Hugh, have you lost the run of yourself? How can anyone vote or even have an opinion on something that doesn’t exist yet?

I appreciate your points of view but this is a very live issue at the moment and there is a broad understanding of the issues at stake so we felt it was worth asking. If you’re waiting for the wording then there is an option in the poll for that too.

A piece of string is always twice it’s length from middle to end.

unless the middle is closer to one of the ends

Guys I’m doing a poll on the polls that The Journal runs.
Yes or No?

Yeah, I agree with you. There are very specific problems with the current constitutional position of children and it would be nice for those to be addressed, rather than a generic “regard must be given to best interests of children” language.

The piper plays the tune – no point paying him otherwise.
The payer gets to call the tune though, which I suppose is only fair.
Although maybe the Journal could do a poll on that – would be just as useful as this one.

“some childrens interests are not met by their parents and need to be protected from them.”

State run indoctrination centres, sorry state run orphanges. That seems vaguely reminiscent of something.

Well, the constitution states protection for the marital family, so if we want to change the assumption that the best interests of the child is always that of the marital family, then yes, a referendum is necessary.

the past is full of bad institutions who didnt care for children sure, doesnt mean they have to be that way now. That argument is poor Damocles

Dave, we need a referendum because our Constitution gives children with married parents less rights than children whose parents are not married.

We cannot just ‘pass a law’ if it is repugnant to our Constitution.

The state has messed this up in the past but it knows better now?

Gosh, that just fills me with confidence.

We have plenty of laws to make parents accountable for neglecting their children, the problem is the health board, hse, or whatever name that bloated, self important quango is going by these days, can’t be bothered to implement them.
Too busy gossiping about their — sorry having important meetings about important things, just don’t have the time to do any work!
I wouldn’t trust any state employee with the care of my dog, never mind vulnerable children. Look at their history.
I wouldn’t give the state any more power regarding removing children from families.
You would be looking at forced adoptions on very thin evidence, the same as the UK. Though this could be a field day money wise for associated professions ,mainly the lawyers.
The laws are already there, perhaps bring in laws to force the state to actually implement them and for people to actually do their jobs.
Though no glory in that proposal!

@ Damocles

I don’t even necessarily disagree with you on this issue but, in general, not doing something that you think will be beneficial simply because you failed previously is a very poor attitude. Of course you can always argue the beneficial part…

EL531W

I don’t think the state raising children will be beneficial though. Ever.

I’ve encountered people who think the state should be able to seize children for the most nebulous reasons, such as the parents being “too” religious or “too” right wing. If people like that ever got into power in a state with a pre-existing right to seize people’s kids all sorts of things could happen.

Damocles, this is not about having more children in state care, it is about making sure he interests of a child, as distinct from the married family, can be considered in court.

Damocles – you say ‘ever’ – I presume you therefore believe that the children from the Roscommon case should have been left with their parents?

(btw – they would have been rescued a lot sooner were it not for the issue with our Constitution)

William, Dave seemed to be suggesting that the some children’s interests need to be protected from their parents and that the state should interfere as and when it sees it fit. I think that’s quite dangerous thinking, as I’ve described.

Donal, You’re talking about a case which is pretty clear cut. I’m talking about the risks of open ended nebulous legislation.

Damocles – you said you didn’t believe the State raising children would be beneficial – ever. That statement excludes all cases, even the pretty clear cut ones.

Also, as clear cut as that case was, the Constitutional protection offered to the family under marriage was used top delay taking them into care.

Under current Irish law the rights of the family are paramount to the rights of the child. This means that even if a child is in an abusive home it is incredibly incredibly hard for social services to do anything about removing them from that environment as Irish law wants to keep the family together, which is good in theory but not good if you’re the child of a drunk/drug addicted parent and you’re the one who is being abused and neglected in some form day after day. The rights of the child should be paramount to everything else in the state. Without changing this, social services’ hands are tied when it comes to removing a child from an abusive and dangerous home, often they can’t intervene until it’s too late!

