Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

cnocbui

GarIT wrote: »

But if you publish it the information is available to everyone so you could protect the people named.

Did I say publish?

TheChizler

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

It is very easy and quiet frankly shameless for you to say what you have just said here because your existence has always been known to you. But unfortunately there are many thousands of people in Ireland that do not know where they come from or the circumstances that lead them into the state of depression (in most causes) and bewilderment as to who they are.

Now stop thinking about yourself, the world does not revolve around your overwhelmingly self centered attitude.

My attitude has absolutely nothing to do with the victims of these homes over the years, all of whom are entirely deserving of answers and justice. My problem is with the provable lies and falsehoods propagated over the last few days, seemingly spread by people who are either intentionally ignoring the truth of what was on the bill and looking to score points, or only take their information from Facebook posts and headlines and base their outrage on that (which would be entirely justified if the claims were true). I'm not disputing the victims need justice, and it would be quite disingenuous for someone to argue that from what I said IMO.

iLikeWaffles

TheChizler wrote: »

My attitude has absolutely nothing to do with the victims of these homes over the years, all of whom are entirely deserving of answers and justice. My problem is with the provable lies and falsehoods propagated over the last few days, seemingly spread by people who are either intentionally ignoring the truth of what was on the bill and looking to score points, or only take their information from Facebook posts and headlines and base their outrage on that (which would be entirely justified if the claims were true). I'm not disputing the victims need justice, and it would be quite disingenuous for someone to argue that from what I said IMO.

Who is arguing that?

You seem to be making it out about yourself again. You're the first to mention 'justice for victims' I agree with you, you are 100% disingenuous.

Donald Trump

Hermy wrote: »

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about privacy.

But people's right to privacy already exists in law in Ireland.

What's at issue here is not privacy but secrecy.

And successive governments seem determined to keep the institutional abuses of the past shrouded in secrecy come what may.

Take me as an example.

I'm adopted and consequently, unlike everybody else, I don't have the right to know who my biological parents are.

There is no justification for this whatsoever - neither legally nor morally nor any other way - in my opinion.

Through my own endeavours I managed to trace my birth mother and when I made contact she agreed to see me.

She was glad to meet me but sadly she was in poor health and passed away not longer after that meeting.

However, her family invited me to her funeral and despite the sad occasion it was a very good day with her three children together for the first time under the one roof.

Yet despite meeting her, being invited to her funeral, and being made to feel very welcome by her immediate and extended family I still can't officially be told her name.

In fact I can't even be told my own name - the name I was born with.

And don't get me started on my birth father whose name is known to TUSLA but not by me - his son!

So regardless of whatever misunderstandings there may be about the passing of this legislation - and sometimes I think those misunderstandings are desired by the powers that be - the fact remains that those of us who were victims of past institutional abuses in Ireland are always swimming against the tide when we attempt to discover the story of our past.

And as has already been asked in thread I constantly ask myself why is this so?

Whose interests are being served by denying people the right to know where they came from?

And who is being protected by this veil of secrecy that still pervades, and from whom are they being protected?

Thank you for that post. I am going to try to respond to it from the perspective of a complete outsider.



It is a difficult situation in that there is not a one-size-fits all solution. It is sad that it took you so long to meet your mother. But it is also happy that she agreed to meet you. I don't know how many people have made it that far and been refused at that hurdle.

You mention that you still don't know who your father is but that Tusla do. From that maybe we can assume that your mother did not tell you. Perhaps that was something that she wanted to keep secret. You want to know but she wanted to keep secret. I don't know. I'm not trying to offend or anything.




People might debate whether biological parents should be entitled to privacy. And you can make an argument that the child should be entitled to that information and that that entitlement should be stronger. But I haven't seen any mention of that privacy having been in place to protect the babies in those situations. How many of those babies might never have lived beyond a few hours if their mothers had not been guaranteed that privacy? Would we have had more Ann Lovetts?



