Open Letter to Vincent Browne re Children's Referendum on tonight's TV3 TWVB

[fluffybiscuits]

Adoption is certainly the cheaper option for the state, as compared to funding decent care and social work programmes aimed at resolving difficult situations where possible. It is a real test of how genuine the government is that the proposed amendment, above all else, avoids anything that will require decent funding and investment in children. The hard fact is that protecting children requires money. So if your starting position is that providing proper funding is the one thing you are not going to do, then this is the sort of amendment you end up with: a rather brutal solution to many different sorts of problems. Put that together with the shameful lack of any measures to improve state accountability for its actions/failures and you have a lethal cocktail.

As before, the church has rightly been excoriated for its crimes, but the state had at least as much to do with facilitating and covering up for it. None of the proponents of this amendment are calling for inquiries into sate and voluntary agency culpability in those crimes - the role of the ISPCC should be looked at hard. If they were genuine this would the first thing they would be asking for: to find out exactly what the state did wrong and only then to introduce meaningful rights-based legislation backed up with decent funding which would really make a difference. But they all want it buried just as much as the catholic heirarchy. Voting yes would literally put children at far greater risk in many instances.

The answer to all of these concerns appears to be nothing more than 'we're all such lovely people, we would never make a mistake and would always act in every child's best interests. None of us is less than infallible in every way at all times. There are no incompetent social workers or administrators. And every state administrator loves everyone else's children just as much as their own, if they have any. None of us suffers from any kind of prejudice towards any group. We all know how nice people should raise their children and we'll have the clout now to ensure that everyone else understands that too.'

Imagine monsters like that coming through the front door. Ghastly - the worst possible form of bourgeois law-mongering we've seen in some while.

The financial side of it aside is it in the best interests of the child? Abusive situations which the children are in , this legislation enables them to be removed straight away from the abusive situations which we are finding are becoming a lot more common place. The church is against it and the right wing as they see it as some sort of erosion of family values and undermining the concept of the nuclear family (of which it does no sort of thing). Ignoring the argument that Sean Kenny makes , the following quote sums up the Roscommon case:

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1...508244386.html

I want to also draw attention to the absolutely horrific case in 2009, of incest and sexual abuse where a mother of six children in Roscommon was convicted on ten counts of incest, sexual abuse and neglect of her children. The six children, aged between six and fifteen, were not fed properly, suffered from head lice and were beaten and abused on regular occasions.

This case highlighted that there was aspects of sexual abuse involved and the children were neglected.Can a mother like that be rehabilitated? Adoption does offer the better solution in terms of such a situation where the children can be far removed from such abusive situations. The situation is a win win for the state and for more importantly children whose situation would be vastly improved. Childrens rights are of paramount importance in this situation.

Whats bugging me now is the question, will siblings all go to the one family? They must is the answer but I see no mention of it anywhere on the web...

[Richardbouvet]

My sister in England adopted a boy when he was about 2. His brother was adopted by a different family. I don't think it is usual for sibs to be adopted together, but in principle, where they are well bonded and there is a willing adopting family, it could be done.

[fluffybiscuits]

My sister in England adopted a boy when he was about 2. His brother was adopted by a different family. I don't think it is usual for sibs to be adopted together, but in principle, where they are well bonded and there is a willing adopting family, it could be done.

Seperating siblings would be my biggest fear. They have every right to stay together IMO...

[MediaBite]

The financial side of it aside is it in the best interests of the child? Abusive situations which the children are in , this legislation enables them to be removed straight away from the abusive situations which we are finding are becoming a lot more common place. The church is against it and the right wing as they see it as some sort of erosion of family values and undermining the concept of the nuclear family (of which it does no sort of thing). Ignoring the argument that Sean Kenny makes , the following quote sums up the Roscommon case:

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1...508244386.html



This case highlighted that there was aspects of sexual abuse involved and the children were neglected.Can a mother like that be rehabilitated? Adoption does offer the better solution in terms of such a situation where the children can be far removed from such abusive situations. The situation is a win win for the state and for more importantly children whose situation would be vastly improved. Childrens rights are of paramount importance in this situation.

Whats bugging me now is the question, will siblings all go to the one family? They must is the answer but I see no mention of it anywhere on the web...

You can't responsibly, in the best interests of children, put the financial side of this to one side. It has to be right there at the front of every and any policy/law-making: if we are serious about wanting to protect children, will we fund it properly?

The worst case scenario that you ask about is already abundantly catered for under existing law. Time and again, through lack of funding for social services and/or reluctance to take private AND, even more-so, state failures on, the law is not followed! This amendment will make that situation disastrously worse. If anyone seriously cares about protecting children then there has to be deadly serious, cast-iron legislation that would guarantee prosecutions/accountability for state failure before anyone should even begin to think of voting for this amendment.

[MPB]

The real question in this debate is whether you can trust the State.

The State has shown itself to be a serial child abuser.

To pass a referendum whereby the Irish State declares itself the guardian of vulnerable children, is akin to handing children to a convicted paedophile.

Enda Kenny had the temerity to accuse the Catholic Church of a cover up, while ignoring the criminality of the Irish State.

[MediaBite]

The real question in this debate is whether you can trust the State.

The State has shown itself to be a serial child abuser.

To pass a referendum whereby the Irish State declares itself the guardian of vulnerable children, is akin to handing children to a convicted paedophile.

Enda Kenny had the temerity to accuse the Catholic Church of a cover up, while ignoring the criminality of the Irish State.

