# Children's referendum, have decided to vote, No



## thedaras (23 Oct 2012)

My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html

*He said he and other family members had been in touch with social services.*

*On one occasion, he said, the meeting in Naas ended towards 5pm and social workers "couldn't wait to get out the door" because they were finished for the week*.

*However, he said he had contacted social services about the welfare of his children a number of times a few months before the accident but nothing was done.*


----------



## ice (23 Oct 2012)

thedaras said:


> My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html
> 
> *On one occasion, he said, the meeting in Naas ended towards 5pm and social workers "couldn't wait to get out the door" because they were finished for the week*.



Buts its just him saying this...there is no objective person who can corroborate his view of whether or not the social workers had this attitude.

Also where was his responsibility as a father? Do we know if he looked for custody ? How involved was he in his children's life ?


----------



## Knuttell (23 Oct 2012)

The turnout for this will be very low,I have voted at every referendum/election local and National and not to sure I will bother with this,I find it wasteful in the extreme that they couldn't have held on a fitted a few other issues to be decided on and done them at the same time,the abolition if the Senate etc.

How many "millins" (sic) will this cost us?


----------



## shesells (23 Oct 2012)

If you're going to use one case to help you make up your mind it should be this one, the horrific story from Roscommon! [broken link removed]

In this case the state wanted to rescue those children from their abusive parents but the law was on the parent's side when it came to custody. THIS is why the law needs to be changed, too many stories like this. Also bear in mind that one of the massive supporters and financiers of the abusers (parents) in this case is a key figure in the No campaign (and Youth Defence reportedly). More than enough reason to vote, and vote yes.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Oct 2012)

thedaras said:


> My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html
> 
> *He said he and other family members had been in touch with social services.*
> ...


 
Hearsay of the highest order , perhaps it might be better to await the judicial decision before casting your vote ?


----------



## thedaras (24 Oct 2012)

I have read in full :[broken link removed]
And :
It appears to me that a No vote is in order.


> In general the Inquiry Team believes that *staff did not exercise their statutory authority under the Child Care Act 1991 to protect these children at the earliest possible point*.





> 4.18.1 The Inquiry Team is satisfied that that there were *sufficient risk
> indicators in this case to warrant an application being made for a Supervision
> Order at a much earlier point*. The lack of co-operation from Mr and Mrs A
> was apparent as early as December 1996 (see 3.3.2) .


On a separate note,I am not happy to give any more powers to those who are unable/unwilling/untrained, and/or do not exercise what is already available to them!!


----------



## T McGibney (24 Oct 2012)

shesells said:


> Also bear in mind that one of the massive supporters and financiers of the abusers (parents) in this case is a key figure in the No campaign (and Youth Defence reportedly).



link please?


----------



## DaveD (24 Oct 2012)

thedaras said:


> My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html
> 
> *He said he and other family members had been in touch with social services.*
> ...




So you are happy to leave other children that currently need help to be dealt with under the current system?

The proposed changes in the referendum can only improve a system which all too often can fail and no doubt legislation afterwards will need many changes to get things right but its a step in the right direction.

I too am usually unhappy to give those in power any more of it than absolutely necessary but at the moment the HSE can only step in when situations deteriorate to way past what most could consider unacceptable. There will always be staff in any organisation that are ineffective and don't care enough about their responsibilities but thats no reason to vote against changes that are attempting to help those who cannot help themselves. I speak from personal experience of children who are in care and first hand knowledge of their circumstances, and I don't work for the HSE.

I would ask you to reconsider your opinion and vote Yes, and encourage everyone who is apathetic to go and vote, even if its a No. The referendum is taking place anyway so make yourself heard.


----------



## dereko1969 (24 Oct 2012)

Your logic is incredibly flawed. The very reason this amendment is required is because of the difficulties the constitution is at it is now presents to social workers and garda to take children away from a dangerous situation because of the "sanctity" of the family.

If you're going to use 2 examples of questionable behaviour from social workers, I'll give you an example of a good one by my sister, a community child care worker.

A client of hers had attempted suicide (out of the blue) a couple of weeks ago, she failed but broke both her ankles. My sister called into the hospital to check on her and upon arrival discovered her trying to hang herself behind the curtains around the bed, she was able to save her life.

She wasn't required to have visited her, but she did because she cares like so many social and community child care workers. I couldn't do their job for the world, you are dealing with children from very disfunctional backgrounds, mostly by the time you deal with them the damage has been done.

