The poor to become baby farms for the well-off? (Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution - Rights of the Child)

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

I understand the wingnuts' position on this referendum - it is simply for them another face-off between secular law and their mystical middle-eastern crap in that they oppose anything which threatens the 'sanctity' of the family.

We saw the extremes of this when that well-known and now thankfully dead muppet Mena Ui Chribin interfered in the Roscommon abuse case on the basis of her pathology around the 'sanctity' of the family.

I remain suspicious of that deeply vaticanese-looking word 'imprescriptability' in the referendum wording in reference to the rights of the family and wonder whether it is another one of these weasel attempts to retain middle eastern mysticism within the principles of Irish law.

There is no reason for the inclusion of that word.

My only concern is that we move children's rights in Ireland to a place where they are protected under the law from mentalists in their own family and secondly that they are properly represented in any legal dispute over their safety.

I never ever again want to hear of a situation in Ireland where young children are appearing in a courtroom and treated like criminals simply because their family has the misfortune to be poor or because they have the misfortune to come from a broken family.

[Andrew49]

They're muddying the waters for sure - and worse - considering their own record on interference in the family and their facilitation of abusers, they still seem to think that their views are authoritative! I can see this amendment passed based only on people voting for it based on the Church's opposition to it.

I haven't heard from Fr Iona Quinn or Sister Breda on the amendment but I'm certain their views will mirror Blessed Mena Ui Chribin's !

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Oh don't worry, Watery John, Sr Breda-Lott and the rest of the arch-muppets of christendom will be all over the Sundays this week trying to find a way of showing concern for the poor hypothetical childer while in reality attempting to open up space for goatherder mysticology in the Irish constitution.

[Richardbouvet]

Eamo, I thought I had you pegged as a WP member or supporter, but your posting does not look to me like something a WP member would say.

If you are linked to the WP, can you say what way they are likely to go on the referendum, and do you agree with them?

[eamo]

Eamo, I thought I had you pegged as a WP member or supporter, but your posting does not look to me like something a WP member would say.

If you are linked to the WP, can you say what way they are likely to go on the referendum, and do you agree with them?

Hi Richard, I was a member of the WP and am a supporter of the WP, but apart from re-posting some WP press releases on the WP thread I only post my own thoughts and musings here.

I recon they will probably support the referendum, as will I, most likely.

However I am suspicious of wording like this;
"natural and imprescriptible rights of all children".
That to my un-legally trained mind is very vague. There is no telling how such a phrase will be interpreted by the Supreme Court of Ireland.

The "Pro-Life" lobby pushed for and supported the eight amendment to the Irish Constitution in 1983. They fully approved of the wording. They were advised by many prominent, able, ideologically driven and dedicated legal professionals. They were delighted when the amendment was passed by a 67% majority.

They got it wrong.

In 1992 in the "X" case the Supreme court found that women had a right to abortion in Ireland if the life of the woman was in danger. They explicitly included danger of suicide as a reason for abortion

The pro-lifers were stunned

If that could happen then, it could happen now. No one knows how a phrase like
"natural and imprescriptible rights of all children". will be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
As I said (post 16) the right to good housing, health care, education, clean water, nutrition, security, and where possible a family life should be stated unequivocally in any amendment. These rights are not stated in this amendment, but I suppose it is better than the status quo.

[C. Flower]

There seems to be an emphasis on removing kids and having them adopted out. Wouldn't that be a very cost-effective way of dealing with kids in care, instead of paying someone to foster or mind them the state can put them up for adoption at an early age. Avoiding years of expense for the state and getting the kids adopted at an early age when they're more appealing to potential adoptees.

Am I being paranoid or is there some sense in what I'm saying?

The State provides no supports to parents of adopted children. Adopted children often had had a difficult childhood, pre-adoption. Adoption is difficult.

As you say, once it is done, the State can wipe its hands.

What I don't like is the demonisation of the "failed" parents.

I've just spent the last two days looking up close to very big State planning failures that contributed to the difficulties of low income families.
I don't see any reference in this to the failures of the State.

[Shaadi]

The State provides no supports to parents of adopted children. Adopted children often had had a difficult childhood, pre-adoption. Adoption is difficult.

As you say, once it is done, the State can wipe its hands.

What I don't like is the demonisation of the "failed" parents.

I've just spent the last two days looking up close to very big State planning failures that contributed to the difficulties of low income families.
I don't see any reference in this to the failures of the State.

While I fully agree with putting the kids interests first, this amendment seems to be about taking children into care and adoption without fleshing out what that entails.

Is there a model of family intervention or adoption that they're keen on, as in are they trying to copy a system that's in place elsewhere? Have they expressed admiration for some particular foreign system that would give us an idea of what they've actually got planned for this very vague wording? It's a pig in a poke, we literally don't know how this is going to pan out. While we've no reason to think the worst, the Irish electorate tend to vote along the lines of "if in doubt throw it out"

[MediaBite]

Hi Andrew
Just checked here briefly. Is this the full extent of the proposed amendment? It's worse than I imagined.

