childrens Referendum **poll added**

Annasopra

conorhal wrote: »

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.

I think you honestly need an intellectual and emotional response. You can't just disregard all those harsh cases and look at this a piece of paper.

On balance I think you are correct that this doesn't go far enough. My fear is that if it's voted down that the major voices in this campaign will be the ones that will claim victory. These voices have been deeply conservative, backward, reactionary, extremist in religion, extremist libertarian.

Rational logical voices who are voting no because of resource issues and vecause this doesn't go far enough will simply be ignored and an opportunity for a stronger wording will be lost.

squod

humanji wrote: »

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.

How are they getting more rights? They're getting fewer rights in some cases.

Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings brought by the state, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected etc.....

#

It the state that gets the final say. Not the parents. How many times have we seen parents fighting for services they should rightfully have from the state?

Brought by the state also carefully excludes cases brought against the state.

Honestly, if you're thinking of voting yes, please reconsider. I have two kids. My children will have children etc. I am absolutely certain that this is a backward step for children's rights.

Leftist

squod wrote: »

Honestly, if you're thinking of voting yes, please reconsider. I have two kids. My children will have children etc. I am absolutely certain that this is a backward step for children's rights.

what's that got to do with anything?

hooradiation

squod wrote: »

How are they getting more rights? They're getting fewer rights in some cases.

only by the most wilfully incorrect assessments.

squod

geeky wrote: »

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.

Can you tell me then in your own words why you think that a constitutional change is necessary?

Death and Taxes

squod wrote: »

Can you tell me then in your own words why you think that a constitutional change is necessary?

There isn't a good reason which is why the Government broke the law by funding a biased and inaccurate campaign!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1108/childrens-referendum-court.html

squod

Quick listen if you please. Recorded yesterday from the radio.
TL;DL this woman has agreed with care workers (the state) to take care of her sisters kids. Kids are whisked off to an unknown location to be fostered by another family. Their direct close relatives are excluded from court proceedings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p43y-NdmAVw

So, in this instance if we vote yes the kids are up for adoption and permanently kept away from their extended family forever. In all probability they could also be adopted separately.

bbam

squod wrote: »

Quick listen if you please. Recorded yesterday from the radio.
TL;DL this woman has agreed with care workers (the state) to take care of her sisters kids. Kids are whisked off to an unknown location to be fostered by another family. Their direct close relatives are excluded from court proceedings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p43y-NdmAVw

So, in this instance if we vote yes the kids are up for adoption and permanently kept away from their extended family forever. In all probability they could also be adopted separately.

A totally pointless unverified piece of information.
Have you a source to prove she isn't a crank on the No side just making it up?
How do you know that the extended Family weren't assessed and found unsuitable for the children to be placed with?
Scaremongering!

humanji

squod wrote: »

How are they getting more rights? They're getting fewer rights in some cases.

Well instead of the best interests of the parents being dominant, the best interests of the child become dominant.

It the state that gets the final say. Not the parents. How many times have we seen parents fighting for services they should rightfully have from the state?

But not always.

Brought by the state also carefully excludes cases brought against the state.

But you're missing out the last part: "the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration." It also doesn't exclude cases brought against the state. It includes them with the second point in that article

ii. concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,

So in cases where proceedings are brought forward by the state, the best interests of the child will have paramount consideration. Which on the face of it is a good thing.

This is what I'm wondering about. From my reading of it, I'm getting that the change essential points out the difference between the state, the adults involved and the children, and says that the wants of the state and the adults involved come second place to the children.

I think it's because there's been so much white noise from both sides that I'm having difficulty in seeing the downsides of a yes vote, where as a no vote keeps the status quo, which isn't that great to begin with.

humanji

WileyCoyote wrote: »

There isn't a good reason which is why the Government broke the law by funding a biased and inaccurate campaign!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1108/childrens-referendum-court.html

Have they said what was wrong with the leaflets, like what exactly was worded for a yes vote? Or do we have to wait until next month to find out?

Fizman

say_who_now? wrote: »

I stopped reading here. I hate sweeping generalisatons.

As for what's a referendum for? Well we live in a democracy, the government cannot make changes to the constitution without first offering the people a say in the matter.

Or would you rather live in China?

We used to live in a democracy. Nowadays we vote......if the govt/EU does not like the outcome, they ask us to vote again, saying we weren't educated enough regarding the outcome of it i.e. vote for the other thing next time ye bollixes.