Yes, times were different back then but there are still people in difficult situations and having the option of guaranteed privacy might be the difference between having a baby in a hospital setting and giving it up for adoption and being found abandoned on a beach. These homes might have been terrible places but if they had not been there then who knows what some of those women would have done to hide their "shame" (as society then saw it). It cannot be seen as hyperbole to say that some of them possibly would have killed themselves, or had unsafe backstreet abortions. At least with the setup that was there, they knew that they could give up their baby and hide that secret and go back to their lives (even if those lives were changed from what was before).



If you break that privacy now then it is worth nothing in the future. The same as any report where privacy was guaranteed. If you break that now then you will never be able to use it again to try to get otherwise unwilling people to participate and tell their stories.

TheChizler

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

Who is arguing that?

You seem to be making it out about yourself again. You're the first to mention 'justice for victims' I agree with you, you are 100% disingenuous.

I think we're having different conversations, I can't logically connect your responses to what I've said.

iLikeWaffles

TheChizler wrote: »

I think we're having different conversations, I can't logically connect your responses to what I've said.

If you've not read or understood what I said then I'd suggest you find or ask someone to explain it to you.

Hermy

Donald Trump wrote: »

Thank you for that post. I am going to try to respond to it from the perspective of a complete outsider.
It is a difficult situation in that there is not a one-size-fits all solution. It is sad that it took you so long to meet your mother. But it is also happy that she agreed to meet you. I don't know how many people have made it that far and been refused at that hurdle.
You mention that you still don't know who your father is but that Tusla do. From that maybe we can assume that your mother did not tell you. Perhaps that was something that she wanted to keep secret. You want to know but she wanted to keep secret. I don't know. I'm not trying to offend or anything.
People might debate whether biological parents should be entitled to privacy. And you can make an argument that the child should be entitled to that information and that that entitlement should be stronger. But I haven't seen any mention of that privacy having been in place to protect the babies in those situations. How many of those babies might never have lived beyond a few hours if their mothers had not been guaranteed that privacy? Would we have had more Ann Lovetts?
Yes, times were different back then but there are still people in difficult situations and having the option of guaranteed privacy might be the difference between having a baby in a hospital setting and giving it up for adoption and being found abandoned on a beach. These homes might have been terrible places but if they had not been there then who knows what some of those women would have done to hide their "shame" (as society then saw it). It cannot be seen as hyperbole to say that some of them possibly would have killed themselves, or had unsafe backstreet abortions. At least with the setup that was there, they knew that they could give up their baby and hide that secret and go back to their lives (even if those lives were changed from what was before).
If you break that privacy now then it is worth nothing in the future. The same as any report where privacy was guaranteed. If you break that now then you will never be able to use it again to try to get otherwise unwilling people to participate and tell their stories.

Thanks for your comment - it's good to get your outsider perspective.

It’s not sad that it took so long to meet my mother – it’s an absolute travesty.

By the time we met she was in poor health and conversation was a struggle for her, hence my not asking her about my father on my first, and as it transpired, only visit. So I have no idea if she wanted to keep his identity from me or not.

There’s no debate about whether or not biological parents are entitled to their privacy because everyone is already entitled to privacy. But as I’ve said before this isn’t about privacy – it’s about secrecy. And secrecy wasn’t offered in those homes – it was demanded. And the same people who demanded the secrecy provided the homes and instilled the shame.

And that shame is still there today because the secrecy is still there too.

While I agree entirely that the privacy or anonymity that was offered to the participants in the Commission of Enquiry must be respected, if that is the participants wish, we’ve got to move on from the old Ireland of secrets and shame and shine a very bright light on a very painful past.

Otherwise what’s the point of these enquiries?

cnocbui

GarIT wrote: »

So you're suggesting it be kept by a department and for civil servants use it to look up people, and hope no leaks happen? I guess it could work but the people were promised it wouldn't be used for that if they agree to speak about it, so it would be unfair to go back on that now.