The most critical aspect of the wording is the phrase 'as far as is practicable'. This means, as before, there is not one single truly enforceable legal right envisaged for any child under this amendment. Exactly as expected, it is rather a social workers rights referendum which gives very vague and potentially very broad powers to this unaccountable, underfunded body of professionals. The churches have rightly been raked over the coals for what has happened but the silence about the culpability of state and voluntary agencies has been deafening. And yet here we have a plan to hand them seriously unfettered powers over children. How many have died in the care of such agencies in recent years? Has there even been an attempt to establish how many more have been abused or neglected?

If ever there was a case of hard cases making lousy law, this referendum is surely it. As Cactus has said, where are the guarantees to the basics for all children?

[Andrew49]

It seems to me that children will remain a property after this referendum. A property that can be taken permanently from some 'owners' and handed over to new 'owners'.

[Baron von Biffo]

42A is the number of a bus, not an article of the Constitution.

The Constitution is divided into articles,paragraphs (both numbered) and subsections (roman numerals) e.g. Article 7.1,iv refers to the seanad Indstry and commerce panel

Ordering of a,b,c does not occur in the constitution, except in one place as an "either/or" option (article 24).

Very unclear about this - the bill needs to state what is being deleted and what's being inserted. Which pargraphs/sections is this article replacing? Or is it a complete rewrite of article 42? Or just para 5?

I can't find that info anywhere.

It may have been felt that for PR reasons this had to be a separate article and that numbering it Article 64 might have led to confusion.

[Baron von Biffo]

Two words seem to be causing angst and they really shouldn't.

Imprescriptible
This means that the rights set out cannot be either legislated away or voluntarily surrendered. It protects the rights from interference in the future.

Fail/Failed
There's no emotional weight whatsoever involved here. It's not blaming anyone, it just sets out the conditions that must be satisfied for the state to act.

Both words are in Art. 42.5 at the moment.

"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."

[Baron von Biffo]

The 50/50 broadcast time rule is causing headaches.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/b...um-568111.html

One name in the article is a bit of a blast from the past, Nora Bennis, ultra conservative Catholic campaigner.

[Andrew49]

Two words seem to be causing angst and they really shouldn't.

Imprescriptible
This means that the rights set out cannot be either legislated away or voluntarily surrendered. It protects the rights from interference in the future.

Fail/Failed
There's no emotional weight whatsoever involved here. It's not blaming anyone, it just sets out the conditions that must be satisfied for the state to act.

Both words are in Art. 42.5 at the moment.

"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."

Wording that allowed the continuation of the Industrial Schools.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

BABY ANN CASE

This child was born to an unmarried couple in July 2004 who decided to give their child up for adoption. Within days, the baby was placed in care; later, a couple were found who wished to adopt the girl. Then, two years later, the unexpected happened: the birth parents withdrew their consent. They wanted their baby back. In a resulting High Court case, it was found that Ann should remain with her adoptive parents. The judge said Ann would be “psychologically damaged” if she was taken away from her adoptive parents. He held that her natural parents, while motivated by the best interests of their child, were guilty of a failure of duty to her.

But the Supreme Court overturned this decision. It ruled that the child be handed back to her natural parents. A crucial factor in the Supreme Court’s decision was that the Ann’s birth parents were married, having wedded a month before the High Court case. The Constitution affords special protection to the married family.

Under the Government’s proposed amendment, there will be an affirmation of each individual child’s inherent rights. Importantly, it provides that the rights and protections enjoyed by children are to be enjoyed by “all children, irrespective of their parents’ marital status”. As a result, there will no longer be discrimination against the treatment of children from married or unmarried families.

Those opposed to the referendum say the move will end up giving the State preference over parents in legal cases – although the planned amendment also states that the Constitution will continue to respect and preserve the rights of the family.

Source for above

The High Court ruled that the natural parents were guilty of a failure of duty and that Baby Ann would be psychologically damaged if returned to her natural parents. One way of sorting this out is to find Baby Ann and see if she has been psychologically damaged. As the wording stands now it would mean that a mother who decides to place her baby up for adoption would be:

1. Guilty of a failure of duty
2. Sign away her right to be involved in the life of a child she gave birth to - she would be barred from changing her mind.

How this enhances the rights of children I fail to grasp. Seems to me that it's more about the ownership of children than about children's rights.

- - - - - - - -

Parents who abuse children should have their parenting rights removed permanently. They should not be allowed by law to have any say in any aspect of their child's life.

- - - - - - - -

There is nothing in the amendment about the extended family ... nothing in the Constitution either.

[Baron von Biffo]

The Christian Solidarity Party is opposing the amendment because it sees a dark conspiracy at its heart.

"One has to ask is there a hidden agenda under the guise of concern for children’s welfare to extend the power of the State"

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/in...#1224324359705

[Richardbouvet]

There is also an Item in the indo in which Catherine McGuinness expresses similar concern at the lack of No supporters to give balance to the referendum debate. Perhaps Andrew and Riposte would like to get something going?

I still cannot believe the number of people who have been taken in by the bogus right-wing canard that because the state let children down in the past we should not "give the state more power" to protect children in the future.