I had two 2 fostered siblings, who were handed back to mother in the 1990’s after 11 years with my parents and me. Their lives were absolutely wrecked as a result, because a small number of Catholic fundamentalists in the then Eastern Health Board decided that it was more natural for their mother to take care of them over a decade after these two children were taken into care as their lives were at serious risk. The mother, who came from a seriously damaged background herself and had serious issues with alcohol and drugs and had not reformed to any great extend when these two children were given back to her.

Despite doing well enough academically when they were with my own family, neither of them finished secondary school – one left school at 14, without so much as the Junior Cert, the other left at 17 with no Leaving Cert.

My parents had no rights given their long term status as foster parents, and could not even apply to try and have them adopted. The two children had no rights – their utterly unsuitable mother had all the rights, despite all her problems.

It was utterly devastating for both myself and my parents to watch what happened to them, knowing we could do nothing. That was my brother and sister. I loved them then and I still do. That was my parents fostered son and daughter. They loved them then and still do. Thankfully, my parents were able to intervene with them after they had turned 18 after they had been thrown out of their mothers house, all the result of her problems.

I don’t think I will ever forget the officals stating that we had to hand the children over because it was best for them, and that our own views on what was best for the two children did not matter – their mother and her family rights were sacrosanct to those officials – they couldn’t have cared less about the two kids.

She has since died as a result of her substance abuse ruining her own life. The two children are doing a lot better now, thankfully, largely because my parents never gave up. They are stable and happy and have good family lives. But the cost to both of them has been profoundly negative. They have health problems. They have a poor enough education. They are so lucky they never got seriously into crime or addicition themselves. It all could have been even worse.

That is a real story. Had that referendum been law in the 1990’s, then perhaps things might have been different for those two children. This referendum does matter, very very much, especially in light of Irish history where the abuse and mistreatment of children has consistent, with little done about it. People who oppose it, are quite frankly, extremists who have serious issues with respecting children as individuals in need of their own specified civil rights in order to protect them, and who should be ashamed of themselves.

Please vote yes.

Roscommon happened because the state didn’t do it’s job!
It didn’t appeal the court case, it didn’t show the judge evidence of what was going on, and the abuse was going on for years not just before the court case.
Bad cases make bad laws!

I thought part of this legislation was to correct an anomaly whereby children already in care, particularly in foster homes, could be adopted if there was mutual agreement between children and foster parents, and where these children have been catastrophically failed by their parents. Why should children be denied happiness just because parents who can’t or won’t look after them happen to be married? Michelle and that gentleman are scaremongering. I very much doubt if children will be whisked away from their parents and instantly adopted.

Unfortunately a child doesn’t have a voice in Court. They are represented by and dealt with adults with their own conclusions and agendas be they parents, social workers or legal council. Sad state of affairs that a child has to die before any decisions are formulated

Alex don’t be asking reasonable questions. That kind of rationality does not fit into the state sponsored feel-good-let’s-do-it-for-the-kids party thats going down.

It’s simple: you just sign up a blank check to an unaccountable state and judiciary, to decide, as they please, in secret, the best interests of your child. I mean, what’s not to like?

With the provisos that the children’s right are paramount , it seems she is correct . Concerned people can get the benefit of appeals to the Courts.

I don’t get it.

If the govt doesn’t intend to use the power to break up families, then why does it need to be granted it?

Is there any evidence that children have suffered as a result of a defect on the Constitution, rather than, say, the authorities being asleep on the job?

Hmmm ,
So we give greater powers over our children to a state that carries out all of it’s decisions in secret.

We give greater powers to a state with an horrific track record in looking after the best interests of our children.

We give greater powers to a state which seeks to enshrine parental failure in our constitution, but remains deafeningly silent on state failure.

Parents it really now is time to use your head and not fall for the emotive propaganda being put forward by a state that can’t even look after itself, not to mind it’s children.

@ Michelle. That’s in case of abandonnment. The change is for children who are in care and can’t be adopted.

Congratulations due to the Minister and the stakeholders involved in producing what is a balanced and reasonable wording, it deserves a resounding yes vote.

