childrens Referendum **poll added**

JohnDozer

geeky wrote: »

For what it's worth, there's a very clear evaluation process before any attempt to get a kid into care is made. This isn't a mandate to create some stasi-like environment, just a clear(er) direction that the criteria for stepping in should be when a child's welfare and/or safety is compromised.

Look at it this way: Social workers spend their lives dealing with families that are genuinely neglectful, abusive, or utterly unable to cope. Hell, the state doesn't have the resources to take kids off high-functioning drug addicts. So the family that has a shouting match once in a while has nothing to fear.

I'm not sure that the referendum offers clearer direction on when the state needs to intervene. Other documents with a legal basis already provide that, the problem is that it is not enacted or acted upon. My concern is that the referendum is targeted at resolving issues for long term foster children and young people, without giving full consideration to its impact on all other children and young people, who are the much larger group. I'm not suggesting the formers needs should be ignored, but there are other ways of dealing with the issue, rather than a poorly thought out constitutional change.

Tasden

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely we must all make up our own minds individually.

having said that the No campaign appears to be full of paranoid, conspiracy types.
(eg remember when Dana's jeep had a blow out? she was convinced the powers that be were out to get her! i wont even go on about the others ....)

So if someone tells me murder is wrong and that person happens to be a practicing catholic I should assume murder is in fact ok due to the fact I think they're a religious nutjob with stupid beliefs and everything they preach must be bs?

eaglej13

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=482828048404716&id=168908573130000

for those of you who are un sure its a must read:D
article is by a friend , family law barrister, and councillor.

squod

I was a socialist last month, a right wing Catholic fascist a few days back and now I'm a paranoid conspiracy type.

squod

eaglej13 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=482828048404716&id=168908573130000

for those of you who are un sure its a must read:D
article is by a friend , family law barrister, and councillor.

Completely broke google translate on me. Is there an English version?

goodie2shoes

Tasden wrote: »

So if someone tells me murder is wrong and that person happens to be a practicing catholic I should assume murder is in fact ok due to the fact I think they're a religious nutjob with stupid beliefs and everything they preach must be bs?

no but if that person has a history/track record of exaggerating and embellish every possible consequence however unlikely or improbable, i would take their counsel with a large pinch of salts.

goodie2shoes

squod wrote: »

I was a socialist last month, a right wing Catholic fascist a few days back and now I'm a paranoid conspiracy type.

have you tried therapy?

The One Who Knocks

I haven't really looked into this too much,

but can someone please tell me why anyone would vote no?
I don't see why, ...like what's their side to the story?

Just sum it up, I don't mind

finnegan101

squod wrote: »

Completely broke google translate on me. Is there an English version?

yes... it said there was no debate on it.... simples... theres nothing to debate because it cant make the situation any worse!!!!
rest is nit picking ..... so basically theres no reason why not to vote yes...
unless your going to vote no because the wording on a SF poster doesnt actually appear in the amendment!! nothing new there!!!!!
so yes is way to vote...

Annasopra

Tasden wrote: »

So if someone tells me murder is wrong and that person happens to be a practicing catholic I should assume murder is in fact ok due to the fact I think they're a religious nutjob with stupid beliefs and everything they preach must be bs?

If someone tells you that Maastricht and Nice and Amsterdam and Lisbon will bring in abortions to Ireland you should seriously question their judgement!

The One Who Knocks

finnegan101 wrote: »

yes... it said there was no debate on it.... simples... theres nothing to debate because it cant make the situation any worse!!!!
rest is nit picking ..... so basically theres no reason why not to vote yes...
unless your going to vote no because the wording on a SF poster doesnt actually appear in the amendment!! nothing new there!!!!!
so yes is way to vote...

I agree on the yes vote, but why do so many want to vote no?

why is there even a no "side"?

What's the disadvantages of voting yes?

