Proposed amendment to constitution on children's rights and why it's ill advised

[princess terencess]

Also where exactly in our current constitution does the legal system fail children? whats missing.
As I see it, parents are the enforcer of childrens rights and that this referendum will remove that role and right of parents!!

[C. Flower]

Also where exactly in our current constitution does the legal system fail children? whats missing.
As I see it, parents are the enforcer of childrens rights and that this referendum will remove that role and right of parents!!

What Judge Catherine McGuinness felt, in the enquiry into the Kilkenny incest case, was that there were times the family was accorded too much authority and the child not enough rights.

Article 41 remains, saying the family is fundamental, and they try to balance it out with this :

2° The State recognises and acknowledges the natural and imprescriptible
rights of all children including their right to have their welfare
regarded as a primary consideration and shall, as far as practicable,
protect and vindicate those rights.

[princess terencess]

ok but isn't there another section which recognises the states due care to children and that they have the authority to interevene in the cases of neglect....not quoting word for word obviously so if the hse had evidence of neglect couldn't that section trump the parents rights section?

[C. Flower]

ok but isn't there another section which recognises the states due care to children and that they have the authority to interevene in the cases of neglect....not quoting word for word obviously so if the hse had evidence of neglect couldn't that section trump the parents rights section?

Do you mean at present ? Yes, I think there is, but it has been problematic.

I think the situation is that the constitution at present recognises the rights of the family as a priority, and the duty of the state to intervene under some circumstances ("parental neglect") but does not give full recognition to the rights of the child his or herself.

I share Mediabyte's concern that the State should not be allowed to run willy nilly about the place taking children away from families, but I also think the present Constitution has flaws.

[princess terencess]

This is where I am confused, I said in an earlier post that I was sure I read that children enjoy the same rights as an adult, which gives them absolute rights. So because by their very nature, not thinking with an adult mind but a childs, they cannot enforce or ask for their rights and here is the crux, its either the parents or State which acts as guardians to their rights.

So would it be enough to assert a childs rights is the same as an adults, which covers everything from property to personal etc in the constitution but keep the parents rights to rear their children.

Does this referendum remove the article of where the parents rights are imprescribale antecenant to all law....not exact words .

If you mean Article 41 - its included in this thread further back - they propose keeping it, although they admit there could be a contradiction beween it and the rights of a child in some cases.

[Baron von Biffo]

Frances FitzGerald still refusing to publish the wording for the referendum. Perhaps her strategy is to avoid divisive debate by only letting us see the wording when we're in the polling station.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...d-3209811.html

[riposte]

Perhaps her strategy is to avoid divisive debate by only letting us see the wording when we're in the polling station.
]

and maybe not even then....... as in the case of the "Fiscal Compact" where the large sections of electorate never got to see what they were voting on. It wasn't on the ballot paper.

[DCon]

FORMER Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty (and new Indo colunist) says there is no need for a referendum

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-3226227.html

[MediaBite]

O' Flaherty is right. Legislating for legally enforceable rights is exactly what is wanted if the rights of children themselves are to be honoured: the right to assessments, to adequate protection, to education (dsiabled childredn are neglected educationally to the point of abuse in Ireland in many instances) - and a many other concrete services. These all cost money. ANYONE who thinks this government is in the business of spending money on legally enforceable rights is in cloud cuckoo-land. Look what they have done to children already - slashing the welfare of single mothers so that children over 7 years of age no longer qualify!

This referendum is about a transfer of power to state bodies. It is a stick with which to beat the judiciary into interpreting law in favour underfunded and unaccountable voluntary and state agencies. Dangerous madness.

[Baron von Biffo]

Frances FitzGerald floundering badly on this on News at One now.