be more fair if they brought up THEIR children according to YOUR philosophy of life? If this referendum passes the state can potentially intervene and decide the religion, political tendency, philosophy of life, etc a child should be brought up into. You may feel comfortable with that idea, a lot of people just don't.

What I've highlighted above is a ridiculous statement, total hyperbole. It's not worth my time entering a debate with someone who thinks like this, and I shan't.

Lawyer1

Gamayun wrote: »

What I've highlighted above is a ridiculous statement, total hyperbole. It's not worth my time entering a debate with someone who thinks like this, and I shan't.

Then don't.

Smidge

I am not involved with "The Jesus and Mary Chain" or whoever these religious organisations are, and tbh these bloody groups have damaged the "No" vote.

Nobody likes religious nutjubs especially those claiming "to have the best interest of the child at heart":rolleyes:

It still stands though that changing the constitution through this amendment WILL NOT do what the people have been led to believe it will ie remove children from dangerous, unsafe and detrimental family environments.

So I wish people would not keep trotting this out as to why we should vote "yes".

Show me where in the amendment it specifically says that it will.
It doesn't and it won't.

This amendment is about the children ALREADY in state care and reducing that number as it has become too expensive to the state and the people who audit our books have told them to review the situation and reduce the cost. Simples.
A blind man with one eye in his head can see that.

Gamayun

Smidge wrote: »

I am not involved with "The Jesus and Mary Chain" or whoever these religious organisations are, and tbh these bloody groups have damaged the "No" vote.

Nobody likes religious nutjubs especially those claiming "to have the best interest of the child at heart":rolleyes:

It still stands though that changing the constitution through this amendment WILL NOT do what the people have been led to believe it will ie remove children from dangerous, unsafe and detrimental family environments.

So I wish people would not keep trotting this out as to why we should vote "yes".

Show me where in the amendment it specifically says that it will.
It doesn't and it won't.

This amendment is about the children ALREADY in state care and reducing that number as it has become too expensive to the state and the people who audit our books have told them to review the situation and reduce the cost. Simples.
A blind man with one eye in his head can see that.

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty
towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

http://www.referendum2012.ie/proposed-article/

The Changes which have been added are:

The proposed new Article explicitly provides that it applies to all parents whether or not they are married to each other.

The existing Article provides that intervention may occur if the parents fail in their duty towards the child for physical or moral reasons. The proposed new Article provides that the intervention may occur if the parents fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the child’s safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected.

The existing Article requires the State to use appropriate means and does not require that those means be set out in law. The proposed new Article provides that the State’s intervention must use proportionate means which must be set out in law.

Smidge

Gamayun wrote: »

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty
towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

http://www.referendum2012.ie/proposed-article/

The Changes which have been added are:

The proposed new Article explicitly provides that it applies to all parents whether or not they are married to each other.

The existing Article provides that intervention may occur if the parents fail in their duty towards the child for physical or moral reasons. The proposed new Article provides that the intervention may occur if the parents fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the child’s safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected.

The existing Article requires the State to use appropriate means and does not require that those means be set out in law. The proposed new Article provides that the State’s intervention must use proportionate means which must be set out in law.

The part that you have quoted relates to the marital status of the parents which is being changed in order to be able institute the other amendments to the constitution ie the adoption amendment.

Children in Ireland are removed just as easily at the moment from married parents that are abusive as they are from single parent or unmarried families.
This amendment, as I said will not enable the HSE with any further powers of removal(mores the pity imo)

Currently, within our constitution the state has great powers of protection for children. I just doesn't enforce it as much as I would like to see happen through lack of funding,staff etc etc.

poeticseraphim

As i understand it really it just means that in practical terms the kids of single parents and unmarried parents will be treated equally to kids of married parents.

Smidge

poeticseraphim wrote: »

As i understand it really it just means that in practical terms the kids of single parents and unmarried parents will be treated equally to kids of married parents.

When it comes to adoption through foster care they would be treated the same if the ref passes.

Slick50

Gamayun wrote: »

The existing Article requires the State to use appropriate means and does not require that those means be set out in law. The proposed new Article provides that the State’s intervention must use proportionate means which must be set out in law.

Why do they need a change to the constitution to set out what is proportionate in law.

As far as I can see, this referendum is also supposed to give "equality" to all children, by allowing married parents to voluntarily give up their child(ren) for adoption. How is this a good idea?

Another aspect is supposed to ensure the child has a "voice". Why do we need a change in our constitution to allow this?

bbam

Slick50 wrote: »

by allowing married parents to voluntarily give up their child(ren) for adoption. How is this a good idea?

How is it bad idea??, really, what is the problem with the amendment. It basically affords equal options for parents, married or not.