JohnDozer

finnegan101 wrote: »

yes... it said there was no debate on it.... simples... theres nothing to debate because it cant make the situation any worse!!!!
rest is nit picking ..... so basically theres no reason why not to vote yes...
unless your going to vote no because the wording on a SF poster doesnt actually appear in the amendment!! nothing new there!!!!!
so yes is way to vote...

It also won't make the situation any better, let's not pretend that it will. Like other treaties and referenda we have been asked to vote on, make them go away and present us with a better explained, more thought out change to our constitution, including plans on what exactly happens once the article is passed.

squod

Must organise a flier drop for the entire country on why voting no is a bad idea. Or I could just write it down on the internet:...........

Annasopra

Jamez735 wrote: »

I haven't really looked into this too much,

but can someone please tell me why anyone would vote no?
I don't see why, ...like what's their side to the story?

Just sum it up, I don't mind

There are many types of no voters
1: People who believe this is unnecessary and meaningless
2: People who fear change
3: People who believe this is about increasing the power of the state and taking power from families
4: Conspiracy theorists who believe this will bring in forced adoption and forced vaccinations
5: People who angry at the government about everything
6: Religious people who believe in the primacy of the family
7: People who question if the state has enough financial resources to have decent child protection services
8: People who believe this doesn't go far enough in the wording

hooradiation

eaglej13 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=482828048404716&id=168908573130000

for those of you who are un sure its a must read:D
article is by a friend , family law barrister, and councillor.

It took all three of them to write it?
Shame they couldn't come up with something better between them

The One Who Knocks

mango salsa wrote: »

There are many types of no voters
1: People who believe this is unnecessary and meaningless
2: People who fear change
3: People who believe this is about increasing the power of the state and taking power from families
4: Conspiracy theorists who believe this will bring in forced adoption and forced vaccinations
5: People who angry at the government about everything
6: Religious people who believe in the primacy of the family
7: People who question if the state has enough financial resources to have decent child protection services
8: People who believe this doesn't go far enough in the wording

Gotcha, thanks a mil!

Smidge

geeky wrote: »

This is nonsense.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to find out what foster care today entails, then stfu about it.

LOL I was just about to get stuck in there

I know we don't agree on the adoption part of this referendum but maybe if I explain why?
I can say with no hesitation that we would agree that we know families and situations where we are WISHING the kids out of there tonight(I can think of 3 off the top of my head ) but its the finality of the adoption that worries me.

Let's say the referendum is passed.
A child is considered "abandoned" in line with the new amendment after 3 years.
Mother is a teenager and the child is adopted.
Say she turns her life around, has a job and a family but huge guilt and longing for the child that's adopted.
I think it's different if she had "given up" the child voluntarily as there could be closure there.
Say when the child turns 18 and goes looking for the birth mother and finds her with a good life and a good family.
I can't get my head around how this child will reconcile this.

Will they feel betrayed by the state, that the state "ripped them apart"?

As we both know Geeky, children (no matter how bad the family situation is)will always want the birth family. If the child was very young and was not able to give consent to the adoption, will they feel the right thing was done by them?

Also, not only does the parent of the child lose the child but the Grandparents lose a grandchild(and I am assuming that the grandparents are not of the same calibre as the parent)forever.
At least in foster care, Grandparents and the family can still have access.

Once the child is adopted, the entire family lose the child forever.

finnegan101

Suppose bottom line is, the majority of childrens groups and lecturers in family law are backing it, not as a total solution, but a big step forward after years of hard work and campaigning. If its good enough for them... who am i to argue.. so i will have to take their superior knowledge and vote yes.

Pawwed Rig

finnegan101 wrote: »

Suppose bottom line is, the majority of childrens groups and lecturers in family law are backing it, not as a total solution, but a big step forward after years of hard work and campaigning. If its good enough for them... who am i to argue.. so i will have to take their superior knowledge and vote yes.

rather than think for yourself? Good choice

tolosenc

I was probably going to vote no, but wasn't sure. Not happy with the wording, and not convinced by the motivations. Moreover, the idea that "the best interests of the child" could be decided by a state that shielded a glorified paedophile ring is repulsive. The current government are not malevolent, but there are elements that may at some point rise to power that are. As Friedman said, "centralised power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who created it." I am not opposed to enshrining the rights of children in the constitution, it's just that this amendment stinks.