Leak what? Names, familial relationships and contact details are easily ringfenced from all other data. You could keep such on a seperate database that is offline and inaccessible. Social security and justice sytems, police data bases, DNA databases, all exist world-wide with incredibla amounts of sensitive data on them. These are by and large made virtually leak free via tiered access and varying levels of security clearences and authorisations, with severe penalties for 'leaking' and misuse.

People here are acting like this is the first example in the world of sensitive data that needs to be protected with limited and regulated access.

dundalkfc10

techdiver wrote: »

So my question is, can victims access all their own information unrestricted?

If so why all the furore? If not then why weren't appropriate amendments made to support this?

You have to understand where the public comes from in these situations. The state has consistently let the Catholic Church off the hook for all their past crimes, even to the point of covering the cost of civil actions resulting from abuse.

Once again if this is a case of "nothing to see here", then once again the quite costly government spin machine has failed once again in clear communication which is fast becoming a hallmark of this government.

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly, and the reason why we are not hearing from those who want their records kept sealed is that they are afraid of their families, friends, neighbours and gossips finding out about their past, and stepping forward to support what the Government is doing exposes that.

Haha Blanch has gone missing

dundalkfc10

smurgen wrote: »

It's just me with a problem with this?

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1319704057397870593?s=19

The Govt fan boys don't care. They will more than likely try ignore this and defend the Govt at everything else

Only issue is, this is not going away

Donald Trump

There should be a system (if not there already) whereby either party can indicate their desire to meet the other party. Then if there is a match, both could be given the other's details. I don't think anyone could argue about that.

If either party was guaranteed privacy at any stage along the process then that privacy should not be unilaterally broken. If a parent gave up a child for adoption on the basis of anonymity then that should not be broken without their consent.
Similarly if adoptive parents adopted a child under the condition that they would raise it as their own and did not want the child to be told then the biological parent would have no right to be able to make contact with that child out of the blue. A child might not even know it was adopted!

You can argue about the moral rights or wrongs of X or Y. But if you break that privacy then it becomes worthless for any future people who might only seek help if that privacy was guaranteed. It is analogous to why they will not name perpetrators in some court cases unless the victim waives their right to anonymity - to do so would render that promise of anonymity worthless and might discourage other victims from coming forward. If you read that someone got convicted of abusing kids in your town you might understandably be incensed that their name isn't published because you want to know who it is. Their anonymity might be protected - not to piss you off - but to ensure that there is a trusted system there for victims.

People who have no personal link to any of this, but who want to read reports with names and details in them are just trying to sate a prurient curiosity. Regardless of how they try to dress it up.

TheChizler

Donald Trump wrote: »

There should be a system (if not there already) whereby either party can indicate their desire to meet the other party. Then if there is a match, both could be given the other's details. I don't think anyone could argue about that.

I think that in theory by giving Tusla (even with all their flaws) access to the data this a possiblity now, if the bill hadn't passed that would be legally impossible barring some sort of legal battle or undoing the 2004 act.

Hermy

Donald Trump wrote: »

There should be a system (if not there already) whereby either party can indicate their desire to meet the other party. Then if there is a match, both could be given the other's details. I don't think anyone could argue about that.

That system already exists. see link

If a parent gave up a child for adoption on the basis of anonymity then that should not be broken without their consent.

Similarly if adoptive parents adopted a child under the condition that they would raise it as their own and did not want the child to be told then the biological parent would have no right to be able to make contact with that child out of the blue. A child might not even know it was adopted!

What about the right of the child to know where they came from? Are they to be forever kept in the dark about their origins?

So we're back to keeping secrets again and that's at the heart of so much of this mess.

VillageIdiot71

I'm just catching up on the statement now

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/c5585-statement-regarding-commission-of-investigation-mother-and-baby-homes-and-certain-related-matters-records-and-another-matter-bill/

.... The legal advice received by the Department is that the GDPR right to access personal data (Article 15) is expressly prohibited by section 39 of the Commissions of Investigations Act 2004. ....