Up to now, if you've tried to take children into care you could have certain Catholic groups defending the sanctity of the family as evidenced in the Roscommon case - do we really want to see that again?

I'm voting YES and I urge everyone else to do so too.


----------



## T McGibney (24 Oct 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> Up to now, if you've tried to take children into care you could have certain Catholic groups defending the sanctity of the family as evidenced in the Roscommon case - do we really want to see that again?



How will the proposed amendment change this? 

Will grandparents, aunts, uncles, or older siblings now be powerless to challenge a social services' decision to place a child into 'care'?  (Btw, what an oxymoron)


----------



## Firefly (24 Oct 2012)

thedaras said:


> My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html


 
Hi thedaras,

Voting NO because the current systems in place (to deal with what will happen if a YES vote is carried) are not upto your standard is not, IMO, a valid reason for voting NO. It is assumed that resources will be increased and standards/processes, like most things, will improve over time. The flip side is to leave things as is, which, as a parent, I find difficult to dwell on. 

Firefly.


----------



## thedaras (24 Oct 2012)

Hi firefly,in the Roscommon it was found by the inquiry team that there were in fact enough resources:


> 2.3.4 *Thus it can be seen that over a four year period the County was allocated an additional £1,302.6m, or € 1.653m, resulting in almost 14
> additional posts as well as some non-pay developments*. Successive first-line managers described service planning processes where needs were identified and bids were made for additional funding to meet those needs, but there remained a sense among staff that Roscommon did not fare as well as
> Galway and Mayo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Firefly (24 Oct 2012)

thedaras said:


> Hi firefly,in the Roscommon it was found by the inquiry team that there were in fact enough resources:


 
Then it was a process/"human error" issue. Again, not enough IMO to vote No...


----------



## ajapale (24 Oct 2012)

> _*Bean Uí Chribín*_ was involved in a High Court injunction in  2000, which stopped the HSE taking a Roscommon woman’s six children into  care.
> 
> She supported the woman in court. The mother was later jailed for  seven years for neglect. The incident came to be known as the  '_*'Roscommon House of Horrors''*_ case.
> 
> The abuse was allowed to continue for a further four years until the children were finally taken into care in 2004.


If a majority of people voted NO an the ammendment failed would it still be possible for people with similar views to Bean Uí Chribín repeating the 2000 High Court Injunction in similar circumstances?


----------



## thedaras (24 Oct 2012)

The WHB were involved with that family from 1989..yet 11 years later there was a High Court injunction in 2000..


----------



## blueband (24 Oct 2012)

anything that gives the state 'the enemy of the people' more power over parents is a bad thing, i will be voting no.


----------



## liaconn (24 Oct 2012)

It's not about giving the state more power over parents. It's about redressing the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. There are too many children being left in abusive or neglectful situations or being dragged in and out of temporary foster care for their entire childhood, or slipping through cracks in the system, because the rights of their inadequate, dysfunctional or violent parents supercede the right of those children to a safe and secure childhood in the care of responsible and loving guardians.


----------



## blueband (24 Oct 2012)

yes if they were indeed placed in the care of responsible and loving gaurdians, but look at the amount of children that have died in the states care over the years!


----------



## liaconn (24 Oct 2012)

blueband said:


> yes if they were indeed placed in the care of responsible and loving gaurdians, but look at the amount of children that have died in the states care over the years!


 
Yes, but one of the reasons why children spend so much time being shuttled in and out of state care and temporary fostering situations is because at the moment the rights of parents to retain their parental status no matter how dysfunctional they are means that children cannot be transferred to more permanent and secure long term homes regardless of whether that would be in their best interests or not.


----------



## The_Banker (24 Oct 2012)

liaconn said:


> It's not about giving the state more power over parents. It's about redressing the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. There are too many children being left in abusive or neglectful situations or being dragged in and out of temporary foster care for their entire childhood, or slipping through cracks in the system, because the rights of their inadequate, dysfunctional or violent parents supercede the right of those children to a safe and secure childhood in the care of responsible and loving guardians.


 
That is how I see it and that is why I will be voting yes...
When I see a few fundimental Catholic groups coming out with No Manifestos then I know I have to vote Yes.


----------



## dereko1969 (24 Oct 2012)

blueband said:


> yes if they were indeed placed in the care of responsible and loving gaurdians, but look at the amount of children that have died in the states care over the years!


