Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE WORDING for the Children’s Referendum has been released by Minister Frances Fitzgerald TD of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
The details of the wording of the proposed amendment to the Constitution, which is intended to strengthen the rights of the child, were published at 11.30am. The referendum will take place on Saturday 10 November.
Minister Fitzgerald said: “This referendum will change the Constitution so it: Protects children; supports families; and treats all children equally.”
She added that the Draft Adoption (Amendment) Bill has also been published, which sets out in detail how her department proposes to “address the issues of voluntary placement, the adoption of children in foster care as a result of serious and persistent parental failure, and the role of the High Court in deciding on such matters.”
The campaign for the referendum will include a new website, www.childrensreferendum.ie/ while information booklets will be sent to every home.
“This is a debate for all of us,” concluded the Minister of the debate on the referendum.
Proposed New Article 42AChildren
1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
3. Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
4. 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings -
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Can’t wait to see the nutjob Catholic fundamentalist types who come out of the woodwork opposing this. “The state is trying to steal our children and give them to the gays”.
I don’t see any mention of gays in the wording ?
Doesnt mean they wont say it phil.
Humour through hyperbole Phil.
I think that’s going to be the M.O. of the Yes side for this referendum alright: portray all opponents as backward religious types, homophobes and pretty much potential child-abusers. No need to convince people that change is in any way necessary then.
Giving the judiciary sweeping powers to decide when children should be taken away from their parents and put into the state’s care: tell me again how that worked out for those underprivileged kids that judges sent to industrial schools in their droves?
A lot of parents sent their kids to state-run care facilities as well. Or quietly beat or raped their children at home. To argue that all parents are wonderful is ridiculous. It’s about observing the nuance of each individual case not making, as you are, Denito, sweeping statements. State interference isn’t always a bad thing.
Agreed, state interference is not always a bad thing and if you read the constitution, you will see that where parents fail morally or physically to protect their children, the state has a duty to step in.
If the state (the HSE has principal responsibility in this area at present) had demonstrated up to now that it is even reasonably competent at providing protection for children, then I would happily be in favour of making it easier to remove children from neglectful or abusive parents. Look at the statistics for deaths of children in care, however, and you will see why I am skeptical about this measure.
Have you compared that to the child death statistics by abuse, however? Or incidents of childhood sexual abuse? I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that state care needs to be improved immeasurably, but the referendum would also impact children who are currently in care and ineligible for adoption. Surely if you’re opposed to state care, you would want these children to be able to access loving families?
Existing adoption legislation allows adoptions of children (including, as per the 1988 act, children of married parents) to take place where the court is satisfied that the parents of the child, for physical or moral reasons, have failed in their duty towards the child.
I think that’s a low enough bar to get over before allowing the state to permanently remove children from the care of their parents. I don’t agree that it needs to be lowered any more.
It should. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to. McGuiness argues in the Kilkenny Incest Report that state inertia is partially due to the stress on the marital family in the constitution. I’m really baffled as to how you can argue the current system is working, to be honest!
Don’t misrepresent what I said: the current system is obviously not working, but that’s not because of the constitution – it’s because of the woefulness of state bodies (currently the HSE) in this area.
I see no obstacle currently in the constitution to the state removing children from neglectful or abusive parents. The obstacles are all within the state authorities charged with protecting children.
Can you provide any references or citations for this? It’s certainly interesting and contrary to my own experience, but if you have good references, I’d be interested to see them.
For example, Baby Ann case would be a serious indicator that the current constitutional provision is less than ideal.
Well, apart from referring you to the relevant passages of the constitution, I’ve noted that the Roscommon case has already been mentioned in passing a few times on here and on the radio as a case that shows how we need to change the constitution.
This is in spite of the fact that at the time of the release of the report into this awful episode, Geoffrey Shannon maintained that social workers had sufficient powers to apply to the courts for removal of the children from their parents under the Child Care Act 1991.
As for the Baby Ann case, I’d refer you to much of what Justice Hardiman said in his judgement on that case.
Even though the received wisdom is that Baby Ann would have been left with her adoptive parents if her birth parents had been unmarried, Hardiman J. says:
“Moreover, it is neither necessary nor possible to decide what the result of any litigation, by the parents or by the proposed adopters, would have been in the absence of the marriage. But it would be wrong to conclude that but for the marriage the child would be left in the custody of the adoptive parents.”