@ Michelle, Louise and Ed. Children need a stable environment and a chance at happiness. If they can be given that despite the parent who either can’t or won’t look after them and treat them properly being married then I’m all in favour. The idea of someone whisking children away to be adopted instantly is something that happened in Holy Catholic Ireland of the ’50′s and 60′s. Please stop scaremongering.

I propose we change the name of the Referendum to;

Do you trust the Government with your Children’s Right? Referendum

I would rather see Ryan Report II than a referendum. No wonder all the vested interests in this billion a year industry are recommending a Yes vote. It would expose their failures as did Ryan Report 1.

I have to laugh at ‘not a charter for breaking up families’ when they already have possessed this power for many years. They can hide behind the In Camera Rule and do whatever they want to children, if this insidious legislation is passed it will give the State the right to legally abuse children and not be accountable at all.

Bring on Ryan Report II, as Deputy shatter used to say “Let in the Light” (he’s still saying it on his website http://www.letinthelight.ie)

Joe Burns

APS.ie

Nick Beard

It is NOT mandatory to vaccinate a child in Ireland.

Does Claire O’Sullivan have no rights as a mother when she decided not to have her child vaccinated?

We have many children in Ireland who have been vaccine damaged from State promoted vaccines who have never received any compensation.

Who is speaking up for the children who have been left with brain damage ,long term illnesses etc who were fully vaccinated.

What better way to shut you up from bad mouthing our elitist leaders than to threaten to take your kids away. You have been warned. These people will twist your every word and action to show you are incapable parents and you will have little or no defence.. Children are 10 times more likely to die in foster a care. Very slippery slope to allow state take place of parents… Just Google CPS horror stories and be informed

THREE CHEERS FOR THE GOVERNMENT ON THE NEW CHILDRENS REFERENDUM GIVING RIGHTS TO OUR CHILDREN IN OUR CONSTITUTION,,,, MY ARSE,,, IN THE SAME BREATH THESE TWO FACED EXCUSES FOR POLITICIANS CUT ,,BACK TO SCHOOL ALLOWANCES,,RENT ALLOWANCES,,INCREASE SCHOOL FEES,,,COLLEGE FEES,, THREAT TO COLLEGE GOING KIDS TO STOP THEIR GRANTS IF THEIR PARENTS DONT PAY HOUSEHOLD TAX,, SHAME ON THESE TWO FACED BASTARDS

Would it not make more sense to resource social workers properly, maybe add some extra legislation and allow them to investigate cases that are brought to their attention than to broaden state powers while the situation for front line staff remains the same? It’s easy for a well meaning laws intended for social good to have dire consequences… I don’t believe the Irish state can raise children.

Michelle ur a women after my own heart! The legal system courts social workers all a money train! This will enable the HSE to force adoptions like I said earlier it happens in England all the time, people ask me for evidence, just look it up! And don’t judge others till I’ve walked in there shoes
look it up through google simple!!

Now try it, you just try to run all that is proposed here without reference to the special case of the Traveller families, you can’t , not even with a solid YES vote on Saturday November 10th – and this is why this referendum is a complete and total Confidence Trick because no legislation that will work , without provision for the Traveller families can actually work, and such provision can’t work either as everybody must be equal under law.
So if Frances Fitzgerald gets her Yes Vote she still cannot legislate as laid out for the purposes of this referendum with no mention of the Travellers anywhere, but even if she now produced legislation to make them exceptions to the rule it can’t be done anyway as we all have to be treated the same under law.
Any or all legal eagles here must by now realise that it is all a Sham and a Confidence Trick of being asked to vote for something that can’t be done without that Traveller exception , that can’t be done either!
Come on the Travellng People your existence has not now only shattered the Government but all Irish political parties in Dail Eireann as well and exposed them all as Fakers and Charlatans.
Thanks for your help, Lads:-)

It is a child’s right to grow up safely and to reach their own potential. Unfortunately this does not always happen, so will this constitutional change provide the impetus and the framework to allow the betterment of children’s circumstances?

We eagerly awaited the wording of the children’s rights amendment as we all want what is best for our children, and for all children. It is a child’s right to grow up safely and to reach their own potential. Unfortunately this does not always happen, so will this constitutional change provide the impetus and the framework to allow the betterment of children’s circumstances? I do not believe so. After reading the amendment, some questions and observations come to mind:

The wording in relation to the intervention level at which children may be adopted without consent from the parents is ambiguous and widely open to interpretation.

