Attn:Hse intimidates family who sought better services in Meath.

Ajnag

Im bringing this to light that just one week before the meath by-election the hse has got a court order to take four autistic children into care. The parents just happen to be disabled campaigners, I think they were also featured on last years prime time about the lack of services for the disabled in Ireland.

This is personal to me as my sister also suffers from mental handicap and for years my parents have fought tooth and nail to gain just basic services for her and others. There will be a protest in kells on monday afaik and if you happen to be from the area it would be appreciated were you to attend.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg2l6qZONnfLMsgdL11Zs5FWAE.asp

HSE given court order to take children in care
By Eddie Cassidy
THE health authorities last night secured a court order to place four autistic children in care.

The controversial decision followed a claim, earlier this week by a Meath family, that they had been denied basic support services.

The parents of the children, Padraig and Mary O'Hara, last night voluntarily agreed to having their children placed in care after gardaí and social workers, in possession of a court order, arrived at their Kells home.

The children will remain in care over the weekend.

The parents, who were both forced to give up their jobs to provide round-the-clock care, had spoken publicly, earlier this week about their struggle with the health authorities.



The couple said they had been battling for several years to get basic support and education services for their children. The family has a fifth child who attends a normal school.

A family solicitor attended at the O'Hara home last night. Following lengthy discussions the parents agreed to voluntarily place their children in temporary respite care.

In the past, the children had been looked after some weekends by foster families. The health authorities had also withdrawn funding to provide care assistants.

The distraught parents said they were being punished for highlighting the State's negligence in support for the children.

Mr O'Hara said he was devastated at the actions of the health board.

The local health board had assessed the family over a year ago and compiled a report detailing its needs. However, no further action was taken by the board.

Mr O'Hara said: "We were told we had to make a deal or they could legally arrest us for obstructing them in their job. We've been in negotiations with them for the last 11 months over a package of services and dealing generally with the health board for two and half years. Yet, they've been able to get a court order in just six hours."

The care order is due to be dealt with before a district court on Monday.

In a statement last night, the HSE said children had been taken into care under the Children's Act. The agency said the decision was taken to ensure the children's safety and welfare.

"In the interests of the parent and the child in this case, we will not be making any further comment," the spokeswoman added.

The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.

The two youngest cannot feed or dress themselves and are not toilet-trained.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1353687&issue_id=12181

Parents stunned by sudden health service action

A FAMILY with four autistic boys were last night forced to put their children into respite care for the weekend after the local Health Service Executive (HSE) threatened to take the boys into care.

Mary and Padraig O'Hara from Kells, Co Meath, had to drive their five children to Navan last night to hand them over to the HSE for the weekend.

Last night they claimed they were being "punished" for speaking to the media about their plight.

The Irish Independent on Thursday featured the story of the O'Hara family and their battles with the health board.

Parents Mary and Padraig were at their wits' end battling the former North Eastern Health Board for services for their five children, including four autistic boys aged 13 to four. Their oldest boy Fionn (16) is dyslexic.

The two older boys, Oisin and Blaine, were in school in Blanchardstown but no school place was available for two younger boys, Seadna and Cinonnaola (4), who are severely autistic. They are not toilet trained, and cannot clothe or feed themselves.

Last night Padraig said he and his wife were shocked and stunned at the HSE's actions.

"We've been in negotiations with them for the last 11 months over a package of services and have been dealing generally with the health board for two and half years, yet now they've been able to get a court order in just six hours.

"We were told we had to make deal or they could legally arrest us for obstucting them in their job. So we're going to be without them (the children) for the weekend," he said.

Last year the family were assessed by UK specialists who recommended a range of services including physiotherapy, speech and occupational therapy, be made available to them, as they were in dire need of it.

Both parents gave up their jobs to mind the children full time.

The family was hopeful that the HSE would deliver on the services.

In a meeting with a social worker from the HSE yesterday morning, both parents expressed their dismay, telling the social worker that they were at their wits' end.

It is understood the social worker acted, along with the HSE, to get a care order yesterday afternoon to have the five boys taken into care.

Gardai and officials from the HSE arrived at the family home at about tea-time with the order.

There was a standoff for a time. The family managed to get a solicitor to intervene. He negotiated a deal that would allow the family to place the children in voluntary care.

Just before 9pm, Padraig loaded up the family car and the boys.

