TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Column: ‘Vote Yes to end the culture where children are seen and not heard’

Fergus Finlay says countless reports documented Ireland’s failings to protect children, but this constitutional amendment will change that.

Fergus Finlay

ON SATURDAY, let’s make our statement of intent. Let’s send the strongest possible message that we, the people of Ireland, can send. Let’s Vote YES. So our children will be better protected, better respected, and better heard than ever before.

Our Constitution belongs to us. We are the only ones who can change it. And when we do, our Government, our policy-makers and our Judges must listen. So let’s take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put our children into the heart of our Constitution.

Terrible things have happened to children in Ireland over the years. Again and again they have been failed by systems in which they didn’t matter. Perhaps as many as 100,000 children were sent to cruel, terrible institutions where they were neglected, tortured and worse. All those children had two things in common. First, they were all sent to those awful places by judges in a court of law. And second, not a single one of them was ever represented or heard in the courts that dealt with their futures.

Failings

There have been many reports about what happened to those children. And to other individual children. Like Kelly Fitzgerald, a little girl who was starved to death by her parents. Or the brave children of Joseph McColgan, brutalised by him in the most terrible way. Or the children of Roscommon. Or the children who died unnatural deaths while either in the care of the State or whose issues were known to the state. And many, many more.

When you read all these reports, two things pop out at you. The first is the word “culture”. All these children were damaged, some of them destroyed, by a culture in which children should be seen and not heard. Children didn’t matter. The reputation of powerful institutions always mattered far more.

We have to change that culture. An amendment to the Constitution, that puts children at its heart, that gives them an Article of their own, is a first powerful step on the way to doing that. It’s not the whole story, of course. We’ll need more resources, new laws, better practice and management, more accountability. All of that is being worked on. It must be underpinned by a Constitution in which children and childhood is truly valued.

Enabling change

The second thing that stands out from all the reports, over nearly thirty years now, is that we didn’t intervene early enough, and we didn’t intervene well enough. The constitutional amendment will change that too. It will enable the State – public health nurses, social workers, teachers, the Gardai, the courts – to report their concerns earlier, and to take action earlier, when a child is in danger or at risk.

But it will oblige the State to do it better. Proportionately, and in exceptional circumstances, are the words used. That means only intervening to the extent that is necessary to avert the danger. It means that if support around parenting issues is the solution, that’s what the State will have to offer.

What this amendment won’t do is simple. It won’t damage, or threaten, families. Everyone who works with children knows that the best place for a child to grow and develop is surrounded by the love and care of his or her family. We’re all struggling these days to do our best by our kids, and we’re all going to have to cut back on things like Christmas. But most families never cut back on love.

Better and quicker protection

That doesn’t alter the fact that some children need better, quicker protection. And it also means that some families mean more support than others. That’s just a fact of life. There are no circumstances in which I would support an amendment that enabled anyone to deprive a child of his or her family without deep, pressing reasons. But there is nothing like that in this amendment.

Instead, this is an amendment that I believe we will all be proud of in years to come. Ireland can be, and it should be, the best place in the world to be a child. For many it already is, and we can make it that way for each and every one of our country’s children.

Voting YES on November 10th will be a significant step on that journey. Let’s do it. Let’s put our children in the heart of our Constitution.

Column: ‘I want the best for children, which is why I am voting No’

Read: Children vote on… children’s referendum (They went for ‘Yes’)

Column: Why I’ll be voting No in the Children’s Referendum

Read next:

Comments (44 Comments)

  • tom 09/11/12 #

    you are right they need protection the state is currently obligated to provide but doesn’t so changing the law will suddenly make the state less obligated in the interest of who ?

    Reply
  • Those kids are already legislated for . The state already has powers to care for these children but they don’t

    Reply
  • 170,000 children were incarcerated in the torture institutions. Close to 40% of these children were hauled before the courts by the ISPCC. During the era of the Institutions at least one official of the ISPCC received a bounty from the Church/Religious Order for each child he managed to snatch and haul before the District Court. Needless to say these children were taken from poor and low-income families. It is likely that bounties were paid in most of the cases the ISPCC was involved in. The ISPCC supports a ‘YES’ vote; and the ISPCC has not contributed even one cent to the abuse bill

    Children were heard. During a sodality in one Institution the children revealed they were being abused. The sodality was shut down. In other Institutions if a child revealed they were being abused they were further beaten.

    The Ryan Report identified 800 abusers, most of them from 18 Religious Orders. No prosecutions have followed this Report. None of the Religious Orders have had their assets seized by CAB! Indeed the Minister for Education is putting out the begging bowl to these odious organisations for them to pay their fair share of the abuse bill. So far they have told him to F**l Off. These Religious Orders are protected by an Indemnity Deal – the Indemnity Deal was agreed between the State and the Religious Orders over the objections of child abuse survivors. Abuse victims were not heard!

    The Murphy Report revealed a long running criminal conspiracy, in the Dublin archdiocese, that facilitated the sexual torture of children, No prosecutions of bishops to date and no seizure of assets.

