well said stephen.im always suspicious when the government come out & say vote yes.would like to hear both sides first.

I personally have no idea what it’s about.

Stephen Redmond, want to know what its about

Whats stopping you reading about it yourself?

You should receive a booklet from the referendum commission through the door at some stage. Some bedtime reading for you!

Barry, I think we all know what the intention is – however, just reading it a little doesn’t tell you that. Analysis is what tells us how it could be implemented and whether the good intentions are well directed or misdirected. In fairness, I wouldn’t blame anyone for taking a slightly cynical view on any vote. It’s probably more productive to express a view on the vote than just tell someone to read…..

Then read up on it. Nobody can inform you except yourself.

http://www.referendum2012.ie/proposed-article/

Yes indeed we will get a booklet from the Referendum Commission which will tell us nothing about the issue or the discussion around it. And FG just managed to get their ‘campaign’ on the road as we are about to go to the ballot box. The contempt for democratic process of the traitors and their agencies who have usurped the people’s mandate knows no bounds. Fair minded people will vote for the proposition because well …. they are fair minded and would not like to have the likes of Varadkar and Shatter accuse them of being against children. In fact it doesn’t matter a whit whether the referendum is passed or not the actual reality is that criminals run the country and part of their criminality is unspeakable treatment of its people starting with the children. Of course the wording says that they only have to do what is practicable – after they dish out €65 billions to gamblers! We should do what is practical and stop protesting, stop running useless campaigns and empower ourselves and take control of the reins of power and never again relinquish it to these corrupt private clubs of vested interests.

I havent a clue whats this is all about…just seeing posters of children all over the place with a big YES on it..I be better off asking my 10 year old nephew…im sure they would have told him in school.

This constitutional change will be used to criminalise unmarried fathers who do not, or are unable to, financially support their ex-partners in the guise of children’s rights.

It will reduce fathers, and all men, to mere sperm donors and monetary enslavement.

It will also increase the powers of busy-body social workers.

It’s totally unnecessary and reminiscent of the constitutional changes made by the Nazis in 1930’s Germany.

Germany will tell us what to think/do soon enough. We won’t need referendums anymore!

I think the problem might be that most people will vote Yes based on the child abuse by the Catholic Church (Industrial Schools, Magdalene Laundries, paedophile priests moved from parish to parish) as well as suffering in State institutions and by child abusers acting alone. From the little knowledge I have, the only focus of the amendment is on the family itself, and the removal of children, as interpreted by the State itself. So the issue I might have is that the amendments don’t go far enough, it should be expanded to protect the child from institutions, no government current or past has brought the hierarchy of the Church to task, or properly investigated priests who have abused and are still free, there has also been no proper investigation into deaths of children in the care of the State. In addition, if our government can’t run the most basic things in this country on a daily basis, how can they assure they will adequately look after children? Of course there are families where children are abused and those children should be removed from such environments, but why is this the only focus of the amendment? I haven’t decided which way I’ll vote, I have for the last fortnight been convinced it was a simple Yes for me for once in my life, but I need to read up more in the next while.

It’s about state propaganda, propaganda which is being legally challenged in the High Court next Tuesday: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/referendum-information-campaign-funding-challenged-in-court-571137.html#.UIGhFzD0qEA.facebook “A High Court challenge has been brought against the State’s alleged use of more than €1.1m of public money on an information campaign about the forthcoming Children’s Referendum.

The action has been brought by Mark McCrystal, who claims the Government has been using information in its information campaign that is not neutral and is designed, intended and likely to promote a particular outcome in the November 10 referendum.

Mr McCrystal has brought proceedings against the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, The Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General.

He claims the State is in breach of a 1995 judgment by the Supreme Court, known as the McKenna decision, that held that referenda should be explained to the public in an impartial manner. “

Maybe it’s just me but when the information booklets are sent out why can’t plain simple English be used. Call me stupid but I just can’t get my head around it.

thank you :-)

Barry . you’re off the wall. There are many good reasons to vote no. I just cannot , for one example, see how it is progressive to allow children to be legally adopted whilst their parent/s are alive. Just because , maybe , an overzealous social worker makes a complaint. The vast majority of social workers do a great job but we have seen cases where the standard was not the best. The best is what children must get.

I’m not Barry.

Do you really think that the State is going to go around stealing children on the basis of a single complaint from a Social Worker?

dermot in the uk thats exactly what happens.there are british mothers on the run here in ireland because the social services in the uk are trying to take their children.brian gerrish does a lot of research into this.