 
As I pointed out earlier by the time most of these kids have been taken away from their families the damage is already done. 

How do you propose that these childrens lives could have been saved? Keep them locked up and supervised 24/7?


----------



## blueband (24 Oct 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> As I pointed out earlier by the time most of these kids have been taken away from their families the damage is already done.
> 
> How do you propose that these childrens lives could have been saved? Keep them locked up and supervised 24/7?


 most of those children that died were under state supervision! go figure.


----------



## Time (25 Oct 2012)

Are there any NO posters up?


----------



## DaveD (25 Oct 2012)

It would seem that all those posting here saying that they are going to vote No are badly informed (I was going to say they appear a bit thick but that might get me banned so I won't say it).

Several have posted sensible rational arguments for a Yes vote that are just being ignored so why bother, those that are "badly informed" don't seem to want to improve their level of understanding so maybe best to just leave them be.


----------



## T McGibney (25 Oct 2012)

DaveD said:


> It would seem that all those posting here saying that they are going to vote No are badly informed (I was going to say they appear a bit thick but that might get me banned so I won't say it).
> 
> Several have posted sensible rational arguments for a Yes vote that are just being ignored so why bother, those that are "badly informed" don't seem to want to improve their level of understanding so maybe best to just leave them be.



I think this is a bit patronising, to say the least. In any debate or discussion there are two sides and there are subtleties and issues that can weaken any argument no matter how rigorously it is constructed. 

Anyone who dismisses one side or the other as "badly informed" or "a bit thick" (which you did say) might themselves be accused of taking a simplistic or biased position (ie_ "don't seem to want to improve their level of understanding"_ )  on the matter.


----------



## DaveD (25 Oct 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Anyone who dismisses one side or the other as "badly informed" or "a bit thick" (which you did say) might themselves be accused of taking a simplistic or biased position (ie_ "don't seem to want to improve their level of understanding"_ )  on the matter.



I freely admit I am totally biased, and it is indeed quite simple, the referendum is asking us to help improve the rights of children. 

Apologies to those who may feel I was calling them thick.


----------



## thedaras (25 Oct 2012)

DaveD:





> Apologies to those _*who may feel*_ I was calling them thick.



Who may feel! You in fact did just that, if we all used your wording (see below) we could basically insult whomever we want on AAM..


DaveD :





> It would seem that all those posting here saying that they are going to vote No are badly informed (I was going to say they appear a bit thick but that might get me banned so I won't say it).



Due to your underhand insults ,I wouldn't bother getting into a debate with you.Apart from to say the following regarding your post:
DaveD :





> Several have posted sensible rational arguments for a Yes vote that are just being ignored so why bother, those that are "badly informed" don't seem to want to improve their level of understanding so maybe best to just leave them be.


According to you whoever doesnt agree with you,are badly informed and dont want to improve their level of understanding,if that is how you debate an issue,good luck to you.


----------



## DB74 (25 Oct 2012)

I will be voting YES, predominantly to do with the Baby Ann case from a few years ago where a 2yo child was removed from her adoptive parents and given back to her natural parents (who were university students when they had the child) by the Supreme Court. 

From what I can remember, the High Court had ruled against the natural parents in the case but one of the main arguments in the Supreme Court (legal arguments only in SC) for removing the child from the only parents she had ever known for her 2 years was because her natural parents had since married (having finished university without the burden of a child to hold them back) and because the "Family" is enshrined in our Constitution, this had more legal sway than any potential rights of the child herself.

Hopefully with the rights of the child equally enshrined in our Constitution, this will ensure that such legal argument cannot be used again in any similar case.


----------



## PMU (25 Oct 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> The very reason this amendment is required is because of the difficulties the constitution is at it is now presents to social workers and garda to take children away from a dangerous situation because of the "sanctity" of the family.


 
  This is incorrect.  As John Waters pointed out in relation to the ‘Roscommon case’ in the Irish Times on Sept 28 “At no time was any application by the health board rejected by any court, on constitutional grounds or otherwise” ([broken link removed]).  There appears to be a bit of a myth around that constitution prevents social workers intervening in serious cases of child abuse but that is simply not the case. 



dereko1969 said:


> Up to now, if you've tried to take children into care you could have certain Catholic groups defending the sanctity of the family as evidenced in the Roscommon case - do we really want to see that again?


 
  Again, there is no evidence to support this.  The Gibbons’ report does mention a ‘Mrs B’ and some local persons but ‘defending the sanctity of the family’ is not the reason Mrs A obtained the High Court order. 

