Children's referendum, have decided to vote, No

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!
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
most of those children that died were under state supervision! go figure.
 
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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
DaveD:
Apologies to those who may feel I was calling them thick.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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

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?
Click to expand...
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?
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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!
 

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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register