“Dermot”? Would you ever feck off?

whoops my mistake.dont go crying like a baby now DIARMAID.what makes you think the state wont abuse its new powers if they have no problem doing it in the uk?

The constitution already says this, Kieran.

Kieran
The current constitution already does this , Read the current one and then see the changes they want to bring in .
I am not convinced by either side but the more I see/hear about This Children’s rights Ref ., the more I am worried about it . I had thought I would of course vote Yes , but some how ,I am just not convinced .

Unfortunately the Red C poll was carried out on behalf of the Government who fund the NYCI and use it groom the horrors that become the Varadkars and Shatters and Gilmores and Rabbits and Kennys of this world. Its purpose is to gauge what chance there is of having egg on their face like the last referendum which they lost due in no small measure to the Varadkar-Shatter axis and their take on democracry and referenda. So FG has got its referendum ‘campaign’ (how I am beginning to hate this term no matter who uses it!) started but they are not serious given that it is virtually on the eve of the vote. The wording of the amendment is a notice that the state in the hands of these types will do nothing but carry on as before and will only act when dragged through the courts at huge cost to some citizens who risk having to pay the state’s costs if they lose fighting for the rights of their children and family members, old and young.

you are a liar because the HSE could have taken them kids a long time ago they chose to leave them in that hellhole for yrs before doing anything and then they didnt do it properly, there seems to be a thing with the HSE that they leave kids in these horrific homes and they snatch kids from good homes on a whim , now why is that eoin? how you are that thick that you can read what the HSE did and didnt do and still claim it was the constitutions fault is beyond belief , what a moron

You are so quick to criticise the HSE, but you I don’t see criticising parents who abused their own children. That’s another fact for you.

Would your friend have preferred to have grown up with their parents?

@ Carlos. Extreme as your worry is, I don’t doubt that what you suggest could happen. Looking at what has happened, I think anything is possible.

Carlos you are right it did happen and it will happen again except they plan to traffik the children out so they can’t be held accountible for the crimes committed against them, thats why they need to change the adoption laws

Ask yourself this, would this new law have protected any children already abused?

Yes.

Do you really trust the government on referendums?
No. But that’s not the question. I don’t trust you either.

Lying again Eoin , this change does nothing except transfer power to a corrupt state that abuses childrens rights everyday in this country

But I’ll give you a chance, explain to us how the new change could have protected the 270 odd kids abused in state care in the last decade ?

It’s obvious that the new wording will not protect children from abuse. What protects children from abuse and neglect are proper services and resources; money being prioritised for the most vulnerable children; concerns re vulnerable children being acted on quickly and assistance for families that are struggling. Maybe if more money was invested when problems first emerged, there wouldn’t be so many children ending up in care. The adoption option will only help a very small minority of children in very select circumstances. What about the rest? The wording of the referendum is very vague imo. Who will interpret what’s in the best interests of the child and will this interpretation be quite subjective. We already see huge variations when it comes to sentences for various crimes. Could the same thing happen when it comes to judgements re what’s in the best interests of any particular child?

Maria, yes the state needs to put more money and resources into child protection, and social services, and schools and hospitals.

But voting yes or no won’t change that situation either way. That isn’t what the referendum is about.

Sharon, the alternative is leaving the status quo whereby the children of married abusive parents can’t be taken into a safer environment.

Can you defend the status quo?

Nice bit of racism there. Apart from the British who else do you hate?

such a lie Eoin, married parents do not have a special law that allows them to abuse a child

The constitution protects married parents from having their abused children from been taken into care.

This is what happened in the Roscommon incest case.

and here we have eoin lying again, so a married couple can abuse there childrn openly and the gardai or the government can’t do a thing, you are ridiculous and you are a liar

and the Roscommon case was a crime , a criminal negligent state that sat back and let those children suffer and yet today we have the state that took 4 kids off a woman because she has MS and her house is dirty . stop lying EOIN you don’t get paid enough mate to tell these lies that endanger children

Come on Michelle, you know I am not lying.

Are you saying that in the Roscommon incest case the mother didn’t get an injunction against the HSE intervening? Are you seriously denying that happened?

What do you mean by saying I’m paid?

HOUSE OF HORROR KIDS TO SUE STATE
Health officials will also be quizzed over roles in the Kelly and McColgan cases after Roscommon outrage

SAVAGE: Paedophile father Joe McColgan

A NUMBER of health board officials, who are to be investigated for their role in the Roscommon House of Horrors, also made decisions in the notorious McColgan and Kelly Fitzgerald cases in Sligo and Mayo.

The HSE report is expected to look at why officials did not apply for a supervision order until 2004 despite the family being on their radar as far back as 1990.