Slick50 wrote: »

Another aspect is supposed to ensure the child has a "voice". Why do we need a change in our constitution to allow this?

Currently there is no facility in our constitution or laws where an appropriate child's voice be acknowledged court. This amendment will facilitate this to happen..

bbam

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, it is simply a fact that children taken into care were abused. This is fact, not some random might happen scenario.It happened. In recent years, the HSE couldn't even state how many children had died in its care.

You are actually the one engaging in scaremongering. My point, and the point of most No voters contributing here, is that this amendment does nothing to help. It's a pretence of doing something.

Yes children were put into danger in the past... We should however be capable of seeing past these terrible incidences and see that the state is making a stronger position for children..There are a plethora of vetting and assessment and training for children's placements either foster or Adoptive that were never there in the past.

I am not scaremongering, I'm frustrated that because of things that happened in the past, there are people that would damn all actions and progress by the state as trickery, lies, unnecessary or whatever the no campaigners spin out there..

Slick50

bbam wrote: »

How is it bad idea??, really, what is the problem with the amendment. It basically affords equal options for parents, married or not.

I'm voting NO, you'll have to do better than that to convice me to do otherwise. Besides, I thought this is about the children.

bbam wrote: »

Currently there is no facility in our constitution or laws where an appropriate child's voice be acknowledged court. This amendment will facilitate this to happen..

Then why not introduce it into law. You haven't justified changing the constitution here.

Slick50 wrote:

Why do they need a change to the constitution to set out what is proportionate in law.

You didn't answer this either.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bbam wrote: »

Yes children were put into danger in the past... We should however be capable of seeing past these terrible incidences ...

Ah, FFS, I'd expect this kind of wishful thinking from an apologist for the Bishops. What you've basically said is "Yes, children were abused. But let's forget that and assume that everything is all right now. Let's assume that the systems and authorities that were, up to recently, incapable of even counting how many children had died in care, have suddenly grown the capacity to make such concerns irrelevant".

Can I suggest you fall back on the only irrefutable point that the Yes campaign has at its disposal? "You know, Dana's voting No. You wouldn't want to be caught voting the same way as Dana, sure you wouldn't."

milk_man

one would almost think that the NO side were actually working for the YES side - goverment , ive no doubt that waters , those people from alive magazine and dana will drive a good few people to vote YES regardless of what they understand about the details of the referendum

bbam

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, FFS, I'd expect this kind of wishful thinking from an apologist for the Bishops. What you've basically said is "Yes, children were abused. But let's forget that and assume that everything is all right now. Let's assume that the systems and authorities that were, up to recently, incapable of even counting how many children had died in care, have suddenly grown the capacity to make such concerns irrelevant".

Can I suggest you fall back on the only irrefutable point that the Yes campaign has at its disposal? "You know, Dana's voting No. You wouldn't want to be caught voting the same way as Dana, sure you wouldn't."

You know what... I'm done here! Take it as a victory for the NO's if you want.

Thankfully there are enough decent sane people who will vote yes and carry this amendment on Saturday. Life is too short for me to be posting here trying to explain the benefits to those who would do nothing but throw up obstacle after obstacle after stupid scenario.. Dwell on the mistakes of the past if it makes you feel better.. I have faith in the system and that there is a genuine effort being made to improve and strengthen the states protection of vournable children.

squod

bbam wrote: »

Yes children were put into danger in the past... We should however be capable of seeing past these terrible incidences and see that the state is making a stronger position for children..

Holy fuhken shit........

Annasopra

I'm voting yes on Saturday

Too many times in this country children have been failed; by the state, by the church, by families.

In some of those extreme cases of family abuse such as the Roscommon case and the Sophia McColgan case the state was hampered because of the constitution.

A lot of the groups and individuals opposing this are religious extremists

Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign

The strong irony after all of the church based abuse of children in this country that these people want to keep the status quo was posted out this week on here.

The individual rights of children will be strengthened by Saturdays amendment.

If it only prevents one child from a Roscommon type case then in my view it will be worth it.

Proponents of a no vote have only made one rational and sensible argument - that the resources of the state need to be put into child protection. I agree with this. However I don't think it's a strong enough basis to vote no.

conorhal

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm voting yes on Saturday

Too many times in this country children have been failed; by the state, by the church, by families.

In some of those extreme cases of family abuse such as the Roscommon case and the Sophia McColgan case the state was hampered because of the constitution.

A lot of the groups and individuals opposing this are religious extremists

Dana, Campaign for Conscience, Enoch Burke, Fr Brian McKevitt, Alive newspaper, Richard Greene (of coir), Nora Bennis, The Christian Solidarity Institute, Mothers alliance Ireland, Mother and Child Campaign

The strong irony after all of the church based abuse of children in this country that these people want to keep the status quo was posted out this week on here.