    The head of the Catholic Church here, cardinal Sean Brady, was involved in swearing oaths of secrecy on children who had been sexually tortured by Fr. Brendan Smyth. As a result Smyth continued to abuse children for almost another two decades. Brady has not been charged with any crime.

    During the era of the institutions only one judge resisted sending children to be tortured – only ONE judge! The wording of the present referendum will be interpreted differently by different judges. The recommendation ( http://bit.ly/VLde3j )following the Kilkenny Incest Case was that:

    “.. the Constitution [682] should contain a specific and overt declaration of the rights of children … ”

    The present wording is not overt or explicit! Explicit wording that removed the parental rights of parents who abuse their children would prevent judges from re-interpreting the wishes of the people. There will be NO unintended consequences.

    The present wording is also eerily similar to the section that allowed 170,000 children to be consigned to the State-funded Catholic-managed institutions.

    All that said Fergus Finlay is a champion for children’s rights but I fear the present wording doesn’t contain a specific and overt declaration of the rights of children and is open to different interpretations by different judges.

    Reply
  • The state already has the opportunity to help both the child and the parent in these circumstances. But they cannot , not because the law or the constitution needs to be changed. It’s because social mental health and addiction care is under resourced.

    Reply
  • If thats an example of the analysis behind this moral preening…

    I’d be very phukking worried about the Yes agenda. Hoover up the kids of drug-addicted social casualties of the gluttony of the fascistic bigots and stick them into institutions like the refugee hostels where kids are disappearing as political cronies mint millions.

    Ta for that starbar. Revelatory. How do you know whether these ‘junkey ba$#@rds’ are the casualties of child abuse or not?
    Put another generation throught he states penal junkie-factories is it?

    Reply
  • Ultimately this is more deck-chair shuffling and legalistic lip service.

    The constitution is trumped by the Troika’s fiscal control.

    We elected the currrent government to legislate and govern and correct the crimes of FF&Co.

    They have refused to do so, and now seek some spurious moral high-ground on this highly emotive issue to divert from their betrayal and continuation of business as usual.

    We need a constitutional commission alright, of Icelandic origins.

    Reply
  • RonA 09/11/12 #

    This state and every other state has proven they cannot replace a child’s parents without causing significant damage to the child. There are cases where parents are unfit or in minority cases dangerous to the child, but does this call for a blanket stripping of parents rights to raise their children the way they want to. I vote no until a more measured proposal is put forward

    Reply
    • @RonA how does this amendment “call for a blanket stripping of parents rights to raise their children the way they want to”?

      Reply
    • Blanket stripping? You should read the amendment. It calls for no such thing.

      Reply
    • RonA 09/11/12 #

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

      So who makes this decision? If its the agents of the state this puts those agents above the parents in deciding what is best for the child to the point of permanently breaking the relationship of the child and parent which is never a good idea. I can only see people who don’t have children or whose children are grown up and left the nest or have never seen the work of the agents of the state who could possible thing this is good for the child.

      I for one do not trust the agents of the state over the love of a parent and the rights of a parent to decide how they raise the child they brought into the world, even if there are a small minority of cases where this kind of draconian measure is needed.

      Who decides what is right way to raise a child, the state that consistently messes up lives, the child who has no life experience to know whats best or the parent that loves the child and has invested their life int he child.

      Reply
    • The provision of adoption clause that you refer to will apply to children who have been in care for a minimum of 3 years. Surely if a parent has been unable or unwilling to provide a stable home for their child, the child deserves the right to be adopted by their foster family. Currently there are over 2000 children who have been in foster care for over 5 years, but cannot be adopted.
      In most cases the parent is the best protection a child can have, but unfortunately in some cases intervention is needed. What do you think should happen to children living in abusive or neglectful homes?

      Reply
  • @M Barron

    Put like that, it sounds plausible and rational.

    But there is already provision for the public good to override private rights throughout the constitution. The whole PR drive has just too many echoes of the Yes brigade to authoritarianism that is at the root of the lack of a voice not just for endangered kids but for enfranchised adults.

    I’m writing as a former lone-parent. I know how little the state cares, and how little things will change while we continue to be spoken down to by our authorities.
    Yesterday’s court judgement is being overridden. Says it all. They know best. And if we get it wrong we’ll vote again until we give them their Yes.
    There will be NO voice for the child while this pretence of democracy prevails.

    Reply
  • The problem is that at the moment, parents rights come first. Children are being let down because their rights come second to the rights of the family i.e. the parents. It is that simple. This amendment will change that.

    Reply
  • The ISPCC? I well remember the dreaded ‘Cruelty Man’ from the 40s/50s. If this organisation is urging people to vote ‘Yes’, then purely based on their record in protecting Irish children, I would be inclined to ore ‘No’.

    Reply
  • Voting yes means children’s rights (which are additional to human rights) are given more importance. The right to be cared for, nurtured, clothed and educated. These rights are over powered by the rights of the family unit at the moment. Admittedly there are few cases of sever neglect, but shouldn’t we make it the law that when a parent / parents severely neglect their children the courts put the child’s rights first? Shouldn’t children be allowed to legally become part of a family when they have been long term fostered by this family also?