I find I'm falling at the first hurdle on this explanation.

GDPR is an EU Regulation. This means it has direct effect in Irish law. Even if there was a conflict between GDPR and the Irish Constitution (and I'm not saying there is - just in theory), GDPR would take precedence as the Irish Constitution explicitly says that it is subservient to EU legislation made under the relevant Treaties.

How could any domestic Irish legislation prohibit any aspect of GDPR? All Irish legislation can do is explicitly remove any redundant provision that might seem to conflict with GDPR - just so legislation reads coherently, as GPDR would take precedence anyway.

I suspect the privacy commitment given is simply no longer valid, because of subsequent requirements from EU legislation.

440Hertz

I see the chairs of the of the Young Greens and Queer Greens are resigning in protest as a result of this and other issues.

https://www.thejournal.ie/young-greens-queer-greens-chairs-resign-green-party-5243932-Oct2020/

Donald Trump

Hermy wrote: »

That system already exists. see link


What about the right of the child to know where they came from? Are they to be forever kept in the dark about their origins?

So we're back to keeping secrets again and that's at the heart of so much of this mess.

I am glad that a system is in place. I know it does not solve the issues. Perhaps there might be a way to anonymize the records so that the potential match can search it (if it is not there already). I mean that, suppose that a mother wants to connect with her child, she could be added to the system and that might be able to be flagged publicly i.e. "ID #1234 (John) was born in XYZ in May 1970, weighing 7lb, and wishes to meet his mother (Mary)". Then the database could be advertised. People might look at it and find that their child wants to find them and then submit their details.



I think it is an awful situation for any person to be in - not to know their origins but it must then make that even worse to know that the information is there and they just aren't allowed access to it.


I'm just assuming that the reason that they want to keep the "secrecy" is to maintain the promised integrity of the process in order that people would trust it in the future. Maybe I'm wrong and that isn't a big issue

Ubbquittious

440Hertz wrote: »

I see the chairs of the of the Young Greens and Queer Greens are resigning in protest as a result of this and other issues.

https://www.thejournal.ie/young-greens-queer-greens-chairs-resign-green-party-5243932-Oct2020/

Fair phux to them

VillageIdiot71

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I'm just catching up on the statement nowI find I'm falling at the first hurdle on this explanation.

GDPR is an EU Regulation. This means it has direct effect in Irish law. Even if there was a conflict between GDPR and the Irish Constitution (and I'm not saying there is - just in theory), GDPR would take precedence as the Irish Constitution explicitly says that it is subservient to EU legislation made under the relevant Treaties.

How could any domestic Irish legislation prohibit any aspect of GDPR? All Irish legislation can do is explicitly remove any redundant provision that might seem to conflict with GDPR - just so legislation reads coherently, as GPDR would take precedence anyway.

I suspect the privacy commitment given is simply no longer valid, because of subsequent requirements from EU legislation.

GDPR also includes a right to have data deleted, so it mightn't help kids find their parents. The parents could continue to refuse for their details to be released, afaik.

BluePlanet

There's a phrase in the US for all those fathers: "Dead Beat Dad's".
Biological fathers that shirk their obligations towards their kids.

This 'privacy' concern just a layer of obfuscation of a highly misogynistic society.

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

There's a phrase in the US for all those fathers: "Dead Beat Dad's".
Biological fathers that shirk their obligations towards their kids.

This 'privacy' concern just a layer of obfuscation of a highly misogynistic society.

Privacy would be mainly for the sake of the mothers. It wasn't the fathers who were residents of the homes...........I am sure that in many cases the fathers were not identified or recorded for one reason or another

Hermy

BluePlanet wrote: »

There's a phrase in the US for all those fathers: "Dead Beat Dad's".
Biological fathers that shirk their obligations towards their kids.