The individual rights of children will be strengthened by Saturdays amendment.

If it only prevents one child from a Roscommon type case then in my view it will be worth it.

Proponents of a no vote have only made one rational and sensible argument - that the resources of the state need to be put into child protection. I agree with this. However I don't think it's a strong enough basis to vote no.

How about this reason, '.....in so far as possible'.

The last time the words 'in so far as possible' were inserted in legislation it was in the last disability act.

If you include a statement on the rights of children in the constitution qualifying it with the phrase 'in so far as possible' you essentially give the government a 'get out of jail free card' allowing them to actually cut resources for child protection in the manner that they have slashed resources to the disabled.
Rather then enhancing children’s rights they will be diminished as Kathy Sinnott has pointed out. This change would constitutionally enshrine the states right NOT to educate her disabled child.

The state is assuming the rights of a parent but abdicating responsibility for those rights, which is a recipe for disaster as all rights without responsibilities tend to be.

This referendum is the equivalent of painting go faster stripes on a banger with four flat tires.

Annasopra

"in so far as possible" is already in the constitution in various places.

I heard Fergus Finlay address this issue. The point he made is that yes it is a get out clause and that "in so far as possible" shouldn't be used in legislation but in terms of the constitution there does need to be some get out clause.

conorhal

mango salsa wrote: »

"in so far as possible" is already in the constitution in various places.

I heard Fergus Finlay address this issue. The point he made is that yes it is a get out clause and that "in so far as possible" shouldn't be used in legislation but in terms of the constitution there does need to be some get out clause.

Fergus Finlay is an ex labour spin doctor and party hack fixer, I wouldn't trust a word that came out of his mouth.

I'd urge you to consider how badly the state has served our children. You cite the Roscommon case, this case has been constantly cited as a reason for this referendum, despite the fact that it has been more then clearly stated that the failures to act in that case had nothing to do with a lack of legislation let alone a requirement for a referendum.
The failures in that case were solely down to the HSE (social workers had gone so far as to falsify reports to indicate that everything was fine during scheduled visits that didn't actually take place).
The Roscommon case was thrown out of court, not because the legislation was flawed, but because the HSE failed to turn up in court to defend their case. Tell me, how would this referendum have fixed that?
The only difference that this referendum would make is the ability of the state to cite restricted resources as the cause of their failures, because they had "in so far as possible" with the resources available, acted in the intrests of those children.

Bad legislation is bad legislation, and I for one won't be swayed by the emotional blackmail and heart string tugging on the air waves by government representitives into passing it, simply because we need to demand better.

Annasopra

I have considered this. It's not a decision I'm taking on a whim at all. I read some of the Ryan report. I read the recent report into St Patricks institution. I read Sophia McColgans book some time back.

I agree that perhaps the wording isn't strong enough.

conorhal

mango salsa wrote: »

I have considered this. It's not a decision I'm taking on a whim at all. I read some of the Ryan report. I read the recent report into St Patricks institution. I read Sophia McColgans book some time back.

I agree that perhaps the wording isn't strong enough.

I can understand how anybody reading those reports would have a strong emotional response to the notion of a children's referendum, but it’s intellectual response that is required (I know it’s unfashionable these days to have anything other then a touchy feely emotional response to anything), just as was the case with the Oireachtas enquiry referendum in which the public wisely recognized a diminution of rights dressed up as public interest to be enshrined in poorly drafted legislation and rejected it.

It's also worth remembering that it was the state that placed all those children into those institutions and then abbandoned them. I wouldn't give them an extra ounce of power untill they accept the responsibility for it.

squod

Yes side advocating ''rights'' for children. What about the rights they already have which are being ignored.

This constitutional change is like putting more holes in an already leaky bucket.

humanji

squod wrote: »

Yes side advocating ''rights'' for children. What about the rights they already have which are being ignored.

This constitutional change is like putting more holes in an already leaky bucket.

Personally, I've no idea what way to vote, but why shouldn't children have more rights? The whole thing is confusing me so I really don't get why it's a bad thing to bestow more rights on children. Yes, their current rights should be enforced, but I don't see why that should be the end of it.

geeky

Jesus wept.

I'm a foster carer. I have nothing to do with the bishops, the industrial schools, or the lizard people for that matter. And linking foster families today to abuse in the past is f***ing insulting.

Foster carers like my wife and I have to go through a rigorous, arguably invasive, process to test our suitability for caring for and helping seriously damaged children. And we've seen cases where kids were left in clearly damaging environments because of the constitutional primacy of the family, and the massive legal hurdles to taking kids into care.

Anyone who wants children today to suffer in neglectful or abusive homes because of what happened in the 1950s is a moron.