It's embarrassing even thinking about it.

squod

We haven't seen the legislation yet so all this is hypothetical. Any commentator could be wrong.

humanji wrote: »

a no vote keeps the status quo, which isn't that great to begin with.

An no vote keeps the status quo. No harm done. A yes vote could damage the rights of the family in their pursuit of actions against the state. It is that case that 99/100 parents have been the protector of the child in claims made against the state.

We are seeing how the state has reacted and is reacting to children's rights currently. Their putting on a bad show to say the least. Should we turn our trust away from the childs natural guardians and hand that responsibility over to the state? Seriously?

sealgaire

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's about children, but I also have no idea what it's about. To give children more rights? Can't imagine there'd be any posters in opposition to it..?

what rights does it give?

geeky

squod wrote: »

Can you tell me then in your own words why you think that a constitutional change is necessary?

In essence, the current legal interpretation of the constitution is that the child should remain with his or her birth mother unless "exceptional circumstances" apply. That is extremely vague, and leaves far too much room for interpretation for judges, who often are less than familiar with the facts of the case.

Because of the well-established constitutional position of the family at present, courts are extremely reluctant to take children into care. Social workers see many cases where a judge is massively swayed by the pleas of incompetent, neglectful or abusive parents*, and refuse to grant a care order. In fact, judges who hear these cases will admit as much in private.

For this reason, unfortunately, many social workers are hesitant about intervening to take a child into care, because they know it's a legal battle awaiting them. Alternatively, they will plamás a parent into signing a 'voluntary care order'. While this leads to less acrimony, it leads to far more uncertainty for the child, the parent and the foster carers.

I can't go into the specifics of individual cases on here, for quite obvious reasons. But I will happily

In short, more certainty is needed on what the criteria is for taking a child into care. The new article 42A.2.1 specifies that the state intervenes "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." This is far more specific than the current wording: "where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children", and will make it much easier for judges to make a call on giving the care order.

The judge can ask himself or herself "is the welfare or safety of this child prejudicially affected by remaining with the birth family?" That's a far easier question to ponder than "have these parents failed in their duty?" It might not be perfect, but it sure is an improvement.

That's before we consider the benefit of allowing adoption in cases where it's clear no reunification will happen with the birth family.


* I recognise that these parents can also love their children. But love, in and of itself doesn't mean a parent is capable of nurturing his or her child.

squod

geeky wrote: »

In essence, the current legal interpretation of the constitution is that the child should remain with his or her birth mother unless "exceptional circumstances" apply. That is extremely vague, and leaves far too much room for interpretation for judges, who often are less than familiar with the facts of the case.

Because of the well-established constitutional position of the family at present, courts are extremely reluctant to take children into care. Social workers see many cases where a judge is massively swayed by the pleas of incompetent, neglectful or abusive parents*, and refuse to grant a care order. In fact, judges who hear these cases will admit as much in private.

For this reason, unfortunately, many social workers are hesitant about intervening to take a child into care, because they know it's a legal battle awaiting them. Alternatively, they will plamás a parent into signing a 'voluntary care order'. While this leads to less acrimony, it leads to far more uncertainty for the child, the parent and the foster carers.

I can't go into the specifics of individual cases on here, for quite obvious reasons. But I will happily

In short, more certainty is needed on what the criteria is for taking a child into care. The new article 42A.2.1 specifies that the state intervenes "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." This is far more specific than the current wording: "where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children", and will make it much easier for judges to make a call on giving the care order.

The judge can ask himself or herself "is the welfare or safety of this child prejudicially affected by remaining with the birth family?" That's a far easier question to ponder than "have these parents failed in their duty?" It might not be perfect, but it sure is an improvement.

That's before we consider the benefit of allowing adoption in cases where it's clear no reunification will happen with the birth family.


* I recognise that these parents can also love their children. But love, in and of itself doesn't mean a parent is capable of nurturing his or her child.

I can follow your reasoning here. You make a good argument for a minority of cases. The sate could as easily (now) supplement the role of these parents if it liked.

I see lots of families battle for special care of their children and most of the time they get it. The constitutional change puts a finality on to the proceedings and encourages the social workers to take the nuclear option because they see no other way to act. Take the kids into care.