And despite what people say about state care in this country, there are a massive amount of great loving foster parents out there, who have chosen to help these kids and have gone through months and months of vetting and questioning in order to ensure they will make suitable foster parents. In fact, unlike Britain we have more individual people fostering than we do foster homes, which is great because it allows children to be placed in a home environment instead of in a ‘care home’! There will always be bad sides to the system and we hear horror stories of where some children in care end up – but what about where the children of drunk/druggie parents end up? Social care for children being abused is a much better option, and I’m speaking from experience here. The rights of the child have to be paramount to everything else in our constitution or else we are failing them.

The state might have legal obligations to remove them from harm, but to raise them to maturity? They have shown they are incapable of doing so in the past and are unlikely to be able to do so in the future.

I’d have more faith in a private orphanage run by the General Electric Corporation than in one run by the Irish State.

@ Damocles..do you know anything about the current system of social care in Ireland? If you’l look at my above comment you’l see that it is ordinary good caring people that foster children in this country – Enda Kenny doesn’t take them in a lock them in a cupboard you know? As I’ve already said before, we are not like Britain and we have a tiny tiny proportion of state run care homes.

Most children are placed in the care of carefully vetted citizens, many of whom continue to care for their foster children long after the state declares them an adult. You say “They have shown they are incapable of doing so in the past and are unlikely to be able to do so in the future.” Yes they failed in the past because the church was running the show and the rights of the children were certainly not paramount in their eyes – and they will be the same ones campaigning for a no vote in this referendum. But you’re talking about a system many years ago that was corrupt – there are children going through the state care system everyday right NOW and they get placed in foster homes with loving kind people who care about them – I don’t know what horror movies your watching but they certainly don’t end up locked away in orphanages and convents in Ireland any more. Foster care is a safe haven for the many children that have to sit awake at night wondering, will daddy/mummy come home drunk/high again tonight, will they go to bed hungry and cold again, how many more nights will they have to sit in fear of being abused physically/mentally. The rights of the child have to be paramount to everything else and you need to stop ranting about a system of the past (even though it deserves to be ranted about) and look at the current system and ways to help and protect the most innocent people in our society. Without the rights of the child becoming paramount then children will be left in abusive and unhappy homes – is that what you want?

Poppysmith,

I was responding to a comment which seems to suggest that rather than having any sort of referendum then the state should grant itself whatever powers it sees fit to do whatever it likes under the pretext of “helping the kids”.

I am saying that if you were to do that then it is a slippery slope that opens the door to all sorts of possibilities, whereby the state can do whatever it likes under the pretext of “helping the kids”, and that in the long run that would be a bad thing. My last comment, incidentally, was in response to Donal. Yours slipped in while I was writing mine.

The Irish State has proven at every opportunity that it cannot be trusted to look after children’s rights. This is not going to end well.

Damocles, I don’t know if you know a lot children who are sexually abused by parents, but no child should ever be forced to remain in that environment because parents are married. Obviously removing children should have oversight, but to remove the power to remove a child from an abusive home will not benefit the most vulnerable in society.

“I voted yes”???

Hi there please chk the website www. Noto42.blogspot.com

Or as Prof Dermot Keogh said, if memory serves, they might as well have just proposed to amend Art 38.1 instead.

If you’ve examined any of the speeches leasing up to this, it’s clear that there are a few specific practical things it seeks to address. These include allowing a child who’s been in foster care to be adopted by their foster parents, even if their natural parents have subsequently married. Also, specifying that the interests of a child be considered in court distinctly from the interests if the married family. These are reforms that will have practical significance, such as in the Baby Ann case in 2006.

I personally don’t think the working group wording will have sufficient effect, Will. It notes that the best interests of the child will be taken into account. The Baby Ann case said the same thing. They DO take the best interests of children into account, but there is a strong presumption that the best interest of the child is in a marital family.

Unless you specifically get rid of that presumption (which will never happen), I’m cynical about the effect.

“It is morally wrong and unjust to tax a persons home” …. “If we get elected I assure you no changes will be made to Roscommon A&E” …..”We will demand the Ireland gets a better deal on it’s bailout arrangement” ….”No we didn’t ask that, we have a mandate” …… Enda Kenny

If it looks like bs and it smells like bs , its prob Enda Kenny.

your quote there was one made in the 1990s.. Unfortunatly today we are in a bailout programme like never before, an agreement made by the previous govt. to introduce water charges, household taxes etc.