A spokeswoman for the Health Services Executive (North Eastern Area) declined to comment on the case except to say that under the Childcare Act it had an obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of children.

"In the interests of the the parent and the child in this case, we will not be making any further comment," the spokeswoman added.

Sorry mods about the c&p's but this has to be done.
To let this sort of base behaviour occur in this day and age is scandelous, and in light of Irelands past with reguards to care for the disabled people should be held to account.

the_syco

I didn't read the articles you posted, but I read about it in todays Indo.

I think the state acted in a disgraceful manner, if the mother is telling the truth.

Seemingly, untill the public were notified through media, the state took no heed of the familys' plight, giving the answer of "not enough resource's" if the state was questioned. When the public found out, the state was able, in 6 hours, get a court order to bring the children into state care. If the family, who has been trying to get state aid to help them (both parents had to quit their jobs to take care of the children), tries to stop the state, they are blocking the state from doing their job, and thus can be arrested.

I can neither critise nor support the state or the family at the moment, as I only know the mothers story, and therefore will wait untill the state issue's its statement, before I make a judgement.

The state will proberly give a statement on Monday, after the court hearing, involving the family's parents, and the state.

leeroybrown

If the facts of this situation are as they appear then I sincerely hope the family in question get a nice legal settlement from it to help them to care for their children.

Ajnag

syco, I understand your reservation at the moment, but given the speed of the process on the states part I just have to wonder whats going on.

This also shows the needs for rights based legislation, the govt has done everything to avoid giving the disabled in Ireland their rights which I suspect are already guarenteed under eu law. A disabled person in Ireland has no right to property and the state can, and has taken property of disabled people and placed them in sub human conditions in the past.

On that note, Cork?
What do you have to say on the matter considering fianna fail pressence in the majority of Irish govt's and do you oppose rights based legislation?

Leeroy, I would suspect that if things are as they seem their will be a settlement, but to those concerned bringing light to the issue and getting public support for rights based legislation would secure the future of a lot of vunerable people, if this is what it appears getting public attention is crucial.

Also I might note that with autism a regular pattern is vital, what the state is doing will cause problems for months with these children.

Ajnag

Thought ye'd be desperate for break from the provo stuff by now. Ho, Hum.

gandalf

Well it just shows how all the extra staff that FF hurriedly got in before the last election, I believe the number is 15,000 mainly admin staff have really helped the situation. Services haven't improved but once the department is made look bad they swing into action quite rapidally.

It actually sickens me with all the funds they have wasted on pet projects over the wasted years of this FF/PD Government between the Bertie Bowl, Electronic Voting and numerous other red herrings and our Health Service is still a shambles.

ishmael whale

While I would never rush to the defence of health service management, and if the legal system is being used to intimidate people that is clearly unacceptable. But there should be some acknowledgement that it must be highly unusual to have to provide a service package for four children with autism in the same family.

While it doesn’t help the people in this particular case, it does change my perception of the State’s role in the promotion of family planning. Up to this I’d have looked back on the unhappy political history of that agenda, and said the State should simply stay out of the debate and let people do as they please. But potentially some good could be done by promoting a responsible attitude to parenthood.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=58125034&p=58yz5336&n=58125414

07/03/2005 - 7:58:48 AM

Meath couple begin fight to regain custody of children

A Co Meath couple are due to begin a legal battle today to regain custody of their children from the Health Service Executive. Gardaí and social workers took the O'Hara's five children into state care on Friday night. Four of the boys are autistic, while the fifth suffers from dyslexia…..

Boggle

I

ishmael whale wrote:

But there should be some acknowledgement that it must be highly unusual to have to provide a service package for four children with autism in the same family.

Surely that should have meant that this family would have been given priority - no???

Typical of this govt, they only move when it is deemed harmful to their re-electability. And then its in a manner as disgraceful as this....

ishmael whale

I’m not really making any defence of the HSE, other than noting that this is hardly a typical case. I’m totally open to hearing the case made for better services for people with disabilities.

But my honest first reaction to media coverage of this particular case was incredulity at how anyone would put themselves in the position of having four autistic children. Our cock-eyed debates over contraception have cast a long shadow.

Ajnag

how anyone would put themselves in the position of having four autistic children.

Afaik It can take two to four years to diagnose autism, But short of asking the parents themselves its not relevant to the issue at hand and the beahviour of the hse.
Also tho Im not sure, their oldest son isnt autistic.

