'Miss D' case.

[Itchy]

Could the legal types explain to me the decision taken by the District Court today. Did the judge reason that the right to life of the unborn overides the 13th Ammendment? And also what is the basis of Miss D's case now that the HSE agree that an abortion would be the best for her?

Please note: I am not interested in the abortion debate just the legalities of the case.

 

[Glenbhoy]

[broken link removed]

See here - few rantish posts from both sides of the debate and a bizarre tangent into republican politics, but mostly pretty decent stuff.

 

[Elphaba]

in the sunday times today....any woman has the right to travel to england for an abortion so we're just exporting this problem, rather than have to deal with it.

 

[Z100]

[broken link removed]

See here - few rantish posts from both sides of the debate and a bizarre tangent into republican politics, but mostly pretty decent stuff.

That Republic Sinn Fein boy is some tulip. Please don't ever let me bump in to him in a dark alley.

(Thanks for the link, good stuff!)

 

[michaelm]

Please note: I am not interested in the abortion debate just the legalities of the case.

The upshot of this is that the High Court has decided that the State can no longer protect a minor in its care in that a minor may now leave the jurisdiction at will.

 

[Purple]

The upshot of this is that the High Court has decided that the State can no longer protect a minor in its care in that a minor may now leave the jurisdiction at will.

I agree that this is very disturbing and needs clarification. Perhaps we need to legislate to clarify the position since our last abortion referendum, after all it's only been 5 years!
It now seems to be the case that an eight year old in the care of the state can decide to leave the jurisdiction and there is nothing that social services can do about it. I think that needs to be sorted out.
Is this another example of hard cases making bad laws (and even worse constitutional amendments)?

 

[pinkyBear]

I'm sorry but I fail to see what the problem is here, a minor "with parental consent" was allowed to travel for an abortion.

The HSE although the child was in it's care, was not the childs guardian.
I know we are shoving the whole abortion thing under the carpet but the HSE, if they are not legal guardians do not have any say in this matter over a minor or an adult.

 

[Purple]

I'm sorry but I fail to see what the problem is here, a minor "with parental consent" was allowed to travel for an abortion.

The HSE although the child was in it's care, was not the childs guardian.
I know we are shoving the whole abortion thing under the carpet but the HSE, if they are not legal guardians do not have any say in this matter over a minor or an adult.

AFAIK being in the care of the state means that the state is the guardian of that minor. Otherwise what's the point? Otherwise if a child is in the care of the state due to parental abuse the parent can just move the child to another jurisdiction and continue the abuse.

 

[pinkyBear]

[broken link removed]

No - the only time AFAIK a parent relinquishes parental guidance is adoption and possibly long term care in a foster home... Short term care does not remove a parents guardian ship of a child.