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!
most of those children that died were under state supervision! go figure.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?
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.
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.
Apologies to those who may feel I was calling them thick.
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).
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?You do know that quoting John Waters in defence of anything is unwise, don't you?
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.
There is a difficulty in getting social workers (especially experienced social workers) to work in child protection - it is really hard going emotionally.
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?
Are there any NO posters up?