are you suggesting that people should have to get a licence to have children? sounds very orwellian to me.

Lets not forget that the catholic church won’t allow you get married unless you do a marriage course….but again no course required for having kids.

Makes sense right across the board!

Raising children doesn’t come natural to people, thats evident when you look at the lack of raising that some children get

This sort of attitude really annoys me. The government suggests something so instantly you’re against or disbelieving of it. Are you really this cyncial? Have a quick look at the internet and you’ll find that practically every single children’s organisation is in favour of this amendment. Some don’t think it goes far enough but that’s not a reason for them to be against it.

Why not start with http://www.yesforchildren.ie/ which is a combined website for Barnardos, Children’s Rights Alliance, ISPCC and Campaign for Children. Maybe you might believe them.

My cynicism your naivety with that lot. ill check out those groups though.

You should start off by reading the proposed text. Then go to the referendum commision website when it’s set up – they give both sides. All broadcast media arguments you hear must give equal time to both sides.

Actually broadcast media don’t HAVE to give equal rights of time in an overall sense. RTE have already said that while they will ensure that any direct discussion or debate programmes on the referendum will have balance they do not think that they are obliged to do the same in general news coverage.

@jim Walsh: what really annoys me is gullible people who believe whatever the government spout should be taken as gospel, the wording is open to lots of interpretation this is not something that can be got wrong by parents as you are obviously going to vote yes, please do not try enforce your opinions on others btw I am undecided and open to persuasion.

@Ian Martin – Do you also disbelieve the opinion of almost every children’s agency in the country as well then?

@jim Walsh: If the state decides that our children need a “new vaccine” and it’s in the child’s best interest and you don’t go along with it what then ?

Actually Jim I think you might find it was a government minister who said that and not RTE.

Kenny and co advising a yes vote? Think I will need to read this proposed amendment carefully.

Not entirely true. While I’m not dismissing what you say about child abuse and the failures of the state the fact is that children have no entitlement to be heard in their own right in court and in administrative hearings that directly affect them. There is no mention of children in our constitution and so they actually have less rights than adults. That’s what this amendment is designed to address.

No they don’t, one example is that children of married parents are treated differently from children from unmarried Parents.

I thought this too , but the new wording of the referendum ,as I have read it, does not challenge the failings of the state . It focuses more on adoption of children born to married people and or forced adoption of same… Enda should not mix his two rolls , he is a dad , and probably a good one but his function as a public servant as taoiseach is abysmal.

Oh Eileen, get off your anti-Enda horse. This has nothing to do with the referendum.

Jim Walsh
Have you read the new wording for the referendum ? Have you read the crrent wording , 42.5 of the constitution . Compare the two and then come back and nag !

Perhaps then you’d like to explain why every children’s agency is in favour on the referedum then Eileen. Or are they all just wrong as well?

Any deficiencies can be legislated for without the need to change the Constitution. There are implied rights in the text which have been recognised before and implemented such as marital rights, etc.

Not true. There is no such thing as an “implied” right as far as the Constitution is concerned. It’s either there or its not. And the law of the state must be in line with the Constitution.

You are wrong Jim Walsh – the text protects the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen. Implied rights are derived from it.

Implied rights are already there and need to be there … But like I said earlier I will not decide just yet how I will vote . I want to hear more and I look forward to informed discussion and debates. I will study the wording as I believe each word counts when it comes to a referendum. It is all not as clean cut as I would like and I see it as anti family and pro forced adoption .

Jim Walsh .
Enda started it ! I am a mother and IF I said vote Yes does that make me qualified ? No it does not . As taoiseach he is terrible , as a dad well I am sure he is good but that does not qualify him to advise us . Likewise if he said he is a teacher vote yes I would still question his qualifications … The state failed children in the past , they failed parents , and I would just like to hear more through discussion.

Mike I don’t really care what you think I should do with myself. If you think I’m condescending simply because I’m not so cynical as to believe that everything the government says is wrong well consider me condescending.

*meant to say “burden on the taxpayer”*

The Government have proved themselves anti Irish and inept and my worry is that if they are wrong yet again on this issue which I see as anti family and pro forced adoption and I vote yes I will regret it . I want more information .

Why leave it upto a party to educate you…why not read about it yourself and educate yourself?

http://www.childrensreferendum.ie/

That link is from the dept of children so obviously they will be somewhat biased . Have the referendum commission issued any information on it ?

Ok so because of the bank issues and decisions by the government you are going to vote no or not at all?

Seems a rather foolish reason not to vote yes or to not vote, its not like you are getting revenge on the government or anything, very very pointless

Children’s rights should not be a political football!

Vote yes!

Hyland
You want to ransom children’s rights for your vote. You’re a degenerate!

Probably one of the most moronic contributions to the Journal I have read in a long time.

Any chance of aiming for some intelligent debate?

Stephen

This is not the place to seek an understanding of the upsides and downsides for children rights as proposed by this Constitutional amendment. I’m surprised that you would seek advice here. Why not simply read the wording of the proposed amendment and listen to the Debate as it unfolds and inform yourself as to the relative merits of each side. Remember that nearly every single NGO and political Party asks you to vote yes. There must be a reason as to why the argument seems so one sided.
When you’ve educated yourself please feel free to come back and comment.

Paddy, I’ll study and listen to the legal implications privately. But my question is, Are the funds there to back up the new changes?

vote no..it makes perfect sense..the law is there already to protect children..if you vote yes it dosent give more protection..it gives more control…vote NO..

I was voting No anyway, if there’s no Funding to back up this paper tiger? What is the point of having a bit of paper with a rule written on it, If there’s nothing to back it up?

Since you’re so cyncial why not start with http://www.yesforchildren.ie/ which is a combined website for Barnardos, Children’s Rights Alliance, ISPCC and Campaign for Children. Maybe you might believe them.

Not everything the government suggests is wrong and people really need to stop being so ridiculous with such attitudes.

Make that Roman Catholic organisation illegal. That’s the first thing that needs doing, if we want to protect our children. I still see parents marching their kids to mass every Sunday. What kind of people are they?

@Jim Walsh, the word child is mentioned in the constitution 4 times , the childrens charities you espouse are for – profit based organisations who receive vast sums of money through their various agencies, as in Barnardos Gaurdian-Ad-Litem services , Barnardos are the subject of a $400 million lawsuit in Canada at the moment for their part in trafficking children from Britian to work as slave labour, a practice that continued up into the 80′s , so they are hardly qualified to speak for Irelands children. I suggest you read the United Nations Charter on the Rights of the Child, that is the driving force behind this referendum, it is also Childrens Rights Alliance mission statement that they want full implentation of the UNCRC , now if you think its a good idea for 5yr old children be taught about masturbation and homosexuality, 9yr olds about abortion, 12 yr olds guranteed by international law the right to access of contraception and abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, electro-shock therapy among other things. You must also think it proper that a child is gauranteed access to information despite its content, freedom of association with people of any age of their own choosing, seriously fella do yourself a favour, read the UNCRC and see what exactly you are voting yes to.

I thought the abandonment clause already applied? That where the parents couldn’t be found or had completely abandoned their positions as parents there was legislation already there that would allow the child to be adopted. As for the children in long term foster care who want to be adopted as they are in ‘legal limbo’ I would like to know the stats. How many children want to be adopted but also how many foster parents want to adopt them. Just looking at it objectively if I was fostering a child and getting 350 odd for him/her would I want to give up this money to adopt this child? If I was then on benefits I would only get 29 euro for the child per week. I could give the child a much better upbringing with 350 per week than 29 or nothing. Really we are not getting any stats from the YES side re how many children are affected as against the sweeping new powers the state will have to affect the lives of all children.

complete abandonment ..and your child can be adopted off..what if the ‘state’ stop you seeing your child for three years….think about that..you dont see your child for the three years..child is adopted…by voting yes..YOU give the state the power/right to stop you seeing your child…

I work with young people, many in care, I don’t have stats but I have dealt with 4 cases in last 3 years where children (teenagers) and foster parent wanted to adopt. None went thru as biological parents blocked it- to devastation of the kids and foster parents. Biological parents who treated their children like shit when they had them.
Any parent not allowed to see their children is not a decision taken lightly. People seem to forget this is a children’s rights ref!!!! In my career I have never seen or heard of a parent barred from seeing their child. I dealt with a reg sex offender who was allowed surpervised access to his child!!!
There is all this scare tactics of your child will be taken away….have you met or do you Know anyone in care? Listened to their story?

Thanks for the reply Siobeli that is interesting and you have met a number of people in this position. I knew two brothers who were fostered for years and were hoping their foster family would adopt them. The family explained to them that they wouldn’t as their own children’s inheritance would be diluted. I also know of someone who fosters and has recently given up his business as the fostering was so luctrative. He has moved rental accommodation twice in the last two years to ‘fit more in’. These people operate it as a business. The other case I know is a grandmother fostering her daughter’s child. She receives significantly more from the State to mind the child than her daughter would so they are happy with the situation. So in a nutshell I havn’t come across situations where teenage adoptions are prevented from taking place. The devestation that is felt by the kids and their foster parents that you describe can you explain more. What can’t now happen in that family? Is it inheritance? Or is it permission for medical procedures, next of kin situations?

It is about time someone started showing the drivers, repercussions and alternatives for this change. A website called “yesforchildren” is never going to be unbiased, no matter how good the contributors are. My worry is that this change is protecting something that is not explicit in the text, and as said before after reading, seems to once nitrate on removing children from their parents, but not having to state why.

The example in the last post brings to mind a lot of questions: if one of my daughters was raped,pregnant and suicidal, would this amendment remove the child from my care if I was facilitating a termination in the uk, under the auspice of protecting the child, or worse, the foetus? If I had a brother or sister who had a child and then came out, would their ex-partners family be able to request the state take the child into care under some vague “best interest of the child” interpretation.

I am sorry, but (barring the recent incest case) the history of raping and murdering children in care, and by state assisted organisations were covered by the law already (but cynically ignored) and this rewording does nothing additional to protect those ex-children or any future child.

“Once nitrate”autocorrect for “concentrate”. really?