Take the kids into care or provide carers and support for the children and their immediate or extended family. Which would you prefer?

Kids and adults with special needs can receive specialist trained carers around the clock if need be. Kids who have troublesome parents are not afforded the same opportunity. Why not?

geeky

squod wrote: »

Quick listen if you please. Recorded yesterday from the radio.
TL;DL this woman has agreed with care workers (the state) to take care of her sisters kids.

I wonder had the care workers actually agreed to this proposal long-term, or as a short-term measure. Because they'll normally do an assessment of the family before agreeing to place in a relative's care permanently.

If they assessed her and found her to be suitable, she didn't say. And if they found her to be totally unsuitable, she'd hardly say so.

squod wrote: »

Kids are whisked off to an unknown location to be fostered by another family.

The 'unknown location' is for the safety of the child and the foster family.

squod wrote: »

Their direct close relatives are excluded from court proceedings.

I can't presume to know what the social worker did. But you'd think the caller and her sister might have spoken about it?

squod wrote: »

So, in this instance if we vote yes the kids are up for adoption and permanently kept away from their extended family forever.

Actually, by the time these kids will be eligible for adoption, the wishes of the older child will actually impact on it. If it's been determined that there's no reunification possible, and the kid wants to form a legal bond with the new mum and dad, what is the problem? Kids can also decide of their own free will, then they're old enough, to keep up a relationship with their birth family. Not all of them do.

squod wrote: »

In all probability they could also be adopted separately.

No offense, but this is nonsense. Social workers do their damnedest to keep sibling groups together, sometimes making life harder for foster carers in fact.

humanji

squod wrote: »

An no vote keeps the status quo. No harm done. A yes vote could damage the rights of the family in their pursuit of actions against the state. It is that case that 99/100 parents have been the protector of the child in claims made against the state.

We are seeing how the state has reacted and is reacting to children's rights currently. Their putting on a bad show to say the least. Should we turn our trust away from the childs natural guardians and hand that responsibility over to the state? Seriously?

But if that's the case, does it not show that the status quo isn't fine at all?

squod

geeky wrote: »

No offense, but this is nonsense. Social workers do their damnedest to keep sibling groups together, sometimes making life harder for foster carers in fact.

I'm not familiar with the case anymore than you are. In response to you r point ''Social workers do their damnedest etc'' I'm sure they do. Since we haven't seen the accompanying legislation we can't presume what it will contain. But it will contain a third party as far as the adoption is concerned. How that third party is legislated for I don't know.

Death and Taxes

humanji wrote: »

But if that's the case, does it not show that the status quo isn't fine at all?

The status quo can be changed by legislation, if the government wishes to address the issues of child poverty, rat infested schools, the lack of special needs assistants, the lack of proper educational provision for those with special needs, the holding of children in abobinable conditions in St Pats, all can be dealt with without a referendum.

geeky

squod wrote: »

I can follow your reasoning here. You make a good argument for a minority of cases. The sate could as easily (now) supplement the role of these parents if it liked.

I see lots of families battle for special care of their children and most of the time they get it. The constitutional change puts a finality on to the proceedings and encourages the social workers to take the nuclear option because they see no other way to act. Take the kids into care.

Take the kids into care or provide carers and support for the children and their immediate or extended family. Which would you prefer?

See, I just cannot see how this encourages social workers to take the 'nuclear option'. It just makes it easier for the judge hearing a disputed case to decide - again, going from "have they failed in their duty?" (a phrase I detest, btw) to "is the child better off away from the family?"

From my own experience, HSE workers will first try to put in supports for parents that are struggling, even when these problems include addiction. I think this is quite right - and to answer your question, I'd much prefer birth families to get a bit of help if this means they can care for the child. But there comes a time when you have to draw a line, and accept that certain parents are unable to care for their kids, and never will be.

If the referendum is passed, I do believe that the 'support first' mentality will remain, because it's far cheaper to provide this external support than to sort out a foster placement.

squod wrote: »

Kids and adults with special needs can receive specialist trained carers around the clock if need be. Kids who have troublesome parents are not afforded the same opportunity. Why not?

They do. My wife and I are trained carers, and look after kids in our care around the clock. But if an environment is fundamentally unhealthy for a child, it makes no sense to have a 'sticking plaster' approach and leave the child there.