In any case, the dramatic removal of 5 children from a family at short notice is the issue here. The parents have made huge sacrifices, and have never been deemed unfit or dangerous up until now, so these actions by the hse must be held in this light as irresponsible if not scandelous.

ishmael whale

Clearly the HSE can’t go round taking people’s children off them without due cause, and presumably the Courts will short that out one way or the other.

There’s also the general issue of services for people with disabilities. Up to this the health services haven’t been associated with good management, so there’s no reason to believe this service sector will be any different.

But, for all that, the more my incredulity grows. This is from one of the articles you posted up above.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...dL11Zs5FWAE.asp
“The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.”

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

Ajnag

Clearly the HSE can’t go round taking people’s children off them without due cause, and presumably the Courts will short that out one way or the other.

I would presume the hse can take children into custody as a matter of need in emergency, they wouldnt be able to protect children otherwise. However as Ive stated the disabled in this state have no rights, there isnt nessisarly any recourse as the laws stand at this point in time. Hence the need for rights based legislation.

The hse still havent made a statement yet, this stinks to high hell.

Once again, Im asking for cork to make a statement on what fianna fails stance is on the issue of rights for the disabled, and I would also hope that the constituants of meath will seek explanation in light of fridays elections.

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

Without a case history or specifics how are you to know?. Also I doubt their is a medical relation between dyslexia and autism so it wouldnt exactly be a pre-cursor or warning sign. Also once again its not relevant to this thread and the issue at hand, so feel free to start a thread if you wish to discuss your views further.

sceptre

ishmael whale wrote:

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

I can recall reading somewhere that the autism was only diagnosed for any of the children in 2002 (no idea which newspaper). Odd and all as that sounds. It's the last two (born in quick succession as you'll notice) that are reported to suffer severely. I have to admit that my initial thought was the same as yours until I read of the diagnosis date. While the signs of autism can be spotted relatively early (not necessarily definitively, but certainly as possible indicators), regardless of whether it's infantile autism or regressive autism many of them can be dismissed as a child being unusually quite or shy or hyperactive, self-interested or interested in repetitive play or fascinated with specific things (while these are the basic indicators of possible autism they're also in a simple sense things that could refer to any child you meet) especially where the child has reasonably high-functioning autism (as would appear to be the case with the second and third children given that they appear to be in regular schools) and even the basis mindblindness tests that any parent can do don't become useful until the child hits three or four years of age. Rare as it may be, if any of the children are suffering from childhood disintigrative disorder, they would most likely have had completely normal development until about age four. So it's not quite as simple as wondering why they continued to have children. Fom my own point of view (bring something of a thoroughly modern, er, Milton), I wouldn't understand the idea of anyone planning more than two children in any event (though I come from a family of four nippers and my girlfriend comes from one of seven) so to each their own.

So in other words, while it should take two to four years, it might not (thorough the fault of no-one) and I'd hazard an unverifiable opinion that the health boards, given that they're too stretched to provide help to parents with four autistic children, might not be the best at noticing that four children are autistic in the first place (assuming that the reported date of 2002 was correct they did eventually notice the second child was autistic when he was 10). Incidentally, in line with the traditional "some of my best friends are <insert prejudice here>" defence, my girlfriend works for one of the other health boards, though not in a capacity that would generally involve dealing with the public. Not that this acts as an actual defence or backs up my "health board in possible plonker shocker" comment in any way.

Obviously the dyslexia of the eldest child is a potential red herring and isn't really all that relevant in the first place (unless the papers are throwing it in either without understanding exactly what it is (I note that they don't mention whether Fionn suffers from something as simple as scotopic sensitivity or as potentially problematic as dyscalculia or dyspraxia) or just to mention that the parents have had a child requiring extra attention before the second through fifth).

billy the squid

Is dyslexia a good enough reason to take the fifth child into custody?

any health board employee who is willing to break up a family rather than offer better assistance to that family should be ashamed of themselves.

surely there would have had to have been a court case to decide whether or not the parents were capable of caring for these children.

The hse still havent made a statement yet, this stinks to high hell.

damn right it does, some social worker has a bee in her bonnet. it wouldnt surprise me if the same social worker has threatened other families. I can think of one in Limerick who had this mannerism about her.

Ajnag

While I could pass a hell of a social commentry on social workers, but I wont.