    Reply
  • I will be voting YES in spite of vague emotional pleading like this and the small risk* of unintended consequences. If the amendment was followed up with resources (eg to fund a 24 hour social care provision) and the State actually took steps to treat children in its care with dignity (such as those in St Pats), some good will come of it. (*there’s always a risk in adding words to the Constitution, the risk here is balanced by the strengthening of advocacy for the children)

    Reply
    • I wish I could agree, Conor. Maybe I’m just too long listening to the platitudes and too cynical.

      You know as well as I do the Troika will be blamed for not funding real change and protection.
      Lipstick on the pig. And moral self-congratulation all round.

      When I hear more voices from the formerly abused I will believe change is intended.

      Reply
    • Soo..so far 5 to 2 thumbs that do NOT want the voices of the formerly abused to emerge.

      The voice of the child?

      Reply
    • conor this goverment is lying they cannot tell the truth about anything ,they do not care about us or our children they are only interested in pensions and bribes

      Reply
  • I will be voting yes too. But I worry that people are so petulant in this country that they will use this as an opportunity for a protest vote.

    Reply
  • I’m voting yes because Kathy Sinnott want’s me to vote no :)

    Reply
  • Implying that the ISPCC does nothing to protect children really goes to show how ill informed people choose to be. This is an organisation that gets LESS than 10% of it’s funding from the the government and provides a 24 hour service 365 days a year free of charge for children, and also has support systems for families. It’s the generous help of the public, an army of dedicated volunteers and the hard working staff that keep this organisation alive. Thankfully most people don’t share that idiotic notion. Having concerns about the what the future outcomes of the referendum will be is understandable, but spouting out and out lies to try and scare people into voting no is pathetic and really goes to show the invalidity of the argument.

    Reply
  • The constitution already protects the rights of children, it’s the state that has failed to enforce it. And now they want to remove the children from the family unit and parents will be nothing more than caretakers.

    Reply
    • Aindreas, the constitution doesn’t protect the rights of children enough. The mother from the Roscommon Case taking out a high court injunction against the state from removing her children from her home proves it. The amendment explicitly states that if parents put children at risk, i.e. harm them, the state will try to take the place of the parent. By this they mean placing the children in care homes or with foster parents. It’s not Enda Kenny, or whatever politician or political party people decide to be mad at, who’s going to be taking care of these children who have been abused or neglected. It will be people who can provide the care and protection that every child deserves. And this can only be a good thing.

      Reply
  • Well said Fergus

    Reply
    • You think so?
      My natural inclination would be to vote yes.
      But I read about four or five of the introductory sentences and was swamped by a feeling of deja vu..to some sonorous priest sermonising with platitudes of reassurance that with a moments reflection don’t seem to hold water.
      I had a distinct picture of a benign Big Brother assuring me of his benificent Lurv.

      The more they lecture and patronise me the less I trust them. Being a children’s amendment doesn’t mean we have accept being told yet again, trust me I’m a nice man.

      Some time back there was a safety program(Mr Finlay may well have had a hand in it)telling kids that if they got an instinctive feeling from someone that what was being asked was not quite right they should trust that instinct withdraw politely. If I recall corrrectly it was referred to as a ‘No’ feeling.

      All I’m saying is I am a long way from convinced, and further the more I listen to the PR op.

      It smells like window dressing. Our legal and political system colluded with the Roman cult to systematically kidnap, enslave, sell and abuse generations of women and children. Then turned and dumped the compensation bill for those crimes on the innocent taxpayer whose kids they now claim they wioll protect with few trite paragraphs.
      There are children sleeping rough in our streets, and older men crippled by lives in their institutions. Yet the nationalised housing stocks are locked as the winter deepens and they will die in the streets over Christmas while they sing carols and eat turkey washed down with brandy while congratualting themselves on their halo-polishing referendum.
      Sorry, but NO.

      Reply
    • “The second thing that stands out from all the reports, over nearly thirty years now, is that we didn’t intervene early enough, and we didn’t intervene well enough. The constitutional amendment will change that too.”

      Yes I would say that and if you read the Roscommon case report you would see why. You clearly didn’t.

      The Roscommon and Kilkenny incest cases showed that the state did not act in accordance with Art. $2.5 and intervene to protect the children involved, as it should have done. Facts like these have never been of interest to finally. If the amendment is passed the volume of Guardian ad Litem business will increase dramatically for FF’s Barnardos. Those who do the GAL work in Barnardos have not training in this area because unlike the UK it is unregulated here in Ireland.

      42.5. 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.

      Reply
    • This amendment does not put children at the centre of the constitution.

      Far from it, it deals with a peripheral issue for a very small amount of children.

      Why do the Govt and the Yes side insist on dressing this up as a Children’s Rights referendum when it is solely about adoption for a few?

      What are they trying to hide?

      Reply

Add New Comment