I have to disagree when you say "The sate could as easily (now) supplement the role of these parents if it liked". You simply cannot help a child overcome the psychological damage done by neglectful, abusive or simply incompetent parenting while keeping him or her in that environment.

squod

humanji wrote: »

But if that's the case, does it not show that the status quo isn't fine at all?

Which brings me back to the first point of argument. The state is not doing a good job for now and changing the constitution won't help that. Neglect by the state is evident by the sheer number of charities operating which provide services to or funding for children's needs.

If your trying to say that this is somehow a magic wand that will sort out a mess overnight than you are wrong. People need to be doing their jobs properly first. Then we should consider whether the constitution needs changing at all.

squod

geeky wrote: »

They do. My wife and I are trained carers, and look after kids in our care around the clock. But if an environment is fundamentally unhealthy for a child, it makes no sense to have a 'sticking plaster' approach and leave the child there.

Then fine. Make legislative changes if need be. But why constitutional change?

geeky

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The status quo can be changed by legislation, if the government wishes to address the issues of child poverty, rat infested schools, the lack of special needs assistants, the lack of proper educational provision for those with special needs, the holding of children in abobinable conditions in St Pats, all can be dealt with without a referendum.

The referendum is nothing to do with those issues. Though they should be addressed.

This
1) Gives greater clarity to judges determining whether the state has the legal right to take children into care.
2) Allows kids in care for three years to be adopted by their new families.

This is a useful and, I think, balanced explanation of the wording.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1102/1224326035346.html

geeky

squod wrote: »

Which brings me back to the first point of argument. The state is not doing a good job for now and changing the constitution won't help that. Neglect by the state is evident by the sheer number of charities operating which provide services to or funding for children's needs.

If your trying to say that this is somehow a magic wand that will sort out a mess overnight than you are wrong. People need to be doing their jobs properly first. Then we should consider whether the constitution needs changing at all.

Judges at the moment cannot do their job, because they're asked to consider the extremely vague question of whether the parents "have failed". This will allow them to consider whether the child's welfare or safety is compromised by remaining with their birth parents. How on earth can this be a bad thing?

squod wrote: »

Then fine. Make legislative changes if need be. But why constitutional change?

See point above.

The judiciary at the moment is hamstrung by the current constitution, and this is causing significant problems, both obvious and (in the case of the preference for voluntary orders) latent. We need to change the constitution to be more specific so they can do their jobs.

I know this will not sort out the problems of Ireland's care system in one fell swoop. No constitutional change can do that. But it will resolve a legal blockage, which in turn creates many problems.

I'm massively in favour of reforming the care system. But considered on its own merits, this constitutional change is a good thing that will allow judges to do their jobs better, and allow children to form a legal bond with new families.

I'm going to add a poll to this if noone objects?
I'm curious to see what the breakdown is.

looksee

From the Irish Times article: Here the phrase natural and imprescriptible rights reappears, withimprescriptible in this context meaning the rights cannot be removed.

The word appears elsewhere in the Constitution in relation to the family, which is described as “a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

The referendum will not alter this definition as there is no proposal to change article 41, which relates to the family.

If the above phrase remains in the Constitution, how can the new wording be effective - don't they contradict each other?

geeky

looksee wrote: »

If the above phrase remains in the Constitution, how can the new wording be effective - don't they contradict each other?

Because it defines the circumstances under which the rights of the child effectively trump those of the family - where their welfare or safety is adversely affected.

Run_to_da_hills

Irish Children’s Rights Referendum will make children property of the state: U.S. legal expert.

Looks like we have another vote NO referendum.

A proposed “Children’s Rights” amendment to the Irish constitution will make children “creatures” of the Irish state, totally subject to the whims of state officers, who can order them adopted out to strangers without even judicial review, an American legal expert has warned.

The public is set to vote on the wording, which was described by the expert as “frightening,” on November 10th. Michael Vacca, a lawyer with the group Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-governmental organization focusing on religious freedom and family law issues, says the language places the rights of children at odds with the rights of their parents and the family, a move that is in direct contradiction to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Ireland is signatory.

“The Children’s Rights Referendum gives Ireland absolute control over children in Ireland, who are subjected to the fancies of the State and can be deprived of loving and caring parents without a clear showing of parental neglect or abuse.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGdAQb8PZg

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrens-rights-referendum-will-make-children-property-of-the-state/

Annasopra

squod wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the case anymore than you are.