Well said. Appalling claims by Olivia O' Leary in today's Sindo that there will be an increase in state accountability if this amendment is passed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Does the Yes campaign realise that the public doesn't like what it is attempting one little bit - and is now resorting to this sort of thing to try and get it through? Seems like.

[ang]

Could "Eastenders" storyline be a deciding factor in this referendum ?

It seems to be a concern of some -

Politicians are concerned the results of the forthcoming Children’s Referendum could be influenced by storyline in a soap opera.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/t...um-572977.html

[MPB]

Could "Eastenders" storyline be a deciding factor in this referendum ?

It seems to be a concern of some -



http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/t...um-572977.html

Politicians are not the problem in this very important case.

Civil Servants and Govt Departments are the problem. This country has a known history of abuse of children by the state.

How the state could declare itself the first guardian of a child is beyond me?

The Irish State should not be anywhere near the top of the list when it comes to child protection.

I will be voting No. For child protection reasons.

[People Korps]

Miriam Cotton supports John Waters and Kathy Sinnott nuff said
<MOD - PK please discuss the thread topic here - politics of posters should emerge from discussion>
CF makes some credible points

[People Korps]

Bring back the hares we need some brains.

..mediabite official motto

[C. Flower]

Some interesting points. I have a few concerns about the proposed Amendment too.

For reference, here it is -

"PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A

Children

The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° Provision shall be made by law for the 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.
Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings-
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child."

Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/b...(Children).pdf

And here is the wording proposed to be replaced -


". 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. "

There seems to be some qualification introduced into the extent to which the State will protect the rights of the child - the usual "in so far as practicable" get out clause.

The amendment does not provide for a right for children to be ask to be removed from State care if the State fails in its duty towards children.

By and large though, it seems that passing the Referendum is not needed to pass legislation proposed on adoption. To use a well worn phrase, "if I was going to legislate for childrens' rights, I would not start from here." The rights of children to housing, medical care, education suited to their needs, and a good diet, are not part of this deal.

[MediaBite]

Miriam Hederman O' Brien has a piece in the IT this morning:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...326140875.html

MHOB sees no reason why proper legislation with necessary funding could not be used to achieve the claimed purpose of the amendment. She also points out that we have had referenda before that relied on future legislation which never materialised.

[Seán Ryan]

I wanted to stay out of the debate. I'll not be voting, as per usual, as voting gives legitimacy to an abhorrent authority.

The rights of the child... What rights?

This article States that children have "natural and imprescriptible rights." That's very helpful, not.

My jocks have natural and imprescriptible rights.

[MediaBite]

Disability campaigner Suzy Byrne has weighed into the referendum debate with a MamanPoulet blog post in favour of the amendment. I've posted a reply over there:

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/the-smoke...comment-432324

I'm posting my reply here too:



As a parent of a child with a disability I can say categorically that the state does indeed have a strong tendency to pathologise both parents and children with disability.

However, the piece above misses the point and is dangerously mistaken about what the amendment will mean if it is accepted. It is not merely about protecting the small number of children who are at risk of abuse – and who do indeed deserve real protection and rights. It is about establishing a principle in law that the state is the guardian of all children over and above all parents. That is a fact. There are no definitions in this referendum to qualify the extraordinarily broad powers that it would confer and which will be applied on a highly subjective basis and often in secret. The mere intention to apply this power in limited circumstances is not enough. The amendment offers nothing to increase accountability or transparency for the state and its agents. Let’s remember, please, that state failures have been appalling where children are concerned. It is the worst possible folly, given all the known facts, to hand an increase in power to the state without cast-iron safe-guards in place to prevent it from repeating its own abuses and neglect – or from misapplying its power without effective and swift avenues of appeal. None of those safeguards are in place. There are no infallible human beings who are capable of applying this amendment with the degree of perfection and unerring judgment that would be needed if it were to stand up to what is being claimed for it.

Meanwhile, it is also a fact that this government – Labour and Fine Gael – are deliberately impoverishing [many] children. The hypocrisy of its claimed concern for children is plain for all to see. Poverty is a proven factor in contributing to neglect and abuse of children. This is not irrelevant to what is being proposed – it is central to it. It tells us everything we need to know about the motives, likely interpretation and perspective of those who are behind this amendment. They do not own the moral high ground, nor the horror and concern at what has happened to so many children. Those of us who oppose the amendment have also worked tirelessly to protect and defend children. And to caricature our objection as a desire to refuse them their own voice is as insulting as it is inaccurate. When people are young or when they have certain kinds of disability, they must rely on others to advocate for them. There are so many more effective ways in which the state can and should intervene where necessary. In fact, it has had all the power it needed to do that and has failed to use it with deadly consequences.

Good intentions are not nearly enough. This amendment is a disaster in the making. Wanting to do something for children is not the same thing at all as doing the right thing.

Leave a Comment

[ang]

Update -

Dearbhail McDonald ‏@DearbhailDibs
#ccref #chref12 lots of ickle kids in #supremecourt for referendum info funding appeal. Five judge court in residence. #johnwaters here too

Dearbhail McDonald ‏@DearbhailDibs
#supremecourt hears that language used in #chref12 literature amounts to "open advocacy"

Dearbhail McDonald ‏@DearbhailDibs
Phrase "supporting families" doesn't appear in amendment #supremecourt hears in #chref12 appeal

Dearbhail McDonald ‏@DearbhailDibs
#crref #chref12 #supremecourt judge Adrian Hardiman notes Gvmnt docs don't address any conflict of rights