That assumes that those dad's know of the existence of their children or their whereabouts - something the Irish system doesn't facilitate.

landofthetree

hunterB wrote: »

Truth be told, no one cares

It's a uniquely Irish thing that a few will keep going on about it

Countries usually just apologised and then move on.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/843701/finland-offered-a-state-apology-for-the-pain-and-abuse-suffered-by-generations-of-children-in-its-care/amp/

katiek102010

What the government have done is wrong very very very wrong.

Nobody is asking for every little detail to be publish in the media.

The victims deserve to have access to their records. The mothers who are still alive have a right to know what happened to their children and if they want to meet each other that needs to be arranged.

The guilty of still alive, need to be prosecuted. The law can and allows for victim anonymity in these cases.

It stinks absolutely stinks and is completely without justification

Hotblack Desiato

landofthetree wrote: »

It's a uniquely Irish thing that a few will keep going on about it

Yeah, sure why would anyone want to go on about forced labour, forced adoptions, child trafficking, destruction of birth records, falsification of birth records, child neglect, child abuse, illegal burials, etc

:rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

katiek102010 wrote: »

The mothers who are still alive have a right to know what happened to their children and if they want to meet each other that needs to be arranged.

Adopted people still don't have the right to know their true origins, that is an utter disgrace.

landofthetree

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah, sure why would anyone want to go on about forced labour, forced adoptions, child trafficking, destruction of birth records, falsification of birth records, child neglect, child abuse, illegal burials, etc

:rolleyes:

Other countries dont worry to much about it.

Families of these adopted children dont want to know them.

I

BluePlanet

Were I in government I would move to simplify this nonsense. All children have a right to know who their biological parents are, regardless of adoption.

Legislation to commandeer the wages of any parent that attempts to shirk their obligations.

Mrs OBumble

BluePlanet wrote: »

Were I in government I would move to simplify this nonsense. All children have a right to know who their biological parents are, regardless of adoption.

Legislation to commandeer the wages of any parent that attempts to shirk their obligations.

So you'd outlaw sperm donation, and one night stands?

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

Were I in government I would move to simplify this nonsense. All children have a right to know who their biological parents are, regardless of adoption.

Legislation to commandeer the wages of any parent that attempts to shirk their obligations.

That forces people into abortion or suicide though. Some women only go through with the pregnancy or don't kill themselves because they can go back to their old life after and pretend it never happened.

And will these men get automatic joint custody in return? We also do already have legislation to take money from the wages of fathers if their name is on the birth cert but for many women they aren't willing to do that.

dundalkfc10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you'd outlaw sperm donation, and one night stands?

No but they can pay for their child instead of leaving us taxpayers paying for them in social welfare payments

GarIT

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

No but they can pay for their child instead of leaving us taxpayers paying for them in social welfare payments

Under the current system social welfare payments would still be made anyway.

And it's very rare that a father doesn't/won't pay for their child. If the mother wants to pursue that the state will get the money for her. In most cases it's actually women don't want the father to know or don't want the father to have access or custody so won't pursue maintenance.

Are you suggesting DNA testing of all men and children in the country? Otherwise what does the state do when the woman refuses to tell the court the name of the father or simply says they don't know.

VillageIdiot71

Deleted User wrote: »

GDPR also includes a right to have data deleted, so it mightn't help kids find their parents. The parents could continue to refuse for their details to be released, afaik.

I'm sure anyone who has personal data in the archive, whether child or parent, has a status under GDPR.

My point was more that I don't see how domestic legislation can 'prohibit' GDPR, when EU Regulations apply directly to Member States and take precedence over domestic law.

BluePlanet

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you'd outlaw sperm donation, and one night stands?

No not at all. It just means you can't do that and remain anonymous.

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

Under the current system social welfare payments would still be made anyway.

And it's very rare that a father doesn't/won't pay for their child. If the mother wants to pursue that the state will get the money for her. In most cases it's actually women don't want the father to know or don't want the father to have access or custody so won't pursue maintenance.

Are you suggesting DNA testing of all men and children in the country? Otherwise what does the state do when the woman refuses to tell the court the name of the father or simply says they don't know.