In regards to Roscommon, no promises like that should have been made atall if they didn’t know they could be kept.

Do you not read or listen to the news? Noonan & Kenny have been fighting our corner in Europe since day one, and are expecting a massive deal to be done regarding our bank debt in October.

http://www.herald.ie/news/kenny-turns-down-cut-in-bailout-cost-to-save-crucial-tax-rate-2577080.html

This referendum has been on the table since FF and was put on hold coming up to the last general election. As a foster parent I totally agree with the new wording. Children’s rights seldom come into decisions made on their behalf at the moment. It’s time society decides that in some cases birth parents aren’t the best people to decide whats in the best interest for their children. Society isn’t perfect, never was and never will be but we have to protect vulnerable children.

Chris, Tommy hasn’t a clue what he is talking about, he listened to the spin put out by a PR Company set up by the vested interests (Children’s Charities) and thinks he’s knows it all. The PR Company are being paid 1.5 million to secure a yes vote.

An office of Minister of State for Children existed from 1994 to 2011.
1. Austin Currie
2. Frank Fahey
3. Mary Hanafin
4. Brian Lenihan
5. Brendan Smith
6. Barry Andrews
7. Frances Fitzgerald

I wouldn’t trust any of them with a dog either, the question we are being asked is “do you trust them with your children?”

@Joe Maybe if you read what I said… the first DEDICATED ministry for children. There always has been a junior minister for child and youth affairs but fell under many different departments (Gaeltacht, Community etc, Health) from 1956 until 2011 when the new SENIOR cabinet minister was appointed with sole responsibility for children. Please don’t patronise me, I have actually looked into and read up on this subject instead of coming on here and making blind assertations like some…

Only on TheJournal could someone link the children’s rights referendum to the household charge…..

Only on TheJournal could someone link the children’s rights referendum to the household charge…..

*sigh*

ya enda cos taxing the shit out of parents to the point of a lot of people not being able to provide 3 meals a day 4 their kids. that’s putting them first alright!

Admit it David Higgins, Enda’s master plan is to force us to sell our children to the Grrrrmans in order to pay the HHC.

When everbody votes no, there will be another referendum. The one they are hardly talking about is the Other Referendum on Children’s Rights that Enda referred to. Shatter said “Putting the Family Court on a Constitutional Basis”. Which of course is proof that Family Courts in secret are unconstitutional and illegal. Shatter even admitted the Family Courts are Inhumane http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/more-humane-family-courts-planned-201164.html He should know, he built up his property empire working in Family Law.

Anybody who thinks you are living in a free and democratic society in Ireland is deluding themselves.

Excellent point, how would you vote on something that hasn’tbeen released yet?

The fact of the matter is that there have been a few previous drafts. In each case, the question being put to us was “are you willing to give up your parental rights to the State to decide Best Interests?” Each time it was debated it looked like the public would vote an emphatic NO!

They have been a little more honest this time and flat out said that the referendum is about Forced Adoption and taking away rights from parents. They even admitted that they are forced into this by the United Nations to fully ratify the UNCRC.

Regardless of the wording, the referendum is about giving up your parental rights to an incompetent and unjust system that has killed 260 children in a decade and allowed 500 more to go missing from their “Care”. What is currently happening to children now is far worse than ever occurred in the Ryan Report, just wait for Ryan Report II coming soon to a Tribunal near you.

There would be no need to hold a referendum if it didnt seek to change Article 42.5 and possibly others. The wording is unimportant, the intent is for you to be duped into giving up your rights. If they really cared about children they could enact laws tomorrow, this is about money, make no mistake about that.

They use emotional blackmail such as the baby Ann case, they don’t tell the whole story of how the social worker delayed the process for over a year or that the potential adopters hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on the parents. They talk about the Roscommon case how the children dug in rubbish bins for food but they don’t tell you it was the children who saved themselves, not the HSE. Social workers were not fired dispite being involved with the family for 11 YEARS!!

