I’m a bit surprised at people being called lazy if they decide to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against the rights of children. While I have gone through the booklet and will be voting yes done people with more knowledge than me think it does not go far enough They will vote no in the hope it will be re written to make it stronger. If they actually bother to vote and vote no they probably do have some understanding of the referendum

Those voting NO are the ones who take the time to inform themselves. Don’t rely on the state to tell the truth. The state has an appalling track record for children in state care.

I can hear the conversation in 20 years time , so Dad what was all that about in 2012 ,the constitution for kids n stuff …..did you vote , ah yeah…..i voted yes …..to give you more “rights”…… weren’t we great…..yeah….. and did you vote to try do something about all the billions in debts we are still paying and the fact all my friends have to emigrate….well we did vote to try change that too son….and …did it make any difference who you voted for……eh not really son….not really…they all blamed each other but none of them really did what they were voted in to do I’m afraid….

Well said Deirdre! This referendum is emotionally loaded towards a YES outcome unfortunately and has nothing to do with childrens rights at all!

If you really want to do the research visit http://www.APS.ie

Don’t believe the lies and spin. The No side are ahead according a Journal.ie poll which is laregr than the Red C poll. http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-how-will-you-vote-in-the-childrens-referendum-603687-Sep2012/

I never got any leaflet thru my door!!! Maybe you have my one!! Can you send it on to me please?

No.The government gives us the very minimum information and the English used is fit for a lawyer not the man on the street.

I’ve read the booklet. I doubt there’ll be a big turnout though.

If you love children, you’ll vote yes. Why wouldn’t you? If you are one of the less than 50% of the nation who actually votes, you wouldn’t want to seem as if you didn’t care about children would you? And you know something? That’s exactly what the state are banking on.

So why is it all a lie? Well apart from the obvious “you should never trust an Irish government w
it
h anything” logic there are plenty of reasons to be wary. A little known fact about Bunreacht na Heireann is that in Ireland, the family unit are the head of the state. To put that simply, in Ireland there is no greater power in society than the family. Families are higher up the ladder than police, solicitors, judges and even the all powerful government. Article 41.1 states:

“The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.“

If you vote yes in November, you’ll be surrendering the rights of the family unit, effectively making the constitution mere toilet paper. How?? Because if you remove the power of the family unit, you remove the head of the state. And who do you think will take that power? Oh come on, have a guess… ooh for you. That’s right. The government. But it doesn’t end there, there’s more. Article 42.4 states:

“The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.“

That’s right, you guessed it. No more free primary education. OK ok, I know. Who the hell gets free primary education in this country? But it’s the law. Funny thing is, this is completely absent from the proposed amendments. Oh and did you know? Children already have rights in Ireland. The constitution is explicit in this. Article 42.5 states:

“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.“

Did you see that? It’s right there …. “the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child“. So why are you being asked to vote for something that already exists? That wording in there is important too. “By appropriate means” is to be replaced with “by proportionate means” which will actually remove children’s rights. I know, big words … complicated stuff eh? It means that the state is no longer required to fully see out its role as “guardian of the common good” and will now only cater for the child as long as budgets allow. Interesting isn’t it?

Now onto the changes regarding adoption. Why would we need this change? In short, we don’t. But why does Enda Kenny want this change? I’ll tell you. Currently in Ireland 90% of all children in state custody are with foster parents. A foster parent receives a lot of money from the state. €325 p/w for every single child 12 years or younger and €352 p/w for every single child over the age of 12. With current numbers stating that the state is currently taking care of 4500 children. That’s a lot of money. And with the Troika, the IMF and bondholders to be thinking of, how on earth can Enda Kenny allow Joan Burton to continue that mad give away? So in steps that yolk, Francis Fitzgerald. A woman who in 1980’s Ballymun was famous in her role for splitting up families and taking children from parents. And guess what? She is seeking to constitutionalise that practise with adoptions now. After all, think how much money the state will save having your children adopted rather than fostered. And if forced adoption on it’s own doesn’t frighten you, I implore you to google Forced Adoption in the UK, where adoption is big business. Where adoption is quota based and generates bonus government payments to civil servants.