With all due respect if you're not familiar with the case at all then why are you actually using it in this debate at all?

Annasopra

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The status quo can be changed by legislation, if the government wishes to address the issues of child poverty, rat infested schools, the lack of special needs assistants, the lack of proper educational provision for those with special needs, the holding of children in abobinable conditions in St Pats, all can be dealt with without a referendum.

With all due respect The status quo in the constitution cannot be changed by legislation

Children of married couples will still be treated as having lesser rights than those of unmarried couples

Children in families where the biological parents are married cannot be adopted at all

Because of the balance of rights in the constitution which favours the family over the child in some cases the judges simply will not be able to look at what is in the best interests of the child

Gotham

Am I the only one who thinks this referendum is some kind of distraction?

I agree that it should be passed, but do we have to have it now when the country has no money? How about a referendum on where my tax money goes!
Surely the constitution doesn't demean children's rights, so why can't there be a law created instead when it doesn't conflict with the existing constitution?

There are more important things we should have gotten a vote on - like the household charge and all the extra charges.
Even the government are getting in trouble for spending tax payers money on a biased voting campaign for this referendum, there's something going on.
I don't know what they are distracting us from, but there are plenty of possibilities - anything Europe related.

IceFjoem

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGdAQb8PZg

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrens-rights-referendum-will-make-children-property-of-the-state/

Great discussion here in this video.

Run_to_da_hills

Vote YES and in this referendum and you could possibly loose your child to foster if you refuse to have him / her vaccinated when the time come with whatever chemicals.

.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Vote YES and in this referendum and you could possibly loose your child to foster if you refuse to have him / her vaccinated when the time come with whatever chemicals.

.

Vote no and your children will be raped by Jimmy Savile's ghost!

I can make up irrelevant sh*te too.

This is a serious topic. Scaremongering isn't helping anyone.

My name is URL

Have no idea how I'm going to vote on this. Don't even know if I'll bother me hole.. truth be told I don't care which way it goes.

I can't see it making a blind bit of real difference anyway. Seems like an ego-trip for the government more than anything else.. we just happen to be the ones paying for it.

dr.bollocko

Great. More discredited conspiracy theory bullshit about the state AND about vaccinations.

YAY!

Annasopra

IceFjoem wrote: »

Great discussion here in this video.

What's so great about it?

Gotham

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Great. More discredited conspiracy theory bullshit about the state AND about vaccinations.

YAY!

They broke the law in direct relation to this referendum, I have no trust for this.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/website-taken-down-as-court-rules-government-information-on-childrens-referendum-is-biased-3287409.html

squod

geeky wrote: »

Judges at the moment cannot do their job, because they're asked to consider the extremely vague question of whether the parents "have failed". This will allow them to consider whether the child's welfare or safety is compromised by remaining with their birth parents. How on earth can this be a bad thing?



See point above.

The judiciary at the moment is hamstrung by the current constitution, and this is causing significant problems, both obvious and (in the case of the preference for voluntary orders) latent. We need to change the constitution to be more specific so they can do their jobs.

I know this will not sort out the problems of Ireland's care system in one fell swoop. No constitutional change can do that. But it will resolve a legal blockage, which in turn creates many problems.

I'm massively in favour of reforming the care system. But considered on its own merits, this constitutional change is a good thing that will allow judges to do their jobs better, and allow children to form a legal bond with new families.

To get back to these.

Copy pasta again from former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty .

The only new dimension is the extension of adoptions. But that can be done by ordinary legislation; and if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html

And, we don't need to separate permanently all links to the childs extended family.

squod

My name is URL wrote: »

Seems like an ego-trip for the government more than anything else..

Agree

geeky

IceFjoem wrote: »

Great discussion here in this video.

I'm afraid that, once John Waters started impugning the motives of foster carers, I resolved to stop listening to everything that comes out of his mopey, slappable face.

The man is a pox.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gotham wrote: »

They broke the law in direct relation to this referendum, I have no trust for this.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/website-taken-down-as-court-rules-government-information-on-childrens-referendum-is-biased-3287409.html

Yes, the Supreme Court have commended the Government for its fair play and honesty in its approach to this Referendum.