The express rights of children are not included.

With this in mind, before voting please ask yourself:

- Are the provisions what you envisioned? Are they implicit in safeguarding children’s rights?
- Are children’s rights sufficiently covered by this amendment?
- Do you believe that the state intervention threshold is clear as to circumstances and duration of time as to when a child will be adopted without the parents consent?

If you are not completely satisfied with the provisions, please consider voting No. This does not mean you are voting against children’s rights but that you want their express rights to be included and you want an unambiguous threshold for their adoption against their parents wishes .

Indeed, instead of an emphasis on children’s rights, the object of the suggested constitutional change seems to be to provide for greater eligibility for adoption and would seem, at first reading, to be an adoption amendment, with the majority of the substance being concerned with the process of enabling adoption.

The present legal position under the Adoption Act 1988 allows the adoption of children without the consent of married parents when a court determines they have been abandoned. The test for abandonment is high and rightly so. If it cannot be established, then parental contact exists and the focus should be on promoting rather than extinguishing it. This balances both parents’ and their children’s rights to know and have a relationship with each other.

The Constitution currently states in Article 42.5, viz. “In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”

This referendum disappointingly focuses less on the rights of a child than on a lowered threshold for state intervention. This lowered threshold seems ambiguous and it’s wording indeterminable.

Dr Oran Doyle, a law lecturer in Trinity College said, “The real source of contention in current debate, and the likely focus of any referendum proposal, is the question of when the State may intervene and take children into care or start making decisions on behalf of children that override the wishes of the parents.

“To call this a children’s rights issue is somewhat misleading; the issue here concerns who exercises for children the rights that they cannot exercise themselves.”

New Wording:

– *2.1°* In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

What does this mean, prejudicially affected?

By definition Prejudicial can mean harmful, damaging, undermining, detrimental, hurtful, unfavourable, counterproductive, deleterious, injurious, inimical, disadvantageous.

This encompassing and indeterminate word has a wide variation in it’s interpretation from being harmed to being at a disadvantage. Would this definition, as it is being proposed for the constitution, include a child whose welfare is at a disadvantage?

Vague terms that leave interpretation wide open are not in the best interests of our children, if we are to change our constitution to the advantage of our children, the meaning must be precise and not open to varying degrees of interpretation. This is especially important when it is allowing for the adoption of children whose parents are not consenting.

– *2. 2°* Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

This raises concerns; What period of time and What duty? As parents, we have many duties to our children, from providing emotional security to the basics of them having breakfast on the table and what does the ‘best interests’ of the child mean? Who decides?

As has been noted by several commentators, including Professors William Binchy and Gerard Whyte of Trinity College Dublin, any such failure under this wording, need only be temporary and could even be of extremely short duration.

– *3. * Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

– *4. **1°* Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings:
– * i* brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
– * ii* concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
– *4. 2°* Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

Again, the bar seems to be set as ‘prejudically affected’ and in the ‘best interests’ of the child, but what do these mean? These ambiguous statements leave the amendment dangerously open to interpretation.

Constitutional law expert and high court judge, Professor Gerard Hogan of Trinity College Dublin also appears to be skeptical about the need for an amendment and expresses reservations about the concept of a child’s ‘best interests’ because it leaves open the question in many cases of who get to decide what is in a given child’s interests, the parents or the State? For example, with regard to a child’s best interests he is quoted in the report as follows: “it is all very well to say that children’s interests must be safeguarded. But who is to decide this and what does it mean?”

According to Mr Hogan the phrase, “best interests of the child”, is ambiguous. He has also raised concerns that a children’s rights referendum might lower the threshold for State intervention in an excessive way.

A constitutional amendment where provision is being made for the adoption of a child against the parents wishes should be clear on what circumstances, degree of failure and time period.

*So What about Children’s rights*

Both the* *Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children (*JCCAC*) and Children’s Ombudsman recommended the amendment should include the express recognition of children’s rights whilst also expressly recognising that the primary and natural carers, educators and protectors of the welfare of a child are the child’s parents.