In fact it doesn’t appear to be particularly difficult to take children into care in Ireland. 2,287 children were taken into the care of the HSE last year (an increase of 113% on the previous year), (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/number-of-children-taken-into-care-doubles-201087.html) and this would indicate that obtaining such court orders is not a particularly difficult procedure.  Neither does there appear to be any evidence of ‘right-wing Catholic’ groups frustrating the will of the HSE  (or if they are, they are not particularly successful).



DB74 said:


> I will be voting YES, predominantly to do with the Baby Ann case from a few years ago where a 2yo child was removed from her adoptive parents and given back to her natural parents (who were university students when they had the child) by the Supreme Court. From what I can remember, the High Court had ruled against the natural parents in the case but one of the main arguments in the Supreme Court (legal arguments only in SC) for removing the child from the only parents she had ever known for her 2 years was because her natural parents had since married (having finished university without the burden of a child to hold them back) and because the "Family" is enshrined in our Constitution, this had more legal sway than any potential rights of the child herself.


 
  Again, this is incorrect.  The Supreme Court judgement is available here (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...b43e456d7a8eea87802572250052b81b?OpenDocument).  The case is complex, but at no stage do the learned judges say the “because the "Family" is enshrined in our Constitution, this had more legal sway than any potential rights of the child herself”.  In fact, the  judges stress that it is “the interests and welfare of the infant” with which they are concerned.

  In summary, the main reasons (i.e.  the Roscommon case and Baby Ann case) for the proposed amendment quoted by pro-amendment posters,  (e.g. posts #9 and #28) are misinterpretations of the cases or are simply plain wrong. Neither does there appear to be any serious impediment to the HSE taking children into care. As for these ‘right-wing Catholic’ groups interfering in child custody cases this appears to be more of myth than of substance.


----------



## DB74 (25 Oct 2012)

PMU said:


> Again, this is incorrect.  The Supreme Court judgement is available here (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...b43e456d7a8eea87802572250052b81b?OpenDocument).  The case is complex, but at no stage do the learned judges say the “because the "Family" is enshrined in our Constitution, this had more legal sway than any potential rights of the child herself”.  In fact, the  judges stress that it is “the interests and welfare of the infant” with which they are concerned.



In her judgement on the Baby Ann case, Mrs. Justice McGuinness states

"On 9th January, 2006 the Byrnes intermarried. I have no doubt that their marriage reflected their commitment to each other and their determination to recover custody of their child; it admittedly also reflected their legal advice. Once the marriage took place the Byrnes became a constitutional family with all the concomitant rights and presumptions. The present Article 40 proceedings were then initiated. The central issue to be considered by the court underwent a metamorphosis; *it was no longer the best interests of the child but the lawfulness or otherwise of the Doyles’ custody of her.* When deciding whether the Doyles’ custody of Ann is in accordance with law it is no longer possible for the court to follow the original approach of Lynch J. in In Re J.H. – “to look at it through the eyes, or from the point of view of the child”. It is clear that the court is bound by the decision in In Re J.H.; the full rigour of the test established in that case must be applied." 

What the natural parents effectively argued was that because they were now married, they therefore constituted a family within the meaning of Article 40 of the Constitution and that now the "detention" of baby Ann by her adoptive parents was therefore illegal.


----------



## dereko1969 (26 Oct 2012)

PMU said:


> This is incorrect. As John Waters pointed out in relation to the ‘Roscommon case’ in the Irish Times on Sept 28 “At no time was any application by the health board rejected by any court, on constitutional grounds or otherwise” ([broken link removed]). There appears to be a bit of a myth around that constitution prevents social workers intervening in serious cases of child abuse but that is simply not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You do know that quoting John Waters in defence of anything is unwise, don't you?


----------



## Leper (26 Oct 2012)

I understand the referendum is to give the Social Services etc more power in the protection of children.  However, I believe that the Social Services etc have failed to adequately to protect children.  Many cases of failure have been provided by national newspapers over the years. 

What is the point in giving them more power?


----------



## PMU (26 Oct 2012)

DB74 said:


> I will be voting YES, predominantly to do with the Baby Ann case from a few years ago where a 2yo child was removed from her adoptive parents and given back to her natural parents (who were university students when they had the child) by the Supreme Court.





DB74 said:


> What the natural parents effectively argued was that because they were now married, they therefore constituted a family within the meaning of Article 40 of the Constitution and that now the "detention" of baby Ann by her adoptive parents was therefore illegal.


