Sir, – I am of the opinion that the wording of the proposed amendment is flawed. I have made this opinion known to the referendum helpline (the girl who answered concluded our call by saying that she was “out of her depth”). I wrote to the Referendum Commission which passed my inquiry on to minister’s office (no reply as yet).
I am concerned about the use of the word “parents”. My opinion is that the drafters ought to have written “parents (or parent)”, alternatively, “parent, or parents”. There are many conceivable situations of risk to a child where best interests have been harmed by one parent. If the Constitution demands that “parents” must fail, the omission of “parent” risks further harm to a child at risk. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The record of this State in matters of child care and protection is no better than that of failed parents. It may even be worse. The most serious example of failure is that 196 young people died in State care between the years 2000 and 2010 and we still await a proper explanation of their deaths.
The State fails because it does not interpret and implement the provisions of the present Constitution and the UNCRC correctly and adequately. This happens because State agencies such as the HSE, the social services, and the prison services are bureaucracies which put legality before justice, who opt for political correctness before commonsense, and prefer theory before practice in their decision-making. Too often, they end up doing too little, too late for vulnerable children.
The proposed amendment in the children referendum does not guarantee better child care and protection. The amendment does guarantee that we will have more laws, which in practise means more confusion, more legal contests, more delays, and more costs. Are your readers willing to give a failed and failