it is not being wound up…Like all govt funded programmes it has received budgetary cuts. It’s a very successful prog with a lot of support from the dept of children and dept of ed

So let me understand Siobeli. Your saying this agency is successful despite the cuts? Does it thrive on these financial cuts?

@charlie…of course the cuts affect it!
But in the current climate we have to be realistic…all services are being are getting cuts, some more than others and as always the community sector will always get the biggest brunt!

It means staff, like myself, are working harder and more creative than ever, with more clients for less money. If we got bogged down with our cuts, we wouldn’t be able to deliver services, we have to get on with it.

But people stating online “rumours” that a service is being wound down is
Unprofessional and unfair to service users and staff in that work in those projects.

Well wrote, I was always going to vote no anyway but surely this will convince the undecided. How any parent could trust those liars in government is beyond me

i will be voteing no because first they people that we have leading our country are telling us lies they cannot be believed ,second every goverment institution in this country is corrupt to the bone .

Pat, I hear your concerns about the HSE and the significant reform programme underway in the State’s child protection services which you of all people probably see is much needed and long overdue.

This Referendum is NOT about State services or about giving more power to the State. The State has the powers to intervene – this amendment clarifies that they should intervene where a child is in danger irrespective of paremts marital status and by ‘proportionate’ means.

Let;s be clear – The best place for a child is with their family. BUT in the instamces where the family is not a safe place for a child – Roscommon, Kilkenny etc – this says the State should intervene. Part of these tragedies was the failure of the state to intervene earlier.

This amendment has been sought for two decades to put the interests of children into the equation when making decisions that effect them. That is NOT the case now believe it or not.

This amendment will ensure children and young people are heard & listened to. We failed in the past because we didn’t listen (as a society).

And if you are worried about budgets -its is CHEAPER & better to keep a child ini ts family.

Finally – for those interested in services & not wanting children to be taken into care – Care is a LAST resort, 45% of children in fostercare are with their extended family. This amendment puts the emphasis on supporting families.

This is NOT a radical amendment hence the YES consensus amongst Children’s organisations but it is important. It recognises children. We will not get a second chance at this, and that will be another tragedy.

PLEASE vote YES

Undecided voter duly convinced. I was erring on the side of no anyway, but this is a very strong case.

@ Emma Lane, I just have a few points to make in respect to your post there as I find it contradictory and a bit disingenuous.

Firstly, you mentioned that the State currently has powers to remove children from abusive homes which I think is true and indeed necessary, however you made specific reference to the Roscommon and Kilkenny cases in support of your argument- apart from the fact that those cases are outliers in the society, the fact that those children were not protected or an earlier intervention carried out is an indictment on the government and its agencies and should not be used as representative of the average home in the country ,and more importantly, how will this amendment help in avoiding such future occurrences? Currently there are processes and procedures available to ensure that cases of child abuse are investigated and social workers have the right to make recommendations that are usually carried out. This amendment doesn’t change anything in my opinion because the framework is already in place.

Secondly, you made a case in support of the referendum by saying that the amendment will enable ‘us’ as a society to listen to children and young people. Are you serious? The failure was not the inability to listen to children or young people, the problem was ignoring them! Countless number of children complained and made reports to authorities but the evidence shows a lot of their complaints were swept under the carpet or blatantly ignored- legislation would not change that at all, it is a fundamental attitudinal change that is required.

In my opinion, this amendment is a misplaced priority and an avenue to score cheap political points. The key issue should be laying emphasis on zero- tolerance of child abuse by making examples of culprits’ i.e. stiffer penalties for convicted child abusers and putting more resources into child protection. What is the point of this amendment if people that have been found guilty by their peers of molesting and abusing children are given slight sentences or some given community service as penalties for their crimes? The business of government is not micro-managing parents or giving them a set of rules in child-upbringing, their duty is to make sure that children are not physically, emotionally or sexually abused and the law is there to enable them perform those functions.
What is needed is not a change or amendment but a better implementation of the current laws.

@viewvic promise not disengenuous- look at the Kilkenny Incest case (google it see p.95)

highly respected Judge Catherine McGuiness recommended back in 1996 that the Constitution be amended for as it stood the obligation of the State to protect children from abuse was in conflict with the marital family. The State did not intervene until so much damage was done because our Constitution is so strong on the marital family. I believe all children should be protected equally from abuse. This amendment clarifies that All children ‘irrespective of marital status’ of the parents. The constitution has been noted as part of the problem in numerous (17?) reports on abuse & deaths in care.