And it will look at why officials failed to fight an injunction that stopped the children being taken into care in 2000 when right wing activist Mena Bean Ui Chribin backed their mother in the High Court.

does this sound like the HSE did there job, they chose to leave those kids in that hellhole the only reason they half arsed tried to take the kids was because neighbours were ringing them for yrs about the abuse of those kids, so EOIN STOP LYING

Social workers had been visiting the home since 1996 and came to a voluntary agreement with the mother in 2000 to have them cared for by an aunt and uncle. But when she became involved with Ui Chribin and took out an injunction officials say they couldn’t continue with the plan.

It took another four years, during which the worst abuse happened, for the State to step in and remove the children from the family home. If the family sue the state they will be following in the footsteps of another family which suffered similar savagery, on that occasion at the hands of paedophile Joe McColgan.

The farmer from Ballymote beat his children with shovels, hammers and whips, tried to strangle them and raped them over 20 years.

So you have proven me right.

The mother got an injunction against the HSE intervening. You can apologise for calling me a liar now, thanks.

The six children at the centre of this case were denied their voice on many
occasions. Their voice was not heard in the High Court in Autumn 2000 when
the parents were successful in preventing a shared parenting arrangement
with their relatives from going ahead. No application to protect them as set out
under the Child Care Act 1991 (as amended) was heard in the District Court
until 2004. Case Conferences and other meetings that should have had the
interests of these children as their central focus were often diverted into
dealing with other issues. Finally in 2004 these children in effect rescued
themselves when they could no longer be silenced.

That’s a good point Michelle.

Part 42A.4.2 of the new wording means that children’s views will have to be heard and considered.

So I imagine you are in favour of that part of the referendum wording.

In 1990, further to a telephone call from Mr A, PHN 1 attended at the home as
Mrs A had just given birth there. The nurse called the family GP who arranged
a hospital admission. She advised the Inquiry Team that Mrs A explained to
her some days later that she had drunk eleven vodkas the evening before the
birth and had not realised that she was in labour. The PHN advised the
Inquiry that she told Mrs. A that it was a lot of drink.
The Inquiry Team notes that the attendance at the home is on the PHN
record but that the alcohol consumption is not referred to in that file
note. There is no record of a formal follow up to that incident in terms of
a discussion with the social work office or with a Superintendent PHN

In 1993 the PHN record shows that a complaint was received from a member
of the public alleging that the children were being neglected. PHN 1 saw the
two children and referred them to the GP. This GP (GP1) provided a service
to the family from the birth of the eldest child until mid 2003. Much of his
frequent contact with the family was in their home.
The Home Management Advisory Services has a record of a referral to that
service in 1994 by a Social Worker to provide help with rent arrears. The
electricity supply had also been disconnected. Home Management Advisor 1
who worked with this family from 1994 to 1995 and then again from 1997 to
2004 advised the Inquiry that Mrs. A spent a great deal of money on alcohol
at times. She further said the condition of the house started to significantly
deteriorate again around 2001. In relation to how she viewed the work with
the family she said “I suppose I was hopeful; rather than optimistic”.

ok so 12 yrs at this stage has gone by with neighbours ringing and complaining and the HSE is involved every step of the way and still the HSE have not taken this family to court lol jesus christ the HSE were more criminal than I ever imagined they actually watched fr yrs as these kids were raped starved and abused without doing anything

Explain to me how voting no will improve the HSE? It won’t.

You say there is already a provision for a child to be heard.

Ok.

Is this in law? Is it in the constitution? More facts please and less name calling.

you eoin are the one that is saying that the HSE couldn’t remove those children because of the constitution I have just proved that they didn’t even try for over a decade and its only because the distress of the neighbours calling that they bothered doing anything at all, and then they were negligent and half arsed and failed to follow procedure in the courts , it proves that they the HSE chose to leave those kids there . I want to know why that was, was it to have little gimps like you to use this roscommon case against the public when ye wanted to remove parental rights in the constitution because its looking that way , a goverment that allows rape and torture of children for over a decade for a political agenda. WOW sinister VOTE NO please these monsters can not be trusted

More name calling Michelle. Come on!

Firstly, and maybe this will blow your mind, but I think the HSE failed the kids in that case.
Secondly, it is also a FACT that when the HSE finally did intervene the mother got an injuction.

Thirdly, it seems to me you side with the mother on this. Am I wrong? You are against the HSE being allowed to take into care the children of married child abusers.

Why is that. Why would you want to side with the mother in that case? Can you explain without resorting to name calling please.