As a result of this Government's contempt for the constitution to which they are bound, I believe that the only valid course of action available was to call a general election (being the only means at hand to cancel the referendum), and come at this again. They didn't, and that's why I am 100% certain that I will vote no.

The One Who Knocks

Smidge wrote: »

LOL I was just about to get stuck in there

I know we don't agree on the adoption part of this referendum but maybe if I explain why?
I can say with no hesitation that we would agree that we know families and situations where we are WISHING the kids out of there tonight(I can think of 3 off the top of my head ) but its the finality of the adoption that worries me.

Let's say the referendum is passed.
A child is considered "abandoned" in line with the new amendment after 3 years.
Mother is a teenager and the child is adopted.
Say she turns her life around, has a job and a family but huge guilt and longing for the child that's adopted.
I think it's different if she had "given up" the child voluntarily as there could be closure there.
Say when the child turns 18 and goes looking for the birth mother and finds her with a good life and a good family.
I can't get my head around how this child will reconcile this.

Will they feel betrayed by the state, that the state "ripped them apart"?

As we both know Geeky, children (no matter how bad the family situation is)will always want the birth family. If the child was very young and was not able to give consent to the adoption, will they feel the right thing was done by them?

Also, not only does the parent of the child lose the child but the Grandparents lose a grandchild(and I am assuming that the grandparents are not of the same calibre as the parent)forever.
At least in foster care, Grandparents and the family can still have access.

Once the child is adopted, the entire family lose the child forever.

Oh that's a fair enough point, I can see where you are coming from.
I realize that the state must take into account the views of the child but what if the child's just a baby?

Haha.... I think the whole eastenders plot is influencing a few no voters

Smidge

Jamez735 wrote: »

Oh that's a fair enough point, I can see where you are coming from.
I realize that the state must take into account the views of the child but what if the child's just a baby?

Haha.... I think the whole eastenders plot is influencing a few no voters

What has my post got to do with Eastenders???

virino

Has anyone discussed here the meaning of 'imprescriptible rights of the child'? What exactly does that mean?

However, you asked why anyone would vote No. I have a good reason, and even though it is personal, it is nevertheless valid.

I had the experience years ago where I got caught in the middle of a quarrel between the local Health Nurse and the Health Board doctor. The doctor became very vindictive and assigned a social worker to monitor our family; the issue was a child with behavioural difficulties who later turned out to be autistic.

Later I paid to view the files in the case, and was shocked by what I found. Many of the entries had been scribbled out, but one significantly said that my husband, a non-drinker, was an alcoholic. I brought this very indignantly to the notice of the health board, and was told casually that 'mistakes happen'.

My point is, it is social workers who will be active in monitoring families, and these same social workers are, as we well know, human and make mistakes, never mind any incongruities of the system under which they operate.

Any reporting errors, in the context of the new laws which will lead from this Referendum if passed, might have results far more serious for individual families than just the nuisance of having to correct 'errors' such as we encountered.

So, I would need to know far more clearly exactly what I am voting for, before I would say Yes tomorrow. So, Jamez735, it will have to be No!

The One Who Knocks

Smidge wrote: »

What has my post got to do with Eastenders???

Nothing (sorta)...that thought just entered my head about the state being the "bad guy" in all of this...separating children from loving families

seamus

Smidge wrote: »

Let's say the referendum is passed.
A child is considered "abandoned" in line with the new amendment after 3 years.

Not sure where you're getting this 3 years from.

Mother is a teenager and the child is adopted....etc

In any case, we can all invent "what if" scenarios, good and bad, until the cows come home. Also, your scenario would be unaffected by this amendment as the teenage mother of this child is presumably unmarried.

Also, not only does the parent of the child lose the child but the Grandparents lose a grandchild(and I am assuming that the grandparents are not of the same calibre as the parent)forever.