Now I would never dream of telling you how to cast your vote. Unlike the government I actually respect your right to vote and how you will do so. But it is damned well important that you research this particular referendum. And by research I do not mean watch RTE or listen to Newstalk. We are, after all, voting on the implicit rights of the family and children. And if you love children, then you had better be a responsible voter and actually KNOW what it is you’re voting on. I could have taken the view, “this state has proven time and time again that when it is in charge of children’s health and welfare, it ALWAYS fails miserably” and I could have written about the sexual abuse, accidental deaths, manslaughter and suicides of children while in state care, but you already know all this. And you already know how many times the state has tried to cover up it’s involvement in such stories. But I wanted you to ask yourself only one question… “If I vote yes, will it really be the beginning of a better life for all Irish children?”

Another way of looking at it would be, remember all those pre-election promises that were all completely broken? No sorry, I can’t say that… they were not promises, they were lies. Well, do you think you can trust those same liars now? And if not, would it be responsible of you to allow the state the power of determining what’s best for your children? Personally, I wouldn’t trust them to run an ant farm. But I am only one voter. What you do is up to you, so please. Look into your childs eyes and think before you decide.”

Article by Truthful Irish

Interesting isn’t it? This has nothing to do with children’s rights. That’s just a clever tactic to evoke an emotional response favourable to their agenda. This Referendum has more to do with ABSOLVING the State of any obligations as to the welfare of the child (and therefore everyone else too). Think about it before you vote…

what people need to realise is that our government doesn’t work for our best interests anymore . children already have rights. .if I was to vote I’d be voting no. don’t see how giving the government more authority over our kids could be a good thing .

A lot of ppl I know haven’t received booklet …., and not everyone can use Internet or have access to it . Take a lot of older people , but I know what way I will be voting !

To me there is only one thing to decide upon.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROVIDE FOR THE CHILDREN IN A CORRECT AND PROPER MANNER, THAT BRING WITH PROPER HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION & A SAFE PLACE TO GROW UP.
If you believe the Government will provide these services then vote YES, if not vote NO.

And they should put in there that every child in Ireland has a right not to go hungry or be left waiting on a hospital appointment ….. They need to get their priorities sorted ,,,

Deirdre Maher can i copy and send your comment on to others pls

It’s not as clear cut as people think .. This government is underhanded and I don’t trust them .. Haven’t we already got good laws around children’s rights ? .. I smell a rat here be careful people , and wat happened to them not been allowed to use tax money to support a ref either way ?

I just got here from Amerikay. How do I go about voting? (Yes, I’m a citizen :-)

No.

I’m informed as I’ve researched myself and am leaning towards No for many reasons. I think the case we’re hearing today about the girl suing her parents is somthing worth discussing in this context. The father had told the HSE he did not believe his children to be safe in their mother’s care and had even had meetings with them but the HSE did not intervene. And so as we know the girls sister was killed and she herself injured. The amendment to the constitution would not have saved the girls the only difference would be she could sue the state and not her parents.

I didn’t get any booklet :-(
And I have no idea what it’s all about

There’s a big difference between “not being informed” and not being bothered to seek out the information!

It’s important that everyone informs themselves and votes. People are always complaining that the people have no say or no power. In regards the the most important laws of the land, i.e the Constitution, we have a say. So make sure to read up and vote!

Firstly, any of you claiming that you have not been informed, the information is out there. Plenty of it. There are an abundance of sources where you can read the wording of the amendment and where explanations are provided. You all clearly have access to the internet – go to http://www.referendum2012.ie/ or http://www.childrensreferendum.ie/. There is information in the print media every single day.

This referendum is NOT about giving more power or rights to the state. The entire focus of the Children’s Right’s Referendum is about giving CHILDREN a voice – allowing them to be heard in issues that affect them the most. Currently, under family law, the child has no legal right to have their voice heard in issues like custody cases. (There are options there, such as appointment of a GAL but often for cost or other reasons these are not taken up – approximately 60% of children do not get to have their voices heard because they do not have that right under Irish law.)

Irish law is based on the Constitution, and there is no provision there to have children’s voices heard. Amending the Constitution to give children the right to speak will ensure that judges can take the child’s opinion into account when making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Our children were silenced for long enough. We owe them the opportunity to be heard and respected as people.

The state does not want to take anyone’s children. Far from it! Rather, this amendment will allow for earlier intervention in situations where a child’s health or safety may be in danger, and will allow the state to offer support before things reach crisis point. Offer SUPPORT, so that the child can REMAIN with their family. Placing children in care can be desperately traumatic for the child, and this is only ever a last resort. The Constitution will still protect the family – Article 41 will remain in place, unchanged. At the end of the day, it is obvious that with their family is the best place for a child to be.