He further adds:
“The Constitution does not prefer parents to children.
The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights.
This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child.
More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.”
I honestly see no reason why we need to change this situation.
I’ll refer you to the judgement of McGuinness (which you neglected to mention). Hardiman might not have thought there was a problem with the Constitution, but plenty of other judges thought it was cruel to take a child away from the only parents she could remember. As would most people.
McGuinness has long been an advocate of constitutional change in this area, that is true. There’s not much evidence, however, that “plenty of other judges” agree with her. I can’t see why her opinion should count for any more than Hardiman’s (whose opinion you omitted, no less than I did with McGuinness).
I omitted Hardiman because I think his words are incongruous with the results of the case. Do you honestly believe that the court came to the right decision in Baby Ann?
Martin: What if, based on this wording, it was decided that it was in the “best interests” of the child to take him/her away from gay parents?
The crux of the issue is who determines what is in the best interests of the child? It’s not so long ago that most people would have thought that removing a child from gay parents was in their best interests.
The open ended nature of the wording worries me.
The Baby Ann case had a particular set of circumstances that must have been uniquely distressing for all parties involved. It could be argued that in such a case there is no way to have a right outcome.
The outcome that did pertain, however, has seen that baby raised by the father and mother that brought her into the world, and I’m happy enough with that, while having tremendous sympathy for the adoptive couple involved, of course. When the child is older, she may well realise the full magnitude of what happened when she was aged only two and it is debatable whether even she will ever know for sure if the ‘right’ outcome was achieved.
If I were an adoptive parent myself, my views on the subject could well be very different although if you were a woman who gave up a child in her youth only to live to regret it afterwards, ;your views might be different too.
I think that the old adage “Hard cases make bad law” could be applied to the Baby Ann case.
Then we fundamentally disagree on whether the Constitution is adequate, as I think removing a child from the people who raised them for years is not in a child’s best interest (as has been stated by people who I know who were the subject of these kinds of court battles.)
And hard cases make bad law is a bit ridiculous in this situation. Can you imagine a single case brought before the case which won’t be hard? These don’t tend to be for minor reasons, which is why more flexibility should be brought to examine each case on its own merits.
Fair enough, I would differ with you and say that allowing a child to be raised by it’s own mother and father is, unless they are not fit parents, in the best interests of the child.
We’ll hardly square that one, but my fundamental problem with this change is that in saying that the child’s interests will be paramount, it is hard to see anything other than the state’s interpretation (whether that be judges, legislators or state agencies) of what is the child’s interest superseding the interpretation of the child’s parents.
I don’t believe that the state knows better than I do what is in my children’s interest.
But then again, you don’t abuse your children. I’m fairly familiar with the system in England (not a social worker, but work quite closely with them as a domestic violence worker) and the only reason I’ve ever seen a child removed from a home was violence either to the child or to the mother in front of the child. Parents who are habitual drug users don’t lose their children, but social services tend to try to support the child while in the family.
Obviously I come from a perspective where I see a lot of abuse within the home and so I support any constitutional measure to protect the new families these children have formed.
Nothing about where the children will be adopted to, nothing to state they should remain Irish citizens.
Does back up the fact the Government is trying to make its self the legal Guardian making the parent the child minder.
Is open to numerous counts of corruption considering the HSE is no longer responsible for the adoption process “they handed that to a private company” they also handed away the foster care to private companies. “It will be in the interest of the business to have more children adopted and taken into care for increased profits”
It also has no mention of actually giving Children rights other than the state saying they will be guardian and will determine those rights.
Absolutely ridiculous the cost of setting up a separate children’s minister and over two years research to such a small update. The UN charter on the rights of the child should have been the model which puts the child first whereas this rubbish puts the state first, then parents, then the child.
Nothing about the rights of the child in respect to race, religion, nationality, social status as they would mean a rewrite of the parts that explicitly contradict the rights of children – the especially article 42 in respect to the abuse of children in recent years.
It could be summarised as: “Steady as she goes to the religious, but we will decide if you’re a good parent and take your children away”
Is there any particular group or party opposed to this? And if so what is the argument against?
There are a few. Key argument is the ability of the state to remove children from the family, in certain cases. I think the argument is that those circumstances should be defined (although others say defining circumstances is not for the constitution, it is for the specific law put into effect).