This amendment will have no direct impact on 99% of children and families – its for the 1%.
that is why the Kilkenny & Roscommon cases ARE relevant.

NOTE – The Constitution has been PART of the Problem. Lots of other things have to change to ensure we have an effective child protection system. This is just one of them.

This amendment asks us to agree
* that all children should be treated equally.
* that we make decisions about children considering their ‘best interests’ in judicial matters
* that we hear the views of children before the Courts
* that we allow children that have been longterm abandoned by their parents to be adopted and we allow married parents to put put their children up for adoption.

This is not an amendment about the State. It IS an amendment that all those working in the area of Children have been campaigning for for almost 20 years BECAUSE the State has been so BAD. We believe that this amendment strengthens the protections around children and holds the State more accountable. ’1 in 4′ the org representing Survivors of abuse supports this amendment.

The wording in the amendment also emphasises supporting families. The best place for a child is within their loving family. The State does not want to take children away from their family – only in exceptional cases.

I agree with you that what is required is a culture shift – but think – The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It states our values as a society. This amendment recalibrates the Constitution. It asserts that Children are individuals, who should be listened to and that in decisions affecting them their ‘best interests’ should be heard. What was in the past we will not stand for happening again.

To say NO is a tragedy. We have tried so hard to get this far, there wont be another chance for decades.

PLEASE everyone, take 2 minutes to read the Referendum Commission’s booklet yourself and see what the text says. Thankyou – this is so important.

their is a yes thread posted just before this you might enjoy reading. it’s not to my taste as I don’t enjoy modern fictional but each to their own.

*there
*fiction
predictive text and apologies for not reviewing before posting.

Once adopted a child will have no claim on original parents estate even if they had won the lotto.

I completely disagree with your article.

100% agree with you. I don’t want to give the state any more power over my life than they already have. Children are always better off with there parents and if those patents become addicts etc don’t they deserve a chance to ‘turn their lives around’ before the state gives away their children forever. This referendum is all cloaks and daggers from what I can see. VOTE NO

*their

*parents

Bloody predictive text

Children are not better off with abusive parents. And the first resort of social services when a parent is an addict is to assist the family while the child remains in home. You seem very uninformed as to the prevalence of abuse within the home and how social services works.

Children are not better off with abusive parents. And the first resort of social services when a parent is an addict is to assist the family while the child remains in home. You seem very uninformed as to the prevalence of abuse within the home and how social services works.

The point about the adoptive parents receive nothing…. Meaning the state no longer has to pay for foster care.. I agree that adoptive parents are not looking for the monetary gain…but the point is that the state gains by not forking over foster money. That’s all this referendum is about, cloaked in the shroud of what’s best for the child…

The government are preying on emotionally vulnerable people to get a yes vote . There is no monetary gain in this for adoptive parents , neither does it say that foster parents do this service just for the money . No . It is stating that if people were allowed to adopt these children in care because for various reasons their parents can not cope , for now, the adoption will in the long run save money on foster care for each child adopted.

Eileen you’re so predictable. You’d rather leave children in dysfunctional state care than a caring home if it means it will cost the government. That’s you’re money too by the way that’s been pissed away up to now given the states disgraceful record on child protection..

You too are predictable O’Really . Emotional blackmail . I am a mother and would want nothing more than look after all children who were not being looked after the way I feel they should be looked after , but that does not make me right or them wrong . I have experience of adoption , a very happy outcome , It was not forced it made so many people including the child (Now an adult) happy and content. The child was offered for adoption by their natural parents , straight forward.

Adoptive parents do get something the most cherished and important thing that could enter their lives. Many would and have paid large fortunes to adopt a child some even traveling to other countries to adopt.

Currently the state needs the real parent’s consent before severing ties with the child’s family and extended family. The focus was early intervention, support and protection as is written in the current constitution.

But this referendum isn’t just about adoption it’s also changing the states obligation from “having to” provide care, support and protection to “will do its best”. Its best just isn’t good enough and all the woolly words around this are a distraction.

Exactly why I’ll be voting no. The wording is just far too vague for my liking.

She is not saying the children dont’ deserve a voice, we all believe they do I think, The problem is you cannot vote for parts of the referendum, you must vote for it as a whole or not at all. Therein lies the problem. If they were to come back with a different referendum, differently worded, different points, different changes but still giving children a voice then it may be voted for. As it is now though people cannot reconcile themselves to vote for all the parts, just so that this one part passes and therefore children have a voice. It would be a case of one step forward, twenty steps back.