Grandparents are entitled to apply for adoption and social workers will if at all possible attempt to foster and adopt children with the child's extended family.

It is very rarely, if ever, that children are whipped out of their mother's arms and then forever given to a set of strangers. That is not in the child's best interests, and this amendment firmly asserts the state's requirement to always act with the child's best interests as the number one priority.

Smidge

Jamez735 wrote: »

Nothing (sorta)...that thought just entered my head about the state being the "bad guy" in all of this...separating children from loving families

I'm sorry but I still don't get the Eastenders reference.
Is it like saying that anyone who is voting no is now either a religious freak or a London chav?

The One Who Knocks

Smidge wrote: »

I'm sorry but I still don't get the Eastenders reference.
Is it like saying that anyone who is voting no is now either a religious freak or a London chav?

Oh I don't really follow it myself...just flicked onto it the other night and seen that social workers were trying to take some teens baby away...even though she loved & cared for it...I'm sure someone can fill you in on the story

Annasopra

http://m.digitalspy.ie/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a435629/eastenders-lola-plot-could-influence-irish-referendum-voters.html

goodie2shoes

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

rather than think for yourself? Good choice

No it's very important to educate/inform yourself before you vote. I have done that and I'm satisfied it's in the interests of (thankfully) a very tiny minority of children who are living in despicable circumstances. The overwhelming majority of children in this state will be in no way effected by this amendment if passed.

also if you look at the line-up of the No camp, Dana, Walters, Malachy Stevenson i'm sorry but they come across as a bunch of nutters. i certainly would not be convinced by their paranoid ramblings.

Smidge

Jamez735 wrote: »

Oh I don't really follow it myself...just flicked onto it the other night and seen that social workers were trying to take some teens baby away...even though she loved & cared for it...I'm sure someone can fill you in on the story

Jamez you have made me very mad:mad:;)

I don't watch the mind numbing, soul destroying, eyeball sullying crap that they call "the soaps".
I have had to google your reference and now feel dirty:o
You made me google Eastenders.

Seriously!!!!!
I mean seriously folks, are people buying that bunk that was on the show??
For the love of sanity:eek:

Smidge

mango salsa wrote: »

http://m.digitalspy.ie/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a435629/eastenders-lola-plot-could-influence-irish-referendum-voters.html

Thanks Mango, I went ahead and google it before you linked and all I can say is,
sweet devine are the yes side buying this???

This makes even Waters look sane*






*I may have taken that too far

tolosenc

finnegan101 wrote: »

Suppose bottom line is, the majority of childrens groups and lecturers in family law are backing it, not as a total solution, but a big step forward after years of hard work and campaigning. If its good enough for them... who am i to argue.. so i will have to take their superior knowledge and vote yes.

That's a logically fallacy called an "appeal to authority". Just because someone is an expert in a field, it doesn't hold that their opinion on a matter pertaining to that field is necessarily correct.

Don't listen to what other people say. Read the information sent out to you by the referendum commission, consider practical implications (invent case studies, etc). If your conclusion after that process is still "yes", then you are justified in that vote.

The One Who Knocks

Smidge wrote: »

Jamez you have made me very mad:mad:;)

I don't watch the mind numbing, soul destroying, eyeball sullying crap that they call "the soaps".
I have had to google your reference and now feel dirty:o
You made me google Eastenders.

Seriously!!!!!
I mean seriously folks, are people buying that bunk that was on the show??
For the love of sanity:eek:

again, I don't watch it, hate it actually...I was waiting for another program to start, so I flicked onto it,

Lol I'm rationalizing watching eastenders...I feel so ashamed

virino

So, does anyone know what 'imprescriptible' means? In this context, of course.

Smidge

seamus wrote: »

Not sure where you're getting this 3 years from.
In any case, we can all invent "what if" scenarios, good and bad, until the cows come home. Also, your scenario would be unaffected by this amendment as the teenage mother of this child is presumably unmarried.
Grandparents are entitled to apply for adoption and social workers will if at all possible attempt to foster and adopt children with the child's extended family.