The concern as I understand it, is what people have described already – “stealing children”. Also, a concern that the State exerts undue influence on how children are raised (e.g. If one is a smoker, will the state take my kids away? If I believe I have a right to smack my child, will the state construe that as intending to abuse them, and take them away? If I break the law, etc.). However, others have said this is merely rabble rousing and there is little evidence that such measures would be taken. Personally, I’d tend to agree. The State barely has resources to deal with children currently abused or neglected, so targeting or victimising families who are of little consequence to them is a bit far fetched.
I must confess, I would have liked to have seen something about the responsibility of the State to the children, given revelations of the past few days (and months, and years and decades). However, perhaps this is covered elsewhere.
I am a parent and fairly open minded about this referendum. So setting now to learn more about it and the arguments for and against the proposed changes.
Maybe it’s just my reading but I imagine the pro-choice lobby may be alarmed as ‘all children’ could be construed as born or unborn which could affect future legislation on abortion
Actually, people involved with Youth Defence have long been opposed to any kind of children’s right referendum, while I can name two people on this article alone who are frequent posters of a pro-choice slant and have just said they support this referendum. So unlikely.
Ok thanks Nick that was the only group I could think of that might have issue.
Hi guys would any of you know where I would find information about children’s and parents rights.
I have tried searching online and I’ve also tried via social protection (but being past from billy to jack) but I’m unable to get the right information thanks
Nothing about where the children will be adopted to, nothing to state they should remain Irish citizens.
Does back up the fact the Government is trying to make its self the legal Guardian making the parent the child minder.
Is open to numerous counts of corruption considering the HSE is no longer responsible for the adoption process “they handed that to a private company” they also handed away the foster care to private companies. “It will be in the interest of the business to have more children adopted and taken into care for increased profits”
It also has no mention of actually giving Children rights other than the state saying they will be guardian and will determine those rights.
It still falls short of the UN charter on the rights of the child in rearguards to education.
Could you elaborate on that please Sharrow?
Are you surprised, though? After all the court cases on special needs education, it’s quite clear that the Government wants to keep their responsibility to vulnerable children to a minimum in that area!
The UN Convention on the rights of the child should not be put into place here:
Article 2: Parents are not to punish their child in any way for actions or words contrary to their beliefs or standards.
Article 6: The government is to have the final say in everything concerning the child.
Article 13: Parents are not to place any restrictions on what a child sees, hears, or is taught, or experiences in any way.
Article 14: Parents may not determine medical treatment for their children, nor may they refuse State-mandated treatment.
Article 28: Parents may not educate their children at home.
The “best Interest” of the child in the wording here seems possibly subject to wild interpretation.
en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
Article 28 is on education and 29 on children living full lives.
Yes the bar on children of married couples being adopted which has been enshrined in our law needs to change so that the Convention on the rights of the child can be finally ratified finally after 23 years but there are still areas where we as State fall short.
Hmmm… Rearguards and Education….. Unfortunate phrasing
We had to wait how many years for this? I could have written that in an evening with a few beers on me.
Really? Could you?
You should’ve volunteered your services so and saved the state all the agro and time and money in the world.
23 years is how long, it was put away to be ignored just like the X case ruling.
I see forced adoptions just like in England
Do you want to provide citations of the “forced adoptions” in England and legal analysis of why this will be allowable in Ireland?
‘Forced?’ what on earth are you on about.
The changes in Adoption law will mean children like those abused and neglected in the Roscommon incest case can be adopted and finally have parents who give a damn about them, instead of being stuck in long term fostercare limbo.
You see a lot of things that most of us don’t, but that’s ok too Louise.
Re: Sharrow
The 1988 adoption act allows adoptions of children of married parents to take place where the court is satisfied that the parents of the child, for physical or moral reasons, have failed in their duty towards the child.
That existing legislation would have covered the children in the Roscommon case.
“. . .the State as guardian of the common good . . .” News to me.
Didn’t think about that when they had the idea of the 40 year bonds in exchange of promissory notes, could argue against that fact that it’s now the future children’s debt…..
Where the bit that says all members of the clergy are above the law?
It doesn’t say that in fact if the convention on the rights of the child are put in place finally it includes this
Article 19
States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
The most terrifying phrase you might ever hear “the State as guardian of the common good”. Would this be the same state that beggared us all to a life of debt-slavery? And who is to decide “the best interests of the child”? Current Irish society seems to have decided that being estranged from your father is in “the best interests of the child”. Looks like the schoolgirl gravy-train will keep on running.