SHe can do that.
But if she seeks state supports like SW, the door is closed until she changes her mind.

Donald Trump

GarIT wrote: »

That forces people into abortion or suicide though. Some women only go through with the pregnancy or don't kill themselves because they can go back to their old life after and pretend it never happened.

If the babies are lucky, in those extreme cases, with that guarantee of anonymity, maybe the distressed and panicked mother would risk giving birth alone on a beach or in a deserted house and leave the baby in a bag in the doorway of a church or similar.


Because those stories, although rare, do happen.

BluePlanet

You tell me Mrs OBumble: What is so critical about preserving anonymity regarding bringing a child into the world?
What great service does it provide society?

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

No not at all. It just means you can't do that and remain anonymous.

What is your solution then for the case when a lesbian couple uses a sperm donation to have a child.


Who are the legal parents?



The absence of anonymity would have to work both ways would it not? If I donate sperm and a couple with an infertile male use it in order to have a kid, then I should know their names and address, no?


If I want to turn up on their doorstep for the child's 5th birthday to tell it that I'm its real daddy then sure that's grand too then?

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

If the babies are lucky, in those extreme cases, with that guarantee of anonymity, maybe the distressed and panicked mother would risk giving birth alone on a beach or in a deserted house and leave the baby in a bag in the doorway of a church or similar.


Because those stories, although rare, do happen.

Rare is an understatement.
MUCH more likely the father is an abuser and is protected from being outed.
Or in this scenario the mother has been shamed by family or clergy into one of these concentration camp/homes and this anonymity is there to shield the abusers of that system.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is your solution then for the case when a lesbian couple uses a sperm donation to have a child.


Who are the legal parents?



The absence of anonymity would have to work both ways would it not? If I donate sperm and a couple with an infertile male use it in order to have a kid, then I should know their names and address, no?


If I want to turn up on their doorstep for the child's 5th birthday to tell it that I'm its real daddy then sure that's grand too then?

There are already legal protections surrounding that.
Within that existing framework, the fathers name should be made available to the child should the child request it.
That doesn't confer any rights to biological father regarding custody.
Nor does it impose financial obligations on him as that was all part of the legal contract that was engaged by both consenting parties.

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

Rare is an understatement.
MUCH more likely the father is an abuser and is protected from being outed.
Or in scenario the mother has been shamed by family or clergy into one of these concentration camp/homes and this anonymity is there to shield the abusers of that system.

Right. But your solution is to push that woman to have no option. At least now she can go through the system and have an idea that she can somehow press the reset button. What you are saying to her is that "if you go to an official place for help then your 'secret' will be outed". So she just won't go. Sure if she is really desperate and wants to keep it a secret then she can have the baby in secret and leave it buried in a hole.



If that's what you want to do - punish those women even more - then press ahead with your abolition of that protection of anonymity. There are probably a non-insignificant number of people walking around today - both mothers and children - who would not be alive had that guarantee not been in place.


A woman can also be shamed by her peers. It doesn't have to be the evil church as you want it to be. Have you ever heard teenage schoolgirls be bitchy and nasty to each other?

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

There are already legal protections surrounding that.
Within that existing framework, the fathers name should be made available to the child should the child request it.
That doesn't confer any rights to biological father regarding custody.
Nor does it impose financial obligations on him as that was all part of the legal contract that was engaged by both consenting parties.

The rights of a child to know its parents are sacrosanct but not the right of the parent to know its children?


Seems a bit contradictory!


How about a mother who gave her child up for adoption who now wants to contact that child - even though the adoptive parents tell the child it was their own.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

Right. But your solution is to push that woman to have no option. At least now she can go through the system and have an idea that she can somehow press the reset button. What you are saying to her is that "if you go to an official place for help then your 'secret' will be outed". So she just won't go. Sure if she is really desperate and wants to keep it a secret then she can have the baby in secret and leave it buried in a hole.