It is very rarely, if ever, that children are whipped out of their mother's arms and then forever given to a set of strangers. That is not in the child's best interests, and this amendment firmly asserts the state's requirement to always act with the child's best interests as the number one priority.

“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.

AFAIK that was common knowledge but apparently not as you are the secong person to question this on here.

With regard to her being unmarried, she is already in the position for her child to be placed for adoption. My concern is with regard to the changes of the wording, from appropriate to proportionate. My concern is how the judiciary decide what they deem to be "proportionate".

In relation to your point about the grandparents adopting?
They would have to go through the same criteria as anyone else going for adoption so therefore I would see difficulties there.

Employment, age and health(considering they are Grandparents and not just of the example I gave of the teenager)would all count against them for adoption. Not to mention financial security which is a must for adoption.
So their chances would be slim.

Smidge

Jamez735 wrote: »

again, I don't watch it, hate it actually...I was waiting for another program to start, so I flicked onto it,

Lol I'm rationalizing watching eastenders...I feel so ashamed

Mkay, you accidentally flicked onto it?
I believe you.
No really, I do.:)

lindtee

virino wrote: »

So, does anyone know what 'imprescriptible' means? In this context, of course.

The Courts have held “imprescriptible”, in other articles of the Constitution, to mean that which “cannot be lost by the passage of time or abandoned by non-exercise” or “lost or forfeited through the wrongful act of a third party”.
http://www.referendum2012.ie/what-are-the-proposed-changes/explicit-obligation-to-protect-and-vindicate-rights-of-children/

Tasden

mango salsa wrote: »

If someone tells you that Maastricht and Nice and Amsterdam and Lisbon will bring in abortions to Ireland you should seriously question their judgement!

But their judgement isn't what we are being asked to vote on. That's my point. Just because the person preaching is a loon it doesn't make what they are preaching nul and void, you decide that on your OWN judgement. Based on the facts presented, not how the person telling you feels or how you feel about that person. To do anything else is ridiculous. If anyone really feels (not saying goodytwoshoes does) that a list of questionable characters who oppose the amendment is the most valid argument to pass it then I would rather they didn't vote tbh.

SafeSurfer

finnegan101 wrote: »

Suppose bottom line is, the majority of childrens groups and lecturers in family law are backing it, not as a total solution, but a big step forward after years of hard work and campaigning. If its good enough for them... who am i to argue.. so i will have to take their superior knowledge and vote yes.

State funded children's charities like the ISPCC, Barnardos and others have used public money to campaign for a yes vote in this referendum.

If you google children's referendum, all the sponsored links are links from state funded children's charities calling for a yes vote.

How much state funds and general donations from the public, from both pro and anti referendum proponents have they spent on persuading the public to vote yes in this referendum?

For example Barnardos receives around half of their €24 million annual budget from the state, i.e. from you and I the taxpayer.

Why is my tax being used by an organisation to campaign for a change in the constitution which I oppose?

Have anti state funded groups or organisations spent funds to campaign for a no vote?



http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1002/child-benefit.html

Fergus Finlay, CEO of Barnados with an annual salary of €88,000 has called for a reduction in the level of children's allowance paid to parents but campaigns for an increase in the amount of state funds received by his charity. Its a case of let me decide how to spend state funds on children, not the parents of the country.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1002/child-benefit.html

Scorpdoc

Why did they do it. 2000 children in no mans land, held hostage by a state that wants your parenting rights. Sounds like I am scaremongering doesn't it. In this legislation it states how the state would be making the decisions on families. This is without definitions of what power the state has and what reasons do they come in to protect a child. I am a father of a special needs child. I have seen how appalling these family supports are, where the cheapest decision is always made. Do you really want these people calling the shots.

I am voting no, in conscience that there are children in peril looking for help. This legislation is wrong, it's imperial, dictorial and has contempt for basic civil rights.