3.3.5 New Concerns
Two new concerns also emerged in February 1998. The first one related to a
fire-setting incident by one child and the second to a child (too young) being
sent to the town, approximately one and a half miles away, to collect shopping
(including alcohol). These concerns were discussed at the Core Group where
it was agreed that Social Worker 1 should visit. The home visit concentrated
on the fire setting episode.
The Inquiry Team notes that the issue of adequate food being purchased
was not addressed at this time.

The County Council again confirmed that no rent was being paid and, in early
April 1998, Home Management Advisor 3 reported to Social Worker 1 that she
had “grave concerns about the children”. Examples given included the baby
not being appropriately dressed when out with parents, baby being cold, and
that Mrs. A was going straight to the pub after dropping home the food
purchased with Home Management Advisor 3.
Social Worker 1 recorded that she was unable to follow up with another home
visit due to her workload. She visited the school to discuss the fire incident
and the teacher spoke to her concerning the ongoing hygiene issues: “there
have always been problems with hygiene”. Social Worker 1 recorded that a
Case Review was now required. In April 1998 Mrs A was not home to go
shopping with the Home Management Service, the wheelie bin was gone and
rubbish was again accumulating. In addition, a record of a conversation
between PHN 1 and the Social Worker 1 shows that PHN 1 was concerned
that the baby was being fed watered down cow’s milk rather than baby
formula.

In early September the Area Medical Officer (AMO) visited the home in
response to concern by PHN 1 that the baby was not being stimulated; and
had poor trunk control. A neighbour advised the AMO that she was concerned
the parents were drinking heavily. The AMO saw the child and described
hygiene as “poor”. The AMO wrote to Senior Social Worker 2 suggesting that
the Social Work Department might put in more support.
Social Worker 1 visited in November 1998 following the birth of last child and
recorded there were no problems.

Social Worker 1 visited in November 1998 following the birth of last child and
recorded there were no problems. Later that day, another neighbour spoke to
the Social Work Department alleging that the children were out in very cold
weather with very little clothing. Social Worker 1 discussed this matter with
her Social Work Team Leader. She records that she was advised it could be
left until she was next on the duty roster, which would be in ten days time. The
Inquiry Team did not find a record to show this matter was pursued in
December 1998. There is a file record indicating that there was another
consultation with her Social Work Team Leader two days later, where it was
agreed that there should be a home visit before Christmas.

http://www.oneinfour.ie/content/resources/RoscommonChildCareCase.pdf

This is the official report into the roscommon case I beg you to read it, how this government and government gimp can justify removing parental rights in the constitution based on this case is shocking I am 27 pages into a 107 page report and its disgusting and vile and criminal what the HSE did, The social workers involved and the authorities in the HSE should have been jailed , the roscommon case has been used to beat us with well I suggest you take a look at that dirty stick and ask yourself do you really want to gives these monsters the power to decide the best interest of your child ?

3.3.8 New Social Worker
Between February 1999 and May 1999 no Social Worker was allocated to
family A. The Social Work Team Leader post for this area was vacant for the
first five months of 1999. In May 1999 this family was allocated to Social
Worker 2 who was supervised by the newly appointed Social Work Team
Leader 2, both of whom were new to this case.

On the 12th of October 1999 Social Worker 2 recorded a conversation with a
member of the Gardai in the local town. The name of the Garda is not
recorded. The note records that the Garda said that they had no major
concerns in that the parents were not seen in the pub at night but usually
during the day and only now and then. He is recorded as confirming seeing
children on the road and “might feel they were a bit young”.

The Barnardo’s directors are not paid €1.6 million a year. That is a complete lie. Their annual reports are on their website. If you lie about that why should we believe anything you say.

I’d say a lot of the TDs have done very little investigation into what’s involved. There were a few on the other night discussing it and they didn’t seem too clued in to what it was about. There’s a mantra about voting yes for children, but a lot of the moves this government is making demonstrates that children are pretty low on their list of priorities.

Kevin, many news sites get their stories from other places. That’s hardly unusual. And if balance is a problem why not provide some?!

This poll was done by RedC, not NYCI

The return of the Blue Shirt DH… a hard core YFG supporter…. balanced view point from Enda’s youth party…. Someone else had one of those too…………. that’s right Hitler

Hitler had eyes too – jaysus, we all must be nazis….

Well, when Enda takes his head out of Angella Hitlers ass, maybe he’ll see just how much of a traitor to this country he really is……….. He should be swinging from a gallows outside the Dail, along with Bertie and Brian

And we’re Godwined. Dear God, have some people no imagination beyond Nazi references.