As Helen has said, I have no problem with children’s views being listened to; of course they should be. However, we need to keep in mind ‘unintended consequences’ too – what if the child says that they want to go back to an abusive home?

If we only could vote for parts of the ref ..The thing is children do not always know what is good for them , not even the older ones. They sometimes think that it is their fault that there is abuse or marriage break up … It is like getting a horrible tasting medicine and they refuse to take it ,even tho you know it will save their life .Do you let them say no to the meds or do you make them take it ? Sometimes children can have too much to say and can play one off the other and manipulate situations for themselves because they do not know what is good for them.

These non Statuary groups you mention are protecting the government support they get and their wages ! Why would they vote against their pay masters?

You mean like all the parties and every organization supported the lisbon treaty? yes it says something…its time for us to realize they are liars

@Sarah “I have read some amount of scare mongering in the last few days such as how the government will have control of our children, there will be forced vaccinations and birth control, how it’s a way to save money on fostering, oh my god are people really that naive?!”

It seems you are the naive one…forced vaccinations are already in the final processes of legislation in many American states and are also commonplace throughout Africa, why not here? Take of your stupid rosy blinkers! Ignorant people like you really bug me!

Eileen do you really think that rank and file staff and volunteers in the ISPCC and Barnardos etc are doing this as part of some sort of conspiracy or something? They are child protection advocates! Children’s welfare is their priority and they have stood against the government before! Think about it! I agree with alot of your previous sentiments about the government but people are being blinded by their hatred of them and not thinking about it rationally!

@john I am not ignorant and certainly don’t wear rosey blinkers, I work in child protection and trust me you wouldn’t believe what I see every day.
As I said this legislation won’t affect many commenting here, it is to protect the most vulnerable in society.
People can vote how they want, all I ask is that they read the wording of the legislation properly and educate themselves fully on the issue without listening to scare mongering by certain individuals

Sarah
Who mentioned Conspiracy ? You did not me. Yes they advocate childrens rights ….and get well paid for it too.
Yes , they may do a good job, but they are not going to go against their pay masters and advocate the No vote.
I will be voting NO . Not because you think i am a conspiracy theorist , but because I believe 100% that the No vote is the right vote .

Eileen that’s you’re choice and you’re entitled to it but I’d just like to point out that I was referring to volunteers and low payed workers in these organisations who do such fantastic work and have no hidden agendas. Their only goal is to help vulnerable children and it is they who are also supporting a yes vote

I did not say that they were not doing great work . read my post again . And you do not have to be in child care to know how to protect or look after a child . But these people do get paid , it is their jobs which are being subsidised by government ,no matter how much or little they get paid . They will not ‘bite the hand that feeds them’ .

Well said Sarah. The NO campaign are not debating the amendment at all, as seen by John bringing vaccinations into it. No mention of vaccinations in the amendment at all. John all parties did not support Lisbon. To the best of my knowledge/memory this is the first time Sinn Fein have supported a yes vote sine the good Friday element. I’m becoming very suspicious of parents who are screaming NO to this referendum.

You know Sarah when the Birmingham six were jailed it was because the judge said they had to be guilty “an apalling vista” For them to be innocent too many people would have had to tell too many lies. Just because agencies and the government want the YE S vote doesn’t necessarily make it right. They have been wrong before many times. I for one will be voting a big NO and encouraging all my friends to do the same.

You know Sarah when the Birmingham six were jailed it was because the judge said they had to be guilty “an apalling vista” For them to be innocent too many people would have had to tell too many lies. Just because agencies and the government want the YES vote doesn’t necessarily make it right. They have been wrong before many times. I for one will be voting a big NO and encouraging all my friends to do the same.

Eileen, it’s simply not true that all of those groups are supported by the government. The ISPCC and Barnardos receive some funds from the government so that they can provide essential services to children – like the guardian ad litem service, for example – but the ISPCC fundraises over 90% of its intake itself.

The Irish Countrywomen’s Association came out strongly in favour of the referendum, which they’ve never done before – do you think they regard the Government as their paymasters? Or the National Parents Council, or Marriage Equality?

There are none so blind as those who will not see .
If you know you know , if you dont ,well you dont .

Well said Sarah.

Our government lies to us, about EVERYTHING! To date they have lie in every single referendum that we passed, EVERY single one!!! Why would anyone believe they suddenly care for our children when they do everything to make their lives worse by cutting disability care, special needs, healthcare, social workers, education, medical services. Wake up people, please wake up and see these people for what they are, liars. I am voting no for my childrens safety and future.

I am a member of one of those groups. As a member, I was not consulted by the organisation. I wonder how many organisations consulted with their members?