Where’s Brendan Howlin when you need him, could we not postpone this minor update until we have the cash to run such a referendum?
So what does this mean – can I sell my kids or not?
Only after your kids have paid back the 40 year bonds.
This is a very positive proposal and one that, I have no doubt, will be overwhelmingly accepted by the people. Well done to Frances Fitzgerald and everyone involved in the wording.
What about the rights of children of unsecured bond holders?
Finally some common sense. Holding a referendum at the weekend means the kids won’t be in school and should all have the time to vote #childrensreferendum.
When they say “the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children”, is there a list of these defined somewhere?
No, it’s up to the courts to interpret this. The courts have interpreted many unenumerated constitutional rights down through the years (e.g. the right to privacy).
The Constitution actually already contains protection of the “natural and imprescriptible rights of the child” in Article 42.5. That particular part is not new. Article 42.5 also already provides that the State shall “supply the place of the parents” where parents “fail in their duty towards their children”.
These provisions are left open like this so that they can provide for any future eventualities that might not be imagined at this time. Once the courts interpret the Constitution as protecting a particular right, it becomes law.
http://www.paddydoyle.com/a-history-of-neglect/
Big money to be made in the adoption trade
If ever there was a scandal which called for the full glare of publicity it is the highly secretive system which allows thousands of children to be sent for forced adoption, writes Christopher Booker.
It is not generally appreciated how adoption and fostering, organised by social workers, have become big business – quite apart from the fees charged by those lawyers and experts who are part of this corrupt system. Adoption payments and access to a wide range of benefits can provide carers with hundreds, even thousands of pounds a week.
People who think this government does not have the money to take children into care think again money is created out of thin air by the people in charge to pay corrupt maggots lower down the ladder to commit these crimes against families and children, as Kathy Sinnot ex MEP stated they will take any child for any reason and if you vote yes every child in this country will be at risk of isolation rape abuse and torture!
The UNCRC is a Human Rights Treaty and therefore a legally binding Law that over-rides the Irish Constitution and all Statutory Law. It is no mere declaration that we worship children as many believe. It leaves 18 people in Geneva to establish laws governing EVERY country who has ratified it, that should be disturbing enough.
Most of the Rights like Child Trafficking and Eugenics are good rules but don’t apply to Governments. Child Torture, Child Labour, Child Soldiers etc are good Human Rights Laws. This document goes much further, it comes right into peoples homes and makes children Automomous. A child has the right to disagree with any decision the parent makes. Children can choose their religion and it cannot be forced on them by their own parents. Children have the right to contraception, sex education and even abortion without the parents knowledge.
The laws of every country can be changed by 18 people in Geneva and no Sovereign Nation has the right to do anything about it. The Irish are being forced to change Article 42 to be fully compliant with the UNCRC. I suppose we can rename “Parents”, “Birth-Care-Givers” or something equally Politically
Right, so is all that good or bad…do I vote yes or no. #childrensrightsrefo #imsooconfused
Just scanned down this thread. My first impression would be the lack of trust in the “State” esp. re: their ability to act for the “common good” of all. Secondly, the wording of the amendment seems to increase the “State’s” power to interfere with children (pardon the pun) rather than promote children’s rights. That seems to sum up most of the concerns expressed. I have a slightly different concern and wonder if anyone out there can share thoughts/advice. We are Home-educators, and as such are protected by the original constitution of Ireland which states “the parents/family are the prime educators” of our children. The inclusion of just these few words has been (thus far) sufficient to guarantee our right to educate our kids at home if we so choose. We chose this route eventually, with a lot of thought and anguish initially and certainly not lightly, and only after we felt the “state’s” provision in our area (rural small 2 teacher school, improperly regulated by inept Board of Management bullied by parish priest and principal etc etc, – familiar story in rural Ireland I believe). If the wording of the constitution changes, can the state now accuse us of neglecting our children by refusing to send them in to a badly run school? I have my childrens’ best interests and rights to a decent education held firmly to my heart and have stuck my neck right out by criticising school and dare I say it , teacher incompetence, nepotism and lack of transparency! I worry this amendment could be used by the powers that be to settle old scores.