 
  You have been misled on this case.  It is incorrect to state that Baby Ann was removed from her adoptive parents as this never happened.  Baby Ann was never adopted.  The Supreme Court held that no adoption had occurred and no adoption could be made, as the biological were married. As for Hon Justice McGuinness dictum, this was very much a unique argument that did not find favour with the other six Supreme Court judges. Mr Justice Hardiman e.g. argued Baby Ann should be returned because of the way the adoption procedure had been handled and not on consititutional grounds.




dereko1969 said:


> You do know that quoting John Waters in defence of anything is unwise, don't you?


  I’m not defending anything – merely pointing out some factual inaccuracies on the Roscommon and Baby Ann cases that have crept into this thread. Waters' article is a good summary of the factual matters – you’re not suggesting he’s telling lies?


----------



## Gordanus (27 Oct 2012)

liaconn said:


> It's not about giving the state more power over parents. It's about redressing the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. There are too many children being left in abusive or neglectful situations or being dragged in and out of temporary foster care for their entire childhood, or slipping through cracks in the system, because the rights of their inadequate, dysfunctional or violent parents supercede the right of those children to a safe and secure childhood in the care of responsible and loving guardians.



It may not be too difficult to take children into care; it is however extremely difficult for them to be adopted into stable homes when the (neglectful/abusive) parents for whatever reason withhold consent.  Because the parents have ultimate power over the children under the present laws.  The result is that children either move back and forth a lot, or that they are under threat of being removed from the foster home at any moment.

So I'm voting yes.

BTW, there is a difficulty in getting social workers (especially experienced social workers) to work in child protection - it is really hard going emotionally.


----------



## Leper (28 Oct 2012)

Gordanus said:


> There is a difficulty in getting social workers (especially experienced social workers) to work in child protection - it is really hard going emotionally.


 
Then, why did they become Social Workers in the first place? My point exactly, the existing childcare system has failed.  Why (I ask again) give them more power?


----------



## blueband (28 Oct 2012)

yes why give them more power when nearly 200 children died in state care between the years 2000 to 2010!  anyone voteing to give this 'evil entity' more power must be nuts!


----------



## Teatime (28 Oct 2012)

Knuttell said:


> The turnout for this will be very low,I have voted at every referendum/election local and National and not to sure I will bother with this,I find it wasteful in the extreme that they couldn't have held on a fitted a few other issues to be decided on and done them at the same time,the abolition if the Senate etc.
> 
> How many "millins" (sic) will this cost us?


 
Why isn't the Senate vote included with this one? Surely that would get a higher turnout. How much are those wasters costing us weekly?


----------



## michaelm (28 Oct 2012)

I have no doubt that there will be a low turnout, but that it will be carried, and that I'll be voting No.

This referendum is an almost pointless exercise.  The Government want to tick a box on their 'Program' and it's always nice for morale to get a win.  They will waste teens of millions on this when we haven't two cents to rub together. This amendment wouldn't have prevented previous state failures, nor will it prevent future cases.  The state has failed many children and families with a combination of lack of will and misapplication of resources.   Also, although it all sounds reasonable, who knows how the Supreme Court might interpret this amendment down the line.

The only good point relates to the pretence that we should vote Yes because heretofore there have been constitution handcuffs on the state but henceforth those will be removed.  If people buy into this then, although it will draw a line in the sand and absolve the state for past failings, it will remove any excuse for the state going forward.


----------



## blueband (28 Oct 2012)

that about says it all, good post.


----------



## Wishes (29 Oct 2012)

Time said:


> Are there any NO posters up?



I have yet to see one.


----------



## Time (29 Oct 2012)

It seems a waste of money to be campaigning/postering on low turnout sure thing. 

Has any political party come out looking for a no vote?


----------



## Wishes (29 Oct 2012)

I haven't heard anyone campaigning against it either.  This is the quietest campaign I have ever encountered.


----------



## blueband (29 Oct 2012)

prpbably because most people couldnt care less, the whole thing is a farce


----------



## ajapale (29 Oct 2012)

Did anyone see/read the "supplement" in the indo today?