I have been a member of a foster family for 25 years, and time and time again I have witnessed children’s voices being ignored. Suggesting that (a) foster parents turf children out on the street at 18 once they are not receiving payment is not a reflection of reality, and (b) that foster parents don’t want to adopt because they receive more money for fostering is frankly, insulting to the people who open their homes, families and hearts to take care of children who don’t receive that care from their own families.

There are hundreds of children out there in a legal limbo who have been effectively abandoned by their parents, and there is no provision in Irish law to allow for a foster family (be that other family members or otherwise) to step in and adopt – in doing so, to provide security, an identity – and most basic of all, even their own family name – things most children, thankfully, have as a given.

Those of you out there perpetuating these myths – I would love to know how many of you have ever worked with children in difficulties, who have been let down by their families and the people who are meant to protect them, because our country at the moment affords them no voice and far less importance than the very family who is neglecting/abusing them.

Finally, if you have informed yourself and made a decision, be that yes or no, please take half an hour on 10th November to ensure that YOUR voice is heard.

” thehappycynic……Children already have a voice in family court situations , be it GAL services @ 3 -4k a pop or the judge can ask to speak to the child in his / her chambers. So the “very least” point of your arguement for voting yes is invalid

Enough to know that…. NO is the ONLY way to go…

Deirdre well said ur rite there

yes like they say every child has the right to FREE EDUCATION my ass ……

does any one know where r how u can apply to work in the pooling stations. or are those jobs still for the people who have a few jobs like all ways. no change there.

Thank you Susan

I am kind of shocked by the negativity towards the amendment. I understand the wording is a bit obtuse but the booklet is really helpful and there’s loads of information online. I know the State does not have the best track record in terms of child welfare but that is hardly a valid reason for doing what we Irish do so well, nothing. At the very least, the amendment will provide a voice to children and their views will be given proper consideration.

It’s Vote Yes if you “Care About The Kids” and Vote No otherwise, right?

Did anyone else notice that the green booklet that was delivered was printed wrong?! Still undecided, more research needed.

Yes, I have found the YES for children campaign hugely informative with an abundance of information to be found on their website or the websites of the organisations who are campaigning under the umbrella of YES for children like the children’s rights alliance, Barnardos and the ISPCC.

As a child I was taken wrongfully from my father after my mother was put in to a mental institution. But whatever my father tried he couldn’t get us back as he was just the father. I was sent from foster home to foster home until i was finally 18 (2 moves a year on average), to people who just cared about the money they got every week for us, not about the well being of me and my siblings. We were left hungry, wore very worn clothes and were beaten regularly by them. Many foster-parents are surely nice people, but me and my siblings were unlucky in the placements I guess. in the 13 years I was in care there was only 1 nice family I was placed with. When I was 18 I ran. I am a mother of 3 wonderful children now and have a very loving husband. And there is no way in hell I will give the state more power than me or my husband over my children, ever. If anything should be changed it should be giving the unmarried fathers more rights, not the state. If my father had had them me and my siblings could have had a good childhood. the state have destroyed more families than they have helped. I know for a fact that most foster parents are in it for a living, as I have relatives that do it ( and they do a fine job) but they wouldn’t want to loose their income of a couple of hundred euros a week through adopting them. Truth is that most people who want to adopt, want very young children. I could not sleep soundly at night knowing that my vote could destroy children and their families. The job of the state should be keeping families together, not tearing them apart at will.

Free healthcare and education should be the right of every child, therefore this change to the constitution does not go far enough imo. However, I am still undecided which way to vote but will make an informed decision when the day arrives. I have many concerns regarding both campaigns at the moment, and also find it difficult to trust this government (and the previous one) but I will not vote against the government to make a point. I have not had the booklet as yet, therefore I will search online in the meantime. Some very informed points made here, particularly on the NO side.