They also recommended that the proposed wording specifically requires the State, by proportionate intervention, to support the family so as to ensure that a child is only removed from his or her family where no other appropriate action can be taken which will ensure the protection of a child at risk and/or to protect the child’s welfare and best interests.

Ten years ago, the Constitution Review Group recommended that an express guarantee of certain rights of the child should be added into the Constitution as well as an express requirement that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

According to the children’s ombudsman, the failure of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution to recommend that express rights for children be included in the Constitution is a retrograde step in strengthening and protecting children’s rights. This means that children will not be recognised as individual rights holders.

Children’s Ombudsman: the current proposal to refer to the rights of children falls short of what is required. The proposal states: “The State acknowledges and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children” [Article 42(A)1 of Twenty-Eighth Amendment Bill]

The recommendations of the Children’s Ombudsman:

Specifically, I recommend the inclusion of a provision setting out express rights for children to include:

- The right to participate in matters affecting the child.
- The right to freedom from discrimination.
- A right to participate and to be heard.
- The express provision for the right to family or appropriate care, together with an express duty on State to support families. I recommend the inclusion in the Constitution of a State duty to support families and a duty to act in a proportionate manner.

To clarify, I fully support the proposal that provision be made for the adoption of children in long-term foster care, but we must not assume that this is in the best interests of all children in this situation

It looks like some parents have already lost the right to refuse to give their consent to a State promoted vaccine!

http://tipptatler.ie/2012/06/mother-and-son-in-hiding-over-forced-vaccination-case/

Ah yes minister, glad you cleared that one up. No evidence in the court system, I wonder why that is?.
Forced and illegal adoptions now to be made legal. If ye find something immoral?, scraping the barrel there!
If paddy the pleb insists on voting for his democratic rights, as instructed by you and the govt. I am sure he/ she will be given their democratic rights,good and hard!!

‘dealt with by….

Pleb is a shortened version of plebicite, look it up in the dictionary. “Paddy likes to know what’s the story” who said that?
I unlike you, don’t insult people.

* parents being married

I believe your sub heading contains a reversal in respect of which is removed from which!

Sorry about these two posts. Got an error message on the first which didn’t upload till after I’d posted the second one?!

Niall Doyle
2 hours ago via Mobile
To: The Broadcasting Authority Of Ireland. From: Niall Doyle, elector and citizen of the Republic Of Ireland. Dear Sir/Madam, This is not a private letter or a complaint. This is merely a public observation, by a citizen of Ireland, with regard to recent comments made by a member of Seanad Eireann. That member, Senator Catherine Noone, in the Seanad Chamber, has sa
id she does not want people on the ‘No’ side in the upcoming referendum on Childrens Rights to have their voice heard in the current referendum debate. She has said that she hopes the broadcast media “exercise editorial discretion to make sure that they did not give a voice to naysayers on the no side whose main aim is to raise their own profile.” Senator Noone has said she is concerned about equal coverage being given to both sides in this debate. On three occasions during the past week, I have heard the broadcast media express their own concerns that it may not be possible to conduct a fair and balanced debate because there does not appear to be a ‘No’ campaign. If Senator Noone, who has not been elected by the people of Ireland, but whose salary is paid by the people of Ireland, can make these comments, then it is to be expected that the broadcast media may be unable to do what they are compelled to do under the law, because those of us on the ‘No’ side may now be reluctant to contact the broadcast media when a government politician has publicly stated that no such opinion be allowed. With regard to the Supreme Court ‘McKenna Judgement’ all broadcast media are now compelled to give equal coverage to both sides in all future referenda debates. By her comments, Senator Noone is effectively asking the broadcast media to break the law and disobey a Supreme Court order. There are many people in Ireland campaigning for a ‘No’ vote in this referendum but we do not have the ear of the mass media as we are just ordinary citizens. We do not have funding from private or state sources, unlike many charities and organisations who are campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote. I conclude by expressing the view of all citizens, who value democracy and free speech, that these comments by Senator Noone should be noted by The Broadcasting Authority Of Ireland. Thanking you. Yours sincerely, Niall Doyle email: ndoyle09@gmail.com
— at Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI)
Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI)
Government Organisation · Dublin, Ireland
Unlike ·