----------



## liaconn (30 Oct 2012)

The fact that so many children have died in state care is a good reason to vote yes. The reason so many of these children remain in state care instead of being adopted by people who really want children and can provide them with a good home is because currently natural parents have all the rights and the children have none. Therefore, no matter how hopeless or dysfunctional the parents, they have the absolute right to remain their child's legal parents no matter how detrimental to the child. Therefore, if the child has to be removed from the family home the only alternatives are foster care or institutionalised care. Foster care is obviously a good short term arrangement in a situation where a family is in temporary difficulties and just need some support and help. It is not a good long term arrangement and just leaves a child in a type of limbo where they grow up with no security, often frequent changes of foster parents, and being moved backwards and forwards at the whim of their natural parents who are often completely incapable of looking after their child properly.


----------



## thedaras (30 Oct 2012)

A child of 6 was fostered by a family friend,she stayed with them until she was 18,during that time they got a payment to help towards having the extra child in their home,they could not afford to adopt her even if that had been available to them.
They are not moved back and forward at the whim of the natural parents rather its the whim of the case social worker..
There seems to be this idea ,that having children adopted will solve all problems...it wont work,heres why:

Lets be clear ,how many prospective parents willing to adopt, will adopt any child over the age of 3? Very few Id imagine..most of those who wish to adopt want a baby..

Those who are presently fostering children ,get two things ,state "support" and payment..
Of those who are presently fostering , a lot are depending on the income to help pay for the extra child/children.

I dont think there will be the mad rush to adopt these kids, so where does that leave the kids whom have been told they would be adopted/ordered by the high court to be adopted?
There are constantly ads placed in newspapers looking for foster carers.Yet we have people travelling to China Romania etc to adopt a baby,because thats what they want ,a baby..

What about the kids who have been with the same foster family for many years,yet the family cant afford to adopt them.Do they get put up for adoption by another family who can afford to have them?

How will they feel about that? How will a family who have had a child with them for years feel when they and the child knows that adoption is an option,yet the family cant afford to act on it.
So in my opinion its unworkable..on so many fronts,adoption option being one,but number one,is the messy state of how cases are sorted,and the many cases where social workers have failed many many times is another.
Get the service sorted,the social workers on board and then we will make progress ,adding more rules to an already jammed up system which clearly isnt working,and where what is already there is not being implemented,is just adding on for the sake of it!


----------



## SarahMc (30 Oct 2012)

And those friends, who parented that child throughout her childhood, and beyond (I hope they didn't stop when the cheques stopped), couldn't apply for a passport for her or act as medical next of kin. 

As for how will a child feel about being removed from foster carers to carers who can provide a home regardless of payment - at least that voice will be heard should this amendment be passed.


----------



## liaconn (31 Oct 2012)

To be honest, Thedaras, I think there are situations where children below 3 should be put up for adoption with or without their parents' consent. I am talking obviously about extreme cases where, even if the natural parents do eventually sort themselves out, it would take so long the child would already be damaged by years of insecurity and trauma. If someone is totally incapable of looking after their baby, has multiple issues and addictions and is totally dysfunctional then their child shouldn't have to wait for 4-5 years before social workers can be allowed make the decision that the baby would be better off being adopted.
I know I will probably be lambasted for that opinion but I think its so unfair that a child has to suffer and possibly never get a real chance in life because of a reluctance to inflict hardship on the parents (with whom I would have sympathy but not enough to think they're 'entitled' to remain the legal parents of a baby they haven't a chance of looking after properly for a long, long time)


----------



## Firefly (31 Oct 2012)

liaconn said:


> To be honest, Thedaras, I think there are situations where children below 3 should be put up for adoption with or without their parents' consent.


 
I agree. There are plenty of parents out there who cannot/will not bring up their children in a safe and loving environment. I don't think we are talking about a HSE police force here removing children out of the home on a whim or over a minor issue. We are talking about children being abused and/or being grossly neglected. Even in such cases, the right for another couple to adopt said children will be a lengthy process anyway. In all matters, it should, IMO, simply come down to what's best for the child. I think this is a positve move for our country and will be internationally recognised as such (even if the support systems behind it are presently insufficient).


----------



## Purple (31 Oct 2012)

I'll be voting yes.


----------



## thedaras (31 Oct 2012)

I have read all the responses,and I have to admit Im tempted to go down the Yes road..
I have no doubt that it will be passed..

I suppose I just wish that the system was better ,that it would be enforced correctly and that the safe guards that we already have ,were in fact correctly implemented.
Having read a lot about it and listened to the various debates and responses on here,I think on balance and looking at who the yes voters are,I think I have changed my mind..not 100 %.


----------