They talk about the children who died in “Care” and yet the story was exposed by the Lamb Sisters and the McAnaspie Family and others who protested outside the Dail for almost a year before anyone took notice, not a single childrens charity (96 of them) ever said a harsh word against the HSE up to that point .

In the Baby P case, a Paediatrician (who now works for the HSE). a GP, 3 social workers, their manager and another were fired over the death of Baby P, who was visited 60 times by “Professionals”. 260 Children die and 500 go missing in a decade and NOT ONE SOCIAL WORKER IS RESPONSIBLE, Geoffrey Shannon (UN) and chair of the board of inquiry (who is a social work lecturer) Helen Buckley, Norah Gibbons of Barnardos (who receive 63% of their funding from HSE by proving “Services”) didn’t lay the blame on a single social worker. The Lamb Sisters got a 3 page report over their nephew Danny Talbot despite their protests for 2 years and despite the fact that they had documented evidence that they had called the HSE to get help for Danny, long before he died.

Frances Fitz, a former UK social worker who worked in the area of Forced Adoption made a dramatic announcement that the HSE would be removed from the role of Child Protection?. Her plan? she plans to rebrand the organization and give the system even more draconian powers (if you agree to give up your parental rights). The “New” Organization will still have the same 3000 staff (responsible for the current mess), the same 26,500 or so children in “Care”, the same unjust sytem in Family Court and the same gravy train for the Charities, solicitors, experts, foster “Carers” and others who chip away at the 580 MILLION A YEAR budget that does absolutely nothing for the 30% of all Irish children who are now living in consistent poverty. I’ll bet the 3000 staff will also be paid redundancy pay when they move to the “New” agency.

I could go on for days but dont want to waste my time arguing with political spin. Children deserve better, the only practical solution is to scrap it. If people want to vote yes to an incompetent system and harm more children in the process, that is their problem. I have more information on my website NoTo42.blogspot.com and if you want to see what will happen IF people are stupid enough to vote yes, look at IrelandsSecretCourts.wordpress.com Think that Forced Adoption is a good idea? look at Forced-Adoption.com I doubt that many will do their homework before voting but don’t say you were not warned.

It depends on your perspective. I’m not a social worker (in fact, as domestic violence worker, we butt heads with them on a regular basis), but the idea that parents who abuse their children should not be able to have children removed from them against their will is ridiculous.

It is rarely a clear cut issue of parents versus social workers. Most of the time, the ideal situation for the children is to be supported while in the parents’ care (as often done with drug users), but sometimes, yes, the parents should not be in their childrens’ lives.

Tracy, I’ve already done the research for you. There are about 26,500 “Protected” children by the HSE. I say about because 500 are missingand a child dies every two weeks on average in their “Care”. To say that there are not enough social workers or money or children being “Protected”, at least the HSEvesrion of “Protection”, would be a lie.

The wording is not important, the intent is to take away parental rights to decide “Best Interests”. If that happens, the results will be

All Children will be Vaccinated for every known illness regardless of the views or wishes of the parent. Failure to comply will result in your child being removed and placed for Adoption.

Children can no longer be viewed as the “Property” of Parents, Children are not Chattels to be owned or traded (except by Governments), the Parental Right of vindicating the “Best Interests” of every Child in Ireland now passes to the Government.

Children regardless of age, have the Right to Contraception regardless of the Parents knowledge or wishes. Failure to comply will result in your child being removed and placed for Adoption.

Children regardless of age have the Right to Abortion on demand, regardless of the knowledge or wishes of the Parent. Failure to comply will result in your child being removed and placed for Adoption.

All Children regardless of age have the Right to choose their Religion, parents may only advise their child. This may be interpreted as Catholic Education or any Religious School or Institution as also being incompatible with the UNCRC. This can be contested by any child in Ireland under the UNCRC. Catholic Baptism, First Holy Communion and Confirmation may also be incompatible but remain to be tested in the Courts.

Children have the Right to Divorce their Parents and the Irish Courts can terminate the Parental Rights of any Parent without “Due Process of Law”.