Oops, sorry. They've actually said the Government have illegally used public money to promote a biased and inaccurate view of the Amendment.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/6b4d1de136ecb72d80257ab000419d78?OpenDocument
7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.
8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.
9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.

geeky

squod wrote: »

To get back to these.

Copy pasta again from former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty .

All due respect to O'Flaherty, but he's obfuscating quite a bit in that piece. The tangent about Dev's drafting of the constitution is bizarre. He doesn't actually look at the changes it makes - just vaguely says they're "nearly all" in past judgements or legislation.

And, we don't need to separate permanently all links to the childs extended family.[/QUOTE]

This won't. Children that decide they want a relationship with their birth families can still have that relationship.


I've explained my reasoning for my position to you, so can I ask two questions:

- what is wrong, in your view, with better specifying the circumstances under which the state can intervene to take a child into care?
- what is wrong, in your view, with allowing a child to be adopted where reunification is impossible?

geeky

IceFjoem wrote: »

Great discussion here in this video.

Actually, I just broke my resolution. John Waters seriously proposes giving the fostering allowance to parents who are failing to look after their kids properly.

Brilliant John, let's give more money to smack, benzo and alcohol addicts with kids. They won't put that cash in their veins, noses or gullets then. They'll magically become better parents.

F*** off John Waters, just F*** off.

R0ot

I must have missed the registration date but sent in my register to vote form 2 weeks ago and still not listed in my area. :'(

steve9859

If the 26% of people who are not intending to vote (at the time of writing), are not voting because they think that the information provided has been one sided, and only the 'yes' side has been pushed, they should get out and vote no. Make the Government come back to the people with a legal campaign, and a better balanced messaging of the pros and cons.

Otherwise the Yes will win, and it will be enshrined into law, whether you like it or not....voting 'no' will not kill it forever, just delay it.

IceFjoem

mango salsa wrote: »

What's so great about it?

It's not so much to do with the "horrors" of this new amendment, my interest lies more in the lunacy of Government spending.

Take for example the discussion of cases whereby a social worker could deem that a couple who are say, unemployed, and cannot properly feed their children, can recommend that the state take the children into care. Whereby the state will provide funding of between €325-€353 (age relevant) a week, per child in care.

The current child's benefit stands at between €140 and €160 a month plus whatever other tax exemptions are included for the parents (if they're employed).

Certainly if any abuse exists in a child's home that is a different story altogether. IMO the best place for a child is with their parents. It just strikes me as madness that the state can remove a child from its parents on the basis of insufficient income only to throw huge amounts of money at the children once they're in care.

looksee

I have never not voted before, but I have serious doubts about this referendum. I have read the information pages and apart from the adoption part of it, I cannot see why legislation will not deal with any of the issues. I don't feel that just voting no is what I want to say.

squod

geeky wrote: »

- what is wrong, in your view, with allowing a child to be adopted where reunification is impossible?

Think I answered that. Or The former Supreme Court Judge did anyway.

if there is any doubt about the Bill, it can be referred by the President to the Supreme Court to test its validity.

So this amendment hasn't been tested.

geeky wrote: »

- what is wrong, in your view, with better specifying the circumstances under which the state can intervene to take a child into care?

Better for who? For the child or for the state? This amendment lets the state off the hook for loads of things. As I said before 99/100 it's the parents of the child that have to battle the state for services and rights for their child.

geeky

IceFjoem wrote: »

It's not so much to do with the "horrors" of this new amendment, my interest lies more in the lunacy of Government spending.

Take for example the discussion of cases whereby a social worker could deem that a couple who are say, unemployed, and cannot properly feed their children, can recommend that the state take the children into care. Whereby the state will provide funding of between €325-€353 (age relevant) a week, per child in care.

The current child's benefit stands at between €140 and €160 a month plus whatever other tax exemptions are included for the parents (if they're employed).

Certainly if any abuse exists in a child's home that is a different story altogether. IMO the best place for a child is with their parents. It just strikes me as madness that the state can remove a child from its parents on the basis of insufficient income only to throw huge amounts of money at the children once they're in care.

For what it's worth, I have never once encountered "insufficient income" being the driver of taking kids into car. Have you?

In all but two cases I've been privy to, drink or drugs was the dominating factor, with domestic violence also common. The other two involved grotesque sexual abuse and, in one very sad case, a mum with serious learning difficulties whose child required round the colck highly trained care.

Throwing extra money at these situations will not fix them.