Yes I feel well informed of the issues and the changes to the constitution. But considering all the main media both radio and TV have given more time to the American election than this referendum I have had to search for further information. Yes I got the booklet it wasn’t very informative and it was not what was in its pages troubled me it was what was not in it bothered me more. After reading the sections involved in my copy of the constitution and reading article 42.5 and then the proposed Article 42A.2.1. It becomes apparent that this change will also affect more parts of the constitution.
The constitution already covers the protection of every person and there lawful rights and this does not exclude children. The fact these wrights are been neglected by the state is another issue.
(The safety and welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected) safety and welfare defining such has many meanings and is open to question. If a child’s home is reposed by a bank, or if children as we hear are been brought to soup kitchens and for breakfast to some of the charity kitchens now sprouting up.
How far dose safety and welfare meaning stretch. People seem to be connecting safety and welfare with child abuse and child neglect. They are correct to do so but under the terms of this proposal it is very vague. We should also remember what the Constitution says about the family. This has a direct effect on that. Legislation is to come in if the yes vote is carried but not till after the vote and you will have no information on that until after the vote.
So you are been asked to change the constitution and be told what new legislation is to follow but not before you vote yes only after. If the state should feel it is in the best interest of a child to be removed from the parent or parents and placed in foster care it should be hoped to be a temporary thing. I acknowledge there are times and circumstances this is required but under the vague terms and loosely worded amendment. A parent who may be forced to rob food for his or her children as we heard about a week or so ago where dose this amendment come in. You can be guaranteed the man in question is not alone in having to do such. He just happened to be honest about the fact as to why he had to.
It must be taken into consideration that the rights referred to are not listed in the booklet or on the web site connected to it. As I said these are to come after the vote .The yes people will try to tell you what they are but they haven’t been written yet. The No side with less funding or no funding makes very valid points. My reasons in the way I shall vote are above. But I have had to research and inform myself as to the changes. As for how I shall vote that’s no one’s business.
AS to do I fell informed enough yes but not by any information contained in the book they sent out

@Anne-MarieFlynn. “There are hundreds of children out there in a legal limbo who have been effectively abandoned by their parents, and there is no provision in Irish law to allow for a foster family (be that other family members or otherwise) to step in and adopt” – you are not stating the facts that are easily ascertained from published data.

In 2010 there were 5974 children in care. According to the Minister for Social Affairs, Joan Burton, 1600 of these were children of married parents. The number of children in long term foster care that were adopted was 16 (out of 4374). On a pro rata based there are probably 5 who might have been adopted by their long term foster carers. Some of these 5 could be adopted under Section 54, sub section 2, of the 2010 Adoption Act. So maybe the true figure is 2 or 3.

Of the189 children who were adopted from Irish sources the average age was 1 year. 288 children were adopted from overseas sources. Of the 2200 children taken into care in 2010 only 9% were under the age of 12. Sadly, but understandably, adoptive parents want young children with whom they can easily form a bond.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 the ECHR jurisprudence now applies in Ireland and Sahin v Germany gives a voice to the child – also consistent with Art. 40.1 of the Constitution. If children are not being given a voice then it is the courts and not the Constitution that is at fault.

You owe it to all child in Ireland to tell the truth.

The answer to why citizens are not generally informed is because that is the intention of the government to ensure a yes vote in order to remove the rights of parents to exercises the rights of the child once the undefined unregulated lower court “Exceptional cases” decision is made by any judge waving his undefined unregulated decision “OPINION ONLY WAND”. From that point by using “The Best Interests of the Child” to argue that the state as parent decides all matters by absolute power over the child.

What does “absolute Power” always bring?

“Absolute Corruption”

If you thought paedophilia ran riot in the 1950’s, then get prepared for many times the level of paedophilia if the referendum results by a yes vote in changing the Constitution to allow the state to take by the wave of its “OPINION ONLY WAND” absolute power over your children.

What does this mean?

Simple, establishment, state control of any citizen who dissents in any way that encourages the “OPINION BASED WAND” to be waved, by the fear of their children being taken for forced adoption or foster care.

The “Best Interests of the Child” slogan was generated by Adolf Hitler for his Lebensborn forced adoption program (1935-45) which seized 10’s of 1,000′s of children from citizens across Europe, by using medical and other expert opinion corruptly (as today) in order that these children could be Germanized by assessing them against the Nazi’s Aryan race criteria, before transporting those children that did not meet these requirements onward to the death camps for medical experimentation and extermination in the gas chambers.

It was used again in East Germany during the cold war to take children from dissented parents who did not follow communist party policy, Stasi enforced.