I would wonder tho, how much research and investigation is made when a person applys for the job. Little to none is what I would bet and considering the power and responsiblity they recieve, It all seems quite disproportionate.
Its also worth noting the amount of political manipulation that occurs with in the civil services.

billy the squid

you will be waiting a long time for a statement from the health board. unless its the usual "we dont comment on individual cases" ****e.

had this happened ten or twenty years ago it would not have even made the news to be honest.

whats the odds on this being turned into a by-election issue. If it gets the family re-united then I suppose it can only be a good thing if it is used as an election issue.

Clearly the HSE can’t go round taking people’s children off them without due cause, and presumably the Courts will short that out one way or the other.

the right to do so is usually buried in some law which is older than you or I.

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Without a case history or specifics how are you to know?

Without a case history or specifics, how are you so certain that the HSE action is wrong?

Ajnag wrote:

Also I doubt their is a medical relation between dyslexia and autism so it wouldnt exactly be a pre-cursor or warning sign. .

Clearly the dyslexia is only relevant in the context of planning a family where one child already requires extra support. The question relates more to the second and third child, where there seems to be a clear gap of four years between each.

Ajnag wrote:

Also once again its not relevant to this thread and the issue at hand, so feel free to start a thread if you wish to discuss your views further.

If you are seeking support for this case you have to expect that people are going to discuss it. I’ve certainly had enough of public debate in this country proceeding on the basis of avoiding embarrassing questions.

Sceptre wrote:

I can recall reading somewhere that the autism was only diagnosed for any of the children in 2002

That makes more sense. FWIW, I have discovered a report here http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/sped_autism.pdf that identifies late diagnosis of autism as a feature of the Irish health service. It seems to be a particular problem where the condition is mild. That said, the impression I get from this report is that parents are aware their child has some significant problem, but simply can’t get it acknowledged.

billy the squid wrote:

the right to do so is usually buried in some law which is older than you or I.

From what I can gather from a quick google, the relevant legislation is the Child Care Act 1991, which gives health boards (and presumably now the HSE) power to take children into care. There also seems to be some relevant provisions in the Children’s Act 2001.

Ajnag

Without a case history or specifics, how are you so certain that the HSE action is wrong?

Maybe just the convience of it all, that after years of the parents making huge sacrifices, that their children just get taken off them. Maybe also the convienence of the fact that they were making life tough for the hse. Maybe just for the fact that their is no evidense publicly visable to suggest the parents were in anyway unfit or a danger to their children.

If you are seeking support for this case you have to expect that people are going to discuss it. I’ve certainly had enough of public debate in this country proceeding on the basis of avoiding embarrassing questions.

Its not the discussion that I mind, its blase attitude to the parents on your part. Also its the parents ability to care for the children thats the question here, To infer that they were grossly negligent without any knowledge on your part is a disscussion more suited to a eugenics thread. How do you know that they werent advised otherwise by the medical profession as to the state of health of their next child? How many unknown's do you want to assume your knowledge encompass's?

This is about the conduct of the hse and weather or not they were right to remove 5 children from a home, and the rights of the disabled and their familys in Ireland.

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

This is about the conduct of the hse and weather or not they were right to remove 5 children from a home, and the rights of the disabled and their familys in Ireland.

If you put something out in the public domain people are going to react with what they think rather than what you want them to think. Its called democracy and, in most of the world, it hasn’t really caught on because its so damn inconvenient when people disagree with what you want to be the consensus.

On re-reading the thread I have one clear conclusion. Neither you nor I have enough information to comment on this case. I don’t know enough to query the background to the case and you don’t know enough to query the HSE’s action.

I don’t doubt that useful points can be made about services for people with disabilities and what’s wrong with them. But jumping on the bandwagon of a particular case that you don’t really know the specifics of is not a good way of making them.

Incidently, I’m not sure if ‘eugenics’ is necessarily the same thing as a responsible approach to fertility, where you seem to go further than me. I’m simply advocating promotion of family planning, whereas you seem comfortable with compulsory fertility control for teenagers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2388598#post2388598

Ajnag wrote:

Myre's may be a wanker, but that still dosnt exuse the no. of young women/girls on our streets using pushchairs as battering rams. Temporary sterilisation(if its possible without side effects) till 18 should be mandatory.
Oh but then our appointed moral guardians would bitch about the excess of underage sex :rolleyes:
As if it didnt already exist....