The numbers of children being taken into “Care” are increasing dramatically, there was a 20% increase in the last year and coincides with the 20% increase in social workers being added to the payroll, so much for the myth of the social workers “shortage”. The goal of the HSE is to have 50,000 children in their “Care” in the next 10 years although the number of criminal cases of child abuse and or neglect has remained flat for years.
I would be happy to debate with anyone who wants to improve the system. To me, the solutions are fairly simple. Take investigaton of child abuse and neglect away from social workers and give the responsibility to Police. Social workers can then do what they are trained for which is advocating for their clients rather than prosecuting them. Take the legal profession completely out of the picture and replace the secret Adversarial System with an Inquisitorial System, no more Forensic Psychologists at €10,000 a pop to tell whatever lies they are told to tell.
Just stopping the HSE from being granted Ex-parte hearings in courts would have a huge success rate because Judges would be less reluctant to “apprehend” a child after listening to the parent. I mentioned this to the Minister for Children and what does she do? she brought in legislation to strengthen the ability of the HSE to receive one-sided Ex-parte hearings. Is she the Minister for Social Workers or the Minister for Children? Despite her talk of replacing the HSE with another agency it appears the ex-social worker has chosen her side in the debate.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Peace!
Joe Burns
Michelle you say “Take investigaton of child abuse and neglect away from social workers and give the responsibility to Police. Social workers can then do what they are trained for which is advocating for their clients rather than prosecuting them.”
As far as I know responsibility for investigating allegations of child abuse rests with the Garda and not social workers seeing as child abuse is a criminal offense?
@Kerry, you are partly correct. In cases of child abuse/neglect, there is a parallel investigation by both. However, if the crime occurs to a child in “Care”, the matter cannot be investigate by Gardai because of the In-Camera rule.
I know of a 15 year old girl who was recently raped in Irish State “Care”, and if either the mother or I were to report it, we could be jailed in a secret court for breaking the In-Camera Rule. As it stands, only the HSE can investigate the HSE and ONLY the HSE can report the rape to Gardai.
It’s also important to note that if you are accused of child abuse/neglect, that you will be tried TWICE in two different systems of “Justice” . You know what happens in criminal court. In a Family Court it is heard in Camera, you are not entitled to know what evidence will be used against you, “heresay” IS admissible, perjury and twisting of fact is allowed and the Burden of Proof is Reasonable Probability (suspicion). You are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone and you are gagged Twice. Gagged by courts that you can be jailed and gagged again by social services that if you don’t co-operate your visits to your children will be cut.
If you want to research the topic look at http://www.APS.ie
sad that it has to be put into words at all tbh.
It is now 13 years since the disclosure of abuse by Mary Rafferty of child abuse and neglect in state run institutions. Little has changed since then. Children should have their rights recognized. They should be entitled to their identities. Samples from the heel picks which can be used for DNA extraction,have been retained. Thus creating a huge DNA databse, unknown to most of us. It demonstrates more volubly than words the lack of respect for the dignity of children by those in control in our state. This issue was first highlighted by the Sunday Times, and has occurred at a time when the rights of parents are acknowledged. What will happen when the rights of the State supercede the rights of parents???
Oh Dear; this Government has screwed this one up! This will no way ensure children’s voices are heard and is only going to cause more harm than good! It does contravene article 5 of UN Convention of Children’s rights; as there is a strong emphasis on supporting families care for children and we are closing down such services!!
There is a group opposed to the Yes side in the referendum.. For more information go to….www.aps.ie. You will find a lot of information on this site.. For the record, there are 1700 children in Foster Care, many of these Foster Carers have not been vetted, 260 children died in the care of the HSE, some from unnatural causes, 500 children missing in state care some of which were found in prostitution. Wikileaks reports Irish children sold as sex slaves!!! Do the mat people, do I need to say more??? If you want to hold on to your Parental Rights and prefer not to have your children taken by the state and put up for adoption anywhere in the world, you better start to research and do your own investigations!!! Has the state always told you the truth?? Think about it!!!
2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
- and how would they mean by failing. Wee no by now that this government does what ever they like not matter the opinion of the people.
In the Irish independent yesterday I aw and article on the children,s rights referendum and what it basically said was that if you are a poor family and your child is smart then your children will be “adopted” by the wealthy.