Children groups are advocating a yes vote, they know it's malicious legislation. Children rights vs civil rights. No winners here.

virino

"I am a father of a special needs child. I have seen how appalling these family supports are, where the cheapest decision is always made. Do you really want these people calling the shots."

And it could well be that parents of special needs children such as Scorpdoc and I could well be deterred from seeking help for fear of bringing social workers and all that could entail into our lives.

Annasopra

Realky great infographic from barnardos

http://barnardos.ie/what-we-do/campaign-and-lobby/full-size-graphic-the-childrens-referendum-explained.html

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mango salsa wrote: »

Realky great infographic from barnardos

http://barnardos.ie/what-we-do/campaign-and-lobby/full-size-graphic-the-childrens-referendum-explained.html

I'd say the only point of any interest is the revelation on that graphic that the Catholic Bishops are supporting the Amendment.

And we all know their commitment to child welfare is beyond question.

My name is URL

What do people make of this?

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2012/07/government-approves-in-principle-a-future-referendum-on-article-34-of-the-constitution/

The Minister said: “An amendment to Article 34 of the Constitution, as
proposed, would permit the establishment of additional superior courts
including, for example, the establishment of a Civil Court of Appeal and a
new separate Family Court structure. This proposal would also allow the
Oireachtas to consider the establishment of other specialist superior
courts, should they be required. The work to be undertaken will also
consider the constitutional change required to enable the State to
participate in any arrangement providing for the establishment of a
European Patent Court.

house_speaker

goodie2shoes wrote: »

People urging you to vote YES,

• Fergus Finlay
• Vincent Browne
• ISPCC
• Children's Rights Alliance

finlay and browne are two solid reasons to vote NO , the other two sounds like state funded QUANGO,s who are paid to spout wooly liberal rhetoric , a bit like fergus finlay so thanks but no thanks

the whole think looks like some high brow intelectual vanity project for talkers ( like finlay ) not doers , a way of saying , sure look at the nice document changes we made , might make constitutional junkies feel smug but i doubt it will add anything practical

SafeSurfer

mango salsa wrote: »

Realky great infographic from barnardos

http://barnardos.ie/what-we-do/campaign-and-lobby/full-size-graphic-the-childrens-referendum-explained.html

Reminds me of my school text book in 4th class. These people realise that children won't actually be voting don't they.

squod

Gareth Noble is a partner in KOD Lyons Solicitors and heads their Child Law Department, representing children in courts and in care

If you are a parent of a special needs child who requires round the clock care and attention this referendum on children’s rights achieves nothing.

If you are a child in need of extra educational supports this debate is irrelevant to those needs.

If you are a homeless child presenting at a Garda station for shelter and having to go through the appalling out-of-hours service this referendum does nothing for you.

If you are a child trying to rely on our disgraceful mental health service for minors, no protection is given in this amendment to the constitution.

If you are a child prisoner in St Patrick’s on 23-hour lock-up without a reason, no reliance can be placed on the new provisions.

If you are a child born into a loving same-sex relationship the proposed wording offers nothing to that child in terms of rights vis a viz both its parents.

More copy pasta. I think everyone who gives a damn has heard enough by now.

Bababa

BEWARE OF THE STATE ..they may take your children if they don't like how you're bringing them up.

196 dead kids in 10 years...sounds like the state needs more power.

VOTE YES FOR MORE POWER!!!

Maybe they will do some of the babysitting as well...€0 per hour.

Get rid of the fostering system..was costing €300 per kid. Is better to have them adopted off to somewhere in Europe.

Give the job of distributing the kids to the HSE's overstaff...will give them something to do.

eaglej13

squod wrote: »

Completely broke google translate on me. Is there an English version?

IT IS IN ENGLISH.

eaglej13

squod wrote: »

More copy pasta. I think everyone who gives a damn has heard enough by now.

squod, might be copy and paste but at least it's factual and i cant see anything that you put up that is as clear, try keep to the facts and give up the smart comments. my post is relevant but you try saying it in foreign language, yes give the power to people like you, crazy