Boggle

On re-reading the thread I have one clear conclusion. Neither you nor I have enough information to comment on this case. I don’t know enough to query the background to the case and you don’t know enough to query the HSE’s action.

"We've been in negotiations with them for the last 11 months over a package of services and have been dealing generally with the health board for two and half years, yet now they've been able to get a court order in just six hours.

You may feel that you do not have enough information but I would suggest that there are enough question marks hanging over this case to warrant some serious questions. Matters would be made so much the clearer if the HSE would at least give a statement explaining why, only after being embarassed publicly, that they decided to take action - and then why the action was so dramatic. In effect their action is tantamount to punishing the family for going public.

I would also suggest that if they were such bad parents, then why did it take so long to get the kids to custody? Either way something stinks in the HSE's actions.

Ishmael, you appear to be more interested in asking why did they have handicapped kids in the first place. I suppose the childrens rights don't matter to you if they are handicapped. No?!?

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

Matters would be made so much the clearer if the HSE would at least give a statement explaining why, only after being embarassed publicly, that they decided to take action….

Clearly the HSE can’t get into the business of publishing the details of every (or any ) case where they take a child into care. If you reflect on it the best course of action to take is simply silence, and the let the process take its course.

Boggle wrote:

I suppose the childrens rights don't matter to you if they are handicapped. No?!?

This kind of ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question impresses no-one.

Boggle

This kind of ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question impresses no-one.

In this case a valid question. Most of your points are centred around family planning and 'Why did they allow themselves to have 4 autistic children?'

Unless you are arguing that this makes them incapable parents, then this has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is centred around the HSE coming in and taking their children under very questionable circumstances - without having to answer to anyone in the short term.

ishmael whale

In case you haven’t noticed, in post 19, I conceded that I don’t have enough background to the case to make any comments one way or the other. Equally you don’t know enough to make any sensible comment on the HSE’s action.

So what are you saying? That the normal rules regarding confidentiality in such cases should be suspended if parents contact the media, or during a by-election, or what? Do you really think the situation would be improved if the HSE and parents of children in care got into public slagging matches on the merits of their respective cases?

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

This thread is centred around the HSE coming in and taking their children under very questionable circumstances - without having to answer to anyone in the short term.

But if they did habe to answer to someone in the short term....this would be equally be open to abuse, where someone could hold up a valid intervention by simply claiming bias.

I'm sure then that we'd have no shortage of ppl queueing up to say how unacceptable it was that the welfare of whoever was denied help (even temporarily) in such a situation should be the primary concern, and that it is not acceptable that initial accountability could be used as a tool to prevent that.

No matter which way you structure the rules, they're open to abuse.

jc

Ajnag

ishmael whale wrote:

If you put something out in the public domain people are going to react with what they think rather than what you want them to think. Its called democracy and, in most of the world, it hasn’t really caught on because its so damn inconvenient when people disagree with what you want to be the consensus.

Your lecturing me on democracy now?
Get over yourself and dont be such a pious shít,
If you read this thread so well, then you might have noticed:

Its not the discussion that I mind, its blase attitude to the parents on your part.

You poor oppressed soul you, I simply asked that you consider taking this to another thread ffs! Not that you ffin cease and desist!!!

You asked for this:

TEKKIT!

ishmael wrote:

On re-reading the thread I have one clear conclusion. Neither you nor I have enough information to comment on this case. I don’t know enough to query the background to the case and you don’t know enough to query the HSE’s action.

I don’t doubt that useful points can be made about services for people with disabilities and what’s wrong with them. But jumping on the bandwagon of a particular case that you don’t really know the specifics of is not a good way of making them.

We know about the parent history, we know their position, we know that the hse acted hastely and we know that they have made no statements to defend their positions.

I find it funny you can talk of freedom of speech one minute, and then try to deconstruct an argument through fear of the bandwagon the next.

Incidently, I’m not sure if ‘eugenics’ is necessarily the same thing as a responsible approach to fertility, where you seem to go further than me. I’m simply advocating promotion of family planning, whereas you seem comfortable with compulsory fertility control for teenagers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2388598#post2388598

Well, thats cute, in your haste to cross reference my comments in another thread and establish your own piety you missed something called tounge in cheek. I was humourously suggesting that even if we could stop teenage pregnancy, people would moan reguardlessly.