Grow up and behave like an adult. Comparing anything that happens today from any government to the evil that engulfed Europe during the 1940s is not only childish but an insult to the memory of the millions of people who were murdered because of this ideology.

Journalism? This is not a news site bud.

Bit harsh, Tom. If this isn’t a news site, what is it?

Also, Kevin: this isn’t a copy and paste. Sure, it might not have much content other than what the NCYI had included, but if’s a standalone piece – there’s plenty of other articles, both here and elsewhere, that elaborate. If we had elaborated on the reasons why one might vote Yes or No then we’d be open to accusations that we were looking to qualify the poll results, or convince readers to think one way or another. That’d be even poorer journalism.

It’s an aggrator not a news site but can be interesting especially the interacttive component.

Aggregator and interactive, see it’s helping with my spelling which a news article wouldn’t.

We don’t aggregate any Irish content. It’s all produced in-house.

:-)

I would bet that not one person in 100 knows that we gave the EU competence in child protection when we voted for the Lisbon Treaty.

Alex – Really? The only mention of ‘children’ anywhere in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which defines the EU’s competences) is the power and duty of the Council and Parliament to work against the trafficking of children. There’s no mention there at all about child protection.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF

when you consider the amount of children who died while under the states care i would say no they’re not capable.

It’s giving children in care more of a voice and rights, it also is treating children of unmarried parents equal to that of married….it’s about children, not their parents.
The scare mongering of the no campaign that children will be adopted
Easily is false.
The only parents that need to fear this is parents who neglect their children

Siobeli, Read the thing, It clearly states that the state can remove children and put them up for adoption regardless of what the child or parents say.

Its a very dangerous referendum, a Yes vote gives the power to the state to remove children form parents for ANY reasons.

The State has proved that they could never put children’s rights first And they have done NOTHING to prove to me that they will ever be capable of doing the right thing for children

So siobeli when single fathers have no automatic rights to their children in contrast to single mothers and married parents, this referendum still magically treats children of unmarried parents and married parents equally….Children of unmarried parents exist in a very unequal legal framework whereby one parent i.e. the mother has full automatic guardianship of her child while the father has no legal rights to his child and the child has no legal rights to him upon birth. Whereas with married parents both are automatic guardians of their children putting the child of married parents into a legally harmonious framework. While this situation exists there can be no equality between children of unmarried parents and those of married parents. Dont swallow the cutesy slogans and utterly useless wording in this regard. It’s quite simply BS.

If the constitution is strong enough, then how did the mother who abused her own children in Roscommon get an injunction against the HSE?

Eoin the Roscommon mother had catholic religious campaigners working with her to secure that injunction. The catholic church has ‘form’ as they say in not considering child abuse a crime. It wasn’t parent v’s state in that case it was parent and church against state.

She got an injunction because the law allows ex-parte (one sided) applications regardless of the issue. It’s a legislative issue and nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution and certainly does not explain why the HSE took SEVEN MONTHS to appear in the High court to challenge the Injunction when they could have been in in the following day to rescue the children. http://www.oneinfour.ie/content/resources/RoscommonChildCareCase.pdf The legal recommendations arising from the report cited *no reference* whatsoever to the constitution. Whenever I hear this horrendous case use as a political football to justify the referendum I just know that the person making the claim has never read the report and swallows the recent government spin on this. The HSE were monstrously negligent in this case, they failed those children for 11 years so badly that the children rescued themselves in the end. This same HSE we are now supposed to believe deserve even greater rights over all our children… get a grip and engage rather than just push out the spin please.

Joe McGarry, so you’re vote no?

I take it you bothered to educate yourself before brainlessly voting no just because the government support something thats good.

i voted no on the fiscal treaty but as it stands at the moment I plan to vote yes for this, you cant put everyone into the same boat as the majority of people vote based on their opinion after looking at both sides and not on anything else.

So Joe, you’re voting yes? hmmmm… that really makes me think that I should just vote opposite to you especially given your previously expressed views….

I voted no the Fiscal Treaty but will vote yes to this.

I’ve forgotten…i dont know what a Fiscal Treaty is….

The fact that you are not convinced by the no side is no reason to vote yes.

Michelle – It should be borne in mind that we never claim to have a readership representative of the public at large. Also, because it’s a public poll, individual lobby groups can encourage their supporters and affiliates to vote – it’s very much open to ballot stuffing. Red C polls, on the other hand, speak (I think) to random voters.

Here’s a good one to prove that these polls are a joke and fixed

Barnados poll from 2006 on the referendum that they thought they would be having back then

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/poll-finds-74-would-support-childrens-rights-referendum-283978.html

I am also voting No.Children need discipline.