Today it is used currently in the UK to take children that have never been harmed, that know their loving parents have never harmed them, on the grounds of Potential risk of future emotional harm alone (Equivalent to the “likely to be prejudicially affected” addition to the Constitution within 42A 2.1 ), without anything ever happening to their children at all.
The equivalent in the UK to the undefined unregulated lower court “exceptional cases” decision which makes the state “parent” whether supported by lower law or not is the “Placement Order” which forcibly dispenses with parental responsibility without the parents consent.
The effect of both the Irish and UK decisions or Orders is to prevent the parent from contesting in any legal way the forced adoption of their children and at the same time to block the right to appeal the decision or Order by different methods dependent on which country you are in.
The appeal process then being by leave of the court only from this point forward. This is because the state in both countries holds absolute power over the child from this point forward.
In the UK Social Services prevent applications for leave of the court to appeal by placing the children with foster/adoptees or adoptive parents very quickly. This physical placement of the child by arguing “The Best Interests of the Child” being paramount prevents the UK Court from granting leave of the Court to appeal for 1 year and 1 day, when if the child has not been placed with potential adoptive parents the birth parents may apply for leave of the Court once again. Of course almost all children have been adopted by then.
This shows that the right to appeal proceedings itself is blocked by “The Best Interests of the Child” being argued at any point in the proceedings. “The Best Interests of the Child” is a new addition to the Constitution if the YES vote dominates and amends the Constitution.
Under these circumstances you might not be surprised to find that 0.5% of all UK children are now in state care because Court Orders are currently running at 400 Orders granted to keep or take children into state care to every 1 Order granting a child’s return to its birth parents. (No one is this accurate at detecting child abuse)
This is why UK parents are protesting and marching in places like Trafalgar Square and why now Slovakia, Italy, India and other states are protesting over their citizen’s children being stolen by the UK state to expand their child stealing gravy train business. Slovakia is threatening to take the UK before ECHR Strasbourg on the matter of child stealing by the UK state.
That is what has happened in the UK over the past 15 years when from 2000 local authorities where set “REWARD” payment targets that earned local authorities millions of UK pounds for child stealing by the state.
The UK financial racket around forced adoption and fostering has grown to such an extent no one on the gravy train today wants to give it up as it is a multimillion UK pound business today.

This is why UK citizens have been fleeing to Ireland to protect their children from UK forced adoption over the past 15 years, but not anymore if the Constitution is changed as Ireland will be just as bad as the UK without Constitutional protection in the areas of law I have defined.
A NO vote in the Irish Referendum will derail the gravy train from crossing the Irish Sea to dine out on the families of Irelands’ children and grandchildren.
A YES vote will be saying GOODBYE to our future generations of children by handing them to the state by your free will to become not to become aware and vote YES.
You will only have yourselves to hold to account once your children become a financial commodity.
Vote NO to protect their little hearts from the pain of this mess the UK are in.
Let’s then regroup in Ireland and get things right for children before we change the Constitution that protects us all?

Vote NO – or you could have your great grandchildren forcefully adopted, taken away from your grandchildren, after you’re dead:-)
(What comes round goes around , the natural cycle , hehehe)
Reply

To read more information regarding my below comment please go to http://freethinkingvoice.org and select the “Ireland’s Children’s Rights Campaign” Tab where more will be revealed with factual evidence and articles.

For the main coverage of the UK situation go to http://telegraph.co.uk and enter the exact phrase “Christopher Booker” in the search box, upon which you will find several years of factual news reports on this same matter.

I suppose once more informed our decision will be more informed.

Disestablishing the family as primary carer, of course the law does not preclude anyone, is a means for the state to wash it’s hands of any responsibility to provide public funds to support families. Instead it will be state care leading to adoption. A state unto a state. A conflict of interest arises. Can the state sue itself if there is abuse within it. In effect under the guise of adoption for the abused children of married couples, the intention is to relieve the state of any legal obligation to the sovereignty of the family. In away it’s nearly a reflection of Ireland losing sovereignty to the E.U. If you get my meaning. Anyway a bad law for the few is demeaning of any real effort to help the serious situation abused children face. This proposed law is an act after the fact of abuse not an attempt to protect and upgrade social services. It deprives the family as being the primary carer, full stop. Voting NO.

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:-)

There is a huge amount of information out there, plus booklet has been delivered to every household, no doubt those who voted No are too lazy to use Google

Yes.

I will be voting YES. Like Shauna said, there is so much information out there, and if the legal working is confusing (which it was to me) it’s all made clear on Yes For Children, Barnardos, Children’s Rights Alliance and the ISPCC’s websites.

I will be voting YES as I want children to be protected and valued in our society!!

There was an 18 month old baby who was being abused by her unmarried parents, the child was taken from them by welfare. A solicitor informed the parents if they were to marry then the child would be returned to the parents. So they did and as the law states the family unit is priority to the child. The child was dead with 8 months of being returned. Another a 12 year old girl adopted at birth. Biological mother and father decided 12 years later they wanted the child back after not having any contact at all without any consideration of that child she was returned.
Every single day you will read abused beaten kicked stamped burnt it’s about time we stood up for these children’s. This has to be done by us as society. And please don’t question these facts because they are facts they are true