Other then that what boggle said.


Bonkey, good points, and I agree that the hse needs the powers so that they can protect kids in danger. However, as remains to be seen with this case these laws may be open to abuse.

ishmael whale

Leaving aside the padding, and the clever use of an accent on the ‘I’ to get past the editor, you claim

We know about the parent history, which we don’t.

We know their (the parents) position, which we do from statements they have made to the media.

We know that the HSE acted hastily, which is presumably not unusual in cases where children are taken into care.

We know that they (HSE) have made no statements to defend their position which is what they generally do in any individual case, as they have an obligation to respect client confidentiality even when they are being criticised in the media.

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

An interesting take on reality, can’t say I support it myself.

Boggle

But if they did habe to answer to someone in the short term....this would be equally be open to abuse, where someone could hold up a valid intervention by simply claiming bias.

I'm sure then that we'd have no shortage of ppl queueing up to say how unacceptable it was that the welfare of whoever was denied help (even temporarily) in such a situation should be the primary concern, and that it is not acceptable that initial accountability could be used as a tool to prevent that.

No matter which way you structure the rules, they're open to abuse.

Indeed. And I do agree that what must be of highest priority is the children's welfare. I take exception to this case due to the dubious circumstances. From what I can gather, the HSE had been in contact with them for quite a long period of time with little or no action. Next thing the family go public highlighting the failings of the HSE and the children are taken away.

My main worry is that this would send the wrong signals to other families in similar circumstances who might now be afraid to speak out about their plight lest their children be whisked away. What I would like to see, given that this case is in the public domain, is a public representative examine the case and at least come out and say that a) yes they had a reason for reoving the kids and b) it was not an act of retribution from the HSE.

I would also argue that acting in such a hastey manner may have detrimental effects on the kids as (i think a previous poster stated) autistic kids need routine and it could take months to settle them even if they were returned even tomorrow.

Ajnag

ishmael whale wrote:

Leaving aside the padding, and the clever use of an accent on the ‘I’ to get past the editor, you claim

Nothing clever, just giving you the reaction you were fishing for and more.

ishmael whale wrote:

We know about the parent history, which we don’t.

We know that they have coped for years, we know that they were on primetime last years and the details of their lives reveiled from that, we know that they have given up their respective careers to care for the children.

Wanna know what they eat for breakfast?

We know their (the parents) position, which we do from statements they have made to the media.

We also know of their support from the various disablilty groups round the country. We know that they are active participants in campaiging for the disabled and if anything have shown no apathy towards the care of their children.

We know that the HSE acted hastily, which is presumably not unusual in cases where children are taken into care.

When children are in danger, there is no disputing the hse's authority! point blank full stop. The hse has not even stated that it felt the children were in danger, why?, In other case's it has had the ability to do so, so why not now.

We know that they (HSE) have made no statements to defend their position which is what they generally do in any individual case, as they have an obligation to respect client confidentiality even when they are being criticised in the media.

The hse has the right to state their reasons for doing so within certain bounds. Their slience up to date is somewhat questionable. Even with confidentiality, they will have to state their case in a public court of law in full view. They have little reason for their silence.

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

Once again you take my comments totally out of context, my view is that the parents family planning was irrelevant to this topic!
Im not going to repeat myself, If you want to comment on the parents family planning which you have nothing to base your views on, then knock yourself out. Still do'snt mean your smug and irrlevant stances on this thread is justifyed.

An interesting take on reality, can’t say I support it myself.

Reality? what reality?
The one where your never wrong?
:rolleyes:

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Nothing clever, just giving you the reaction you were fishing for and more.

So long as you feel better, that’s the main thing.

You open a thread with a couple of articles, essentially calling for support for the parents on grounds that the HSE had taken their children into care on nebulous grounds. I looked at it, gave my first honest reaction of how do you wake up one morning and find you have four children with autism and one with dyslexia. My first thought is, indeed, more about how an accident waiting to happen came into being rather than whether the HSE have due cause to take the children into care. But take it as evidence that two people can look at the same thing and not see the same significance.

A few people make a few suggestions of varying quality, from pointing out that it is possible that someone could get in this pickle without necessarily being irresponsible to pointing out that a definitive statement would require access to the case history. Clearly there’s no reason for the case history to be out in the public domain. I accept there’s not enough to go on to make statements one way or the other. That includes second guessing the HSE’s decision to obtain a Court order.