In all disputes between Parents and Children, regardless of age, the State will decide the “Best Interests of the Child”. The State as Legal Guardian for all Irish Children will consider the Child’s wishes as paramount to the Parents. Failure to comply will result in your child being removed and placed for Adoption.

Children will be removed from Parents and placed for Adoption regardless of the wishes of the Parent. The State as Legal Guardian reserves the Right to remove any child, at any time. for any reason and place the children with Adoptive Parents deemed more suitable than the Birth Parents. Siblings may be seperated and the Child’s Relatives have no legal Right in regard to the Child.

The State reserves the Right to enter any home or dwelling at any time, without Warrant or Court Order to inspect, instruct Parents, gather evidence, or any activity deemed to be in the “Best Interests of the Child”.

Any presumed Rights of Parents are null and void when a Child crosses the Threshold of a School, Hospital, Public Building.

“Reasonable Chastisment” of a Child is now illegal. Parents may not administer “Time-outs”, “Grounding”, Slapping or Spanking, “Detention” in Schools, Withdrawl of Privleges or any form of punishment on a child under penalty of law. Failure to comply will result in your child being removed and placed for Adoption.

The State if it is deemed necessary may administer any Drug, Medical Test, Psychological Test, May Interview or carry out a Physical Examination including “Strip-Seaching” any Child at any time without the knowledge or permission of the Parent and without the Parents present. The Examinations may be carried out by certain members of the State without a Medical Qualification. Failure to comply will result in your child being removed and placed for Adoption.

Children in State Care whether short or long-term no longer have the Right to speak to members of the Media under any circumstances. Parents have not had this Right under the In-Camera Rule in Family Law Proceedings.

Under the UNCRC all Irish Laws regarding Children are subject to their interpretation within the framework of the UNCRC, the UNCRC supercedes all other laws. This is subject to change at any time and will be decided by the UNCRC Committee without prior consultation of any of the 192 Countries who have ratified it.

Children of any age can consent to Sterilization: If a psychiatrist decides that a child (under 18 years) has sufficient maturity, he or she will be able to consent to sterilisation. Parental consent will not be needed. Only after the sterilisation procedure has been performed does it have to be reported and then only to the Chief Psychiatrist. This is permissible under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Mental Disability, (UNCRPMD). Ireland is signatory to this legislation but were unable to ratify it until Article 42, the Rights of Parents to determine for their children, was repealed.

Children aged 12 years old will be able to consent to Psychosurgery: psychosurgery irreversibly damages the brain by surgery, burning or inserting electrodes. Parental consent is also not needed to approve the psychosurgery. This will be possible when the UNCRPMD is ratified however the State may decide this if deemed in the best interests of the child.

Children aged 12 years can consent to Electro-Shock Therapy regardless of the wishes of the parent. Electroshock is hundreds of volts of electricity to the head. Any child aged 12 and over, whom a child and adolescent psychiatrist decides is “mature” enough, will be able to consent to electroshock.

Involuntary Commitment of Children: A psychiatrist can involuntarily detain any child for up to 14 days if “suspected” of mental illness. Parents will not be able to discharge their child during this period and take them home. The psychiatrist can then make a “continuation order” to continue the detainment for up to 3 months and thereafter for each subsequent 3 month period. During detainment, the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock if over 12 and could be put into a ward with adults. Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment, including the child being placed on a legal order to continue to receive drugs at home.

The state has already held that children cannot be vaccinated without parental consent, so this would really not be grounds for removal of children.

I am powerless when little brats hang about my housing estate and threaten to set fire to my bin.If I said one word they would put a stone through my window.

Hey Louise. Didn’t want to be one of the red-thumbers and be lazy about responding to your well-thought-out and cogent argument re the as yet unworded Constitutional Referendum proposal. Such a minimalist, subtle stance leaves me with no option but to resort to a less oblique approach than your quite intimidating intellectual endeavour. . .my response might even seem egregious by comparison. Here goes. . .’Yes, Yes, Yes,’ Touche!

At least louise was both clear and concise.