This is misinformation. Social workers are only prevented from doing their jobs by lack of resources, not because the proper legislation isn’t already in place. It is quite untrue to suggest that children of married parents must be left in abusive situations because the state is powerless to protect them. If this is what you are basing your ”yes’ argument on, then it is quite disingenuous.

“My heart literally stops when I see/hear people talking about voting ‘no’ tomorrow. ”

You keep using this word. I do not thing it means what you think it means.

Where in the article did the author say children should be left with “junkie parents”?

Voting no will leave kids with their junkie parents, voting yes will allow the state to take those kids and put them into proper families.

That is the most simplistic bs i have red in relation to this referendum.Populist but pure bs!

The state already has the power to take children from “junkie parents” they just dont use it.

The state already have all the powers they need to help protect children as you say they just don’t act on the correctly or put the required support in. This vote will end up being more on how the government can force children from foster care to adoption so as to get them off their book. I do hop I am wrong with that last comment, but ask yourself do you really trust the governments to do the correct thing and not be driven by EU directives and balance sheets, keep the fat cats at the top accustomed to their life while the most vulnerable are hung out to dry. Please don’t give them this extra power so they can abuse it.

The state don’t use that power because the rights of the parents always seem to supersede the rights of the child. This needs to change.

The state don’t use that power because the rights of the parents always seem to supersede the rights of the child. This needs to change. That’s why I’m voting yes.

Chucky you ain’t got a clue the government already has the power to take children into care if they are in danger, that includes “junkie parents” so why don’t you read into it more instead of spouting stupid incorrect statements. Your just the kind of ill informed, unread person the government hopes will push through this stupid referendum

See above.

Would you deny a citizen of this country the ‘inalienable and imprescriptible right’ to know his/her own family. That’s what you’re doing if you vote yes.

Please declare any associations or affiliations you might have to this referendum Irene?

If seems like a lot of people voting no are doing so because if distrust for the government and don’t fully understand what a referendum is about. The success/ failure of current services is a total separate issue

Stopped reading after i saw the word “knacker”.Well done you.

What would you have me call them Norman? The poor disenfranchised? I know plenty of poor people who behave like responsible citizens. A knacker is a knacker is a knacker. Spend a day in the four courts galleries and observe the ‘antics’ that this large strata of Irish society contribute to the greater good. The come back and tell me they aren’t knackers. Ahhh leeeavvvee ir ouh!

Disgraceful comment Simon Blake . I finished reading your comment and it did not improve .What gives you the right to decide what ”properly” is . Having a biased, racist, arrogant view that you express in your comment shows me that you do not have the ”proper” requirements to raise a child either , but that is just my own opinion . Having said that , nobody can or could have raised or raise my children as well as I have done. It is all relative to what you know want and believe.

How about “people”or “fellow human beings” to name but two.

@Simon well how about “person” or “people” and stops others dismissing you as a “bigot”.

Norman is owned – I’m agreeing with th e yes just about right now

‘Proportionate’ to, and ‘as far as practicable’ to the resources available at the time – which of course will be ever-diminishing.

Really and the past performance of the last 2 governments can back you up on that eh. You really trust them that much???

Young FG member accuses no campaingers of scaremongering theres a surprise.

Forsaking the chance to improve children’s lot in order to spite the government is sickening.

Who cares if it saves money, or not? The only question is “Will it also save a few children?”

If you believe the proposed changes will help some kids, vote yes.

If you believe the proposed changed will endanger some kids, vote no.

If you don’t care, but want to “stick it to the man”, do us all a favour and don’t vote at all.

And for what it’s worth, I believe both sides are guilty of scare mongering.

Neither side has made a convincing argument. Bot have chosen to make statements the believe will sway the masses, rather than clearly explain the reasoning behind their beliefs.

It is rhetoric like this that shows a lack of respect for the people we pay them to represent. It is rhetoric like this that prevents us from respecting their office.

I am also an independent voter and I have also read and listened to the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ arguments.

It will be a sorry day when even more families are split up for no justified reason whatsoever and when these same children are then swiftly adopted to save this State even more euros to pay to the Bankers.

Heaven help us all…

In addition Cllr Kavanagh I would also like to add ( before you cast further allegations) I have absolutely no allegiance to any political party or any politician.

Do you mean those organisations who are either funded by the State, or funded by others ‘unknown’? I am a member of one of those organisations, but as a member I was not consulted about this – I wonder how many members were?

The Government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always rely on the support of Paul.

Mine is an Independent voice. I don’t work for any of them. Do you Irene?