You seem to accept that all we have to go on is media coverage, and that the only people talking to the media are the family. So, however, you dress it up, there’s really only their views to go on. So, again, you want us to uncritically accept that if someone takes their case to the media we should accept that without question.

I note you say the HSE has the right to state their reasons “within certain bounds.” Can you clarify this? I understand that they will ultimately have to state their case in a court of law, but I thought in family related matters there would still be an element of anonymity for obvious reasons. But, in practical terms, the HSE’s obligation is to ensure this family can be re-united. I don’t see how that obligation can be reconciled with your desire to see them engage in a public slagging match.

To get you back on track, I’m accepting that I don’t have enough information to comment on how more State promotion of family planning might have helped in this particular case. Do you accept you don’t have enough information to say more than ‘we should keep an eye on the outcome of this case’ rather than the unqualified demand for support that you started with?

Ajnag

ishmael whale wrote:

You seem to accept that all we have to go on is media coverage, and that the only people talking to the media are the family. So, however, you dress it up, there’s really only their views to go on. So, again, you want us to uncritically accept that if someone takes their case to the media we should accept that without question.

I dont expect a lack of critism on your part, however their are facts we can take from media coverage, to help us assess the situation. We can accept as fact the sacrifices made on the parents part, we can accept as fact the lack of support from the state, we can accept as fact the lack of rights for the disabled within Ireland, and Im sure we can both agree on the poor state of the Irish health service.
We can also accept that up until now, these parents have been in regular contact with the hse and social workers(unlike the vast majority of parents with healthy children) and that as such there is a track record of where up until the week the parents ask for care in public they have been judged as fit parents. A track record of sorts.

Granted something might have come to the attention of the hse as of late to cause them due concern, but that brings me to the next point.

I note you say the HSE has the right to state their reasons “within certain bounds.” Can you clarify this? I understand that they will ultimately have to state their case in a court of law, but I thought in family related matters there would still be an element of anonymity for obvious reasons. But, in practical terms, the HSE’s obligation is to ensure this family can be re-united. I don’t see how that obligation can be reconciled with your desire to see them engage in a public slagging match.

Is it outside the bounds of confidentiality and anonymity(irrelevant due to media coverage anyway) to state their was a fear for the welfare of the children. Cant say for sure but havent such statements been made in past?
Maybe they are doing what they have to by legal advise, maybe by political advise considering the upcomming elections.

I dont want a slagging match, I do however wish that pressure be applied considering the rash manner of procedings considering the potential damage to the children concerned. Also to note is not just the lack of a public statement, but of any statement made to the parents even.

Do you accept you don’t have enough information to say more than ‘we should keep an eye on the outcome of this case’ rather than the unqualified demand for support that you started with?

Ill admit that I cant make definate statements, but my demand for support comes from a vested intrest I stated clearly at the start. The conduct of sucessive goverments and the hse have affected me and my family and it is clear to see even to those unaffected that this country has a shamefull track record on the matter.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

Leaving aside the padding, and the clever use of an accent on the ‘I’ to get past the editor, you claim

We know about the parent history, which we don’t.

We do actually.

The parents where featured as a part of an award winning prime time special from last year. Two of their children are twins the two older autistic children were diagnosised after the birth diagnosis of the other children. In short they didn't know until after all four were born.

I've knowledge of the prime time special. The parents don't sleep, period, maybe a couple of hours a night. Their eldest is a nice well adjusted child as could be in the circumstances. The parents are coping as well as possible in the cicumstances. They are victims of misfortune who did not know their children could or would be autistic, and if you witnessed what they are going through frankly you would not wish it on anyone. They love their children desperately, but can't cope.

We know their (the parents) position, which we do from statements they have made to the media.

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

An interesting take on reality, can’t say I support it myself.

They originally took their case to the media, a year ago, in a brillant senstive documentary which asked questions about the forthcoming (and still forthcoming) disability bill. If you can watch the program, do. I'm not kidding these two people barely get a nights sleep between them, every week. They're angry bitter and frustrated, with everyone, but most esp with themselves. They're parents who are frustrated they can't care for their children. I can't think of a greater torture for a loving parent to see your child suffer and not be able to fix it.

I would suggest you research your topic further before picking up the rock to cast the first stone.