We should no by now this government always has ulterior motives. This full statement of this should be sent to every household in Ireland?
http://www.change.org/petitions/supporting-the-irish-nation-step-down-from-government
are you aware that the UN is bogus and the STATE IN I992 RATFIED THE UN on the rights of the child know it ,to be unconstitutional. For any of you who think,that this REFERENDUM will be ok ref children. If passed ,THE CONSTITUTION IS GONE. No child in Ireland will be safe. Any one who thinks ,that because they come from a well off back ground,that their children will be safe, no and no. Once the constitution is gone for good. THE STATE ,CAN AND WILL TAKE YOUR CHILDREN AND THEY WILL BE SOLD ON ,TO PRVES, FOR SEX.RAPE, TO KILLED,LIKE A BLOOD SPORT. ITS HAPPEN IN THE UK , AND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. FOLLOW THE MONEY. [NOT RUDE EYES SORE]
Very shouty, isn’t she?
Have a thumbs up there Breda, just for the effort.
bURn thE WiTch…..
Can anybody tell ye what are the rights of special needs parent/parents and what are the rights for their child being allowed to stay with them.
I’ll just say I know more about the child care laws than most of u put together here!!
You can. Should be fairly easy for you to provide the requested citations for forced adoption in England?
Ok @Louise plz do tell us what are we missing???
You’re not doing yourself any favours there Louise. If you do know so much about it, fair enough; but you should back up what you’re saying with evidence. Just telling people you know loads isn’t going to cut it.
Ah the old “I know more than you” argument. Well if that is the case please prove it!
Frances Fitzgerald and her ilk are all that is wrong in this world, she is no different than the types that ran the state run industrial schools in the 40,s this is what we are voting for a yes vote is a vote for misery and pain for the kids on this Island
well said ailen8
Here en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
We signed up to it 1990, ratified in 1992 but we are still lagging behind in implementing it.
@Sharrow, Does the UNCRC actually protect children?
In other words, if you vote yes in support of the constitutional
changes, you are giving up the right to determine what is best for your
child and placing all decisions in the hands of Social Workers and the
HSE. In practice this means that for example; if you decided not to
vaccinate your child for MMR that Social Workers could judge you an
unfit parent, your child will be taken away and put up for adoption and
you will have no further contact with them. Sounds a bit incredible?
this is what happens regularly in the U.K. since Forced Adoption was
implemented by Tony Blair in 1997. For more information visit Ian
Joseph’s website Forced-Adoption.com.
Ian Joseph and John Hemming MP UK send many parents to Ireland to
have their children born here to escape draconian UK forced adoption
laws. Google
the case of Mark and Nicky Webster who lost 3 children to adoption
despite having been vindicated by UK courts.
Even the European Court of Human Rights have spoken out against these
inhuman forced adoptions. It is a money making racket and statistics
clearly prove that the number of white, healthy children being removed
for adoption increased dramatically while the number of “less desirable”
children DECREASED just as dramatically as the Labor Government gave
bonuses to local authorities to remove more children and get them
adopted. If you want to see the same thing happening in Ireland just
vote yes…and kiss your kids goodbye.
http://swconf.ucc.ie/blog/files/43b604e0127b501ff51b1345e8bbb239-3.html
if they pass this referendum they will privatise child protective services and when that happens profit is all that matters
http://swconf.ucc.ie/blog/files/43b604e0127b501ff51b1345e8bbb239-3.html
If they pass this referendum they will privatize child protective services and when that happens profit is all that matters!
There was me thinking it was aliens……
I personally cannot see any massive change between the old article 42.5 and the new art 42A; Specifically section 2(1) of the new 42A.
It is arguable that in practice there will be little effectual change. It may result in a more pro-active judiciary as they may view this as a step in which children must be respected even more so. This is especially so as a particular section will now be entitled ‘children’.
It is likely to pass. It’s true application and effect will take longer to be determined.
My view is that there will be little change with the proposed wording.
interesting reading…..so much to take in, but I think, for our kids sake we should all do a bit of research this time before voting, because once it’s voted in we can’t change our minds
What does it mean by “all children”? Children actually born in the state? The children of Irish citizens, born either here or abroad? Children adopted abroad by Irish citizens? Children resident in the state legally or illegally? Or just any and all children in the world? If it’s the last, how big hearted of us. Our lawyers are going to have a field day with legal cases coming here from all over the world. It seems a vague statement to add to our constitution, no matter how well intentioned.
Or children just on holiday in the State, or transferring from one flight to the other?
The irish version takes precedence over the english. So, print the irish version also.
Why would the irish version take precedence over the english version?
have your say