If that's what you want to do - punish those women even more - then press ahead with your abolition of that protection of anonymity. There are probably a non-insignificant number of people walking around today - both mothers and children - who would not be alive had that guarantee not been in place.


A woman can also be shamed by her peers. It doesn't have to be the evil church as you want it to be. Have you ever heard teenage schoolgirls be bitchy and nasty to each other?

She has no options?
Rubbish.
She can have a safe and legal abortion if she wants to.
She can raise the kid herself if she wants to.
On compassionate grounds, we can allow exceptions for SW if she refuses to name the father, but i'm suspecting it's an abuser and she's protecting him. She's going to have to jump through some hoops before getting a bail out from taxpayers.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

The rights of a child to know its parents are sacrosanct but not the right of the parent to know its children?
Seems a bit contradictory!
How about a mother who gave her child up for adoption who now wants to contact that child - even though the adoptive parents tell the child it was their own.

Not at all.
She made a choice to give the child up, legally.
The child made no choices.

Hermy

BluePlanet wrote: »

Legislation to commandeer the wages of any parent that attempts to shirk their obligations.

There's absolutely no need for such a drastic measure as that.

All that's needed is to normalise the idea of a child and it's parents being allowed to know each others identities.

We need to remove the shame and stigma that was once attached to pregnancy outside of marriage and which still exists in certain parts of Irish society.

The Catholic Church could even help by announcing from the pulpit that they were wrong to ever bring that shame into the country in the first place.

It really shouldn't be a big deal in this day and age.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

SHe can do that.
But if she seeks state supports like SW, the door is closed until she changes her mind.

Not if she says she doesn't know who the father is.

Donald Trump

BluePlanet wrote: »

Not following.
I started out saying i would make it a (legal) right that a child can know who their biological parents are. That is entirely consistent with what i have posted.

If a mother engages a legal contact to give over her baby then she has also given over her rights to that child in entirety.

A child does not currently have an absolute legal entitlement to that information.


(I assume) A mother who gives up her baby for adoption (perhaps under extreme circumstances and possibly later regretting it) does not have an absolute legal entitlement to know where the child is.


You are complaining about the former. You say that the child should be entitled to that information. Yet you brush the suggestion that the parent would also have to have that right as "no. legally she is not entitled to it".

BluePlanet

GarIT wrote: »

Not if she says she doesn't know who the father is.

I'd have to automatically suspect she is protecting an abuser in such a scenario.

Detail where the incident of pregnancy may have occurred and outline the steps you've taken since to identify the father.

jelem

Hermy wrote: »

There's absolutely no need for such a drastic measure as that.

All that's needed is to normalise the idea of a child and it's parents being allowed to know each others identities.

We need to remove the shame and stigma that was once attached to pregnancy outside of marriage and which still exists in certain parts of Irish society.

The Catholic Church could even help by announcing from the pulpit that they were wrong to ever bring that shame into the country in the first place.

It really shouldn't be a big deal in this day and age.

Admit they wrong and church with politicians along with garda all supporting
their dictat, ha ha No chance as seen with politicians limiting awards and churches
"monetary" liability.
i believe they (church) are the states largest registered land owners and as such my opinion
is 50% taken by state to use for citizens as housing\hospitals etc..
Again politicians cover up to protect themselves and vested interests.

GarIT

BluePlanet wrote: »

Fantastic, we now have identified a Dead Beat Dad that can be compelled to pony up for his indiscretion.

When you resort to personal insults especially inaccurate ones you lose the argument and make a fool of yourself.

BluePlanet

Donald Trump wrote: »

(I assume) A mother who gives up her baby for adoption (perhaps under extreme circumstances and possibly later regretting it) does not have an absolute legal entitlement to know where the child is.


You are complaining about the former. You say that the child should be entitled to that information. Yet you brush the suggestion that the parent would also have to have that right as "no. legally she is not entitled to it".

I don't see the problem?
Let the mother enter her request for information with the adoption agency about the child she gave up, and maybe if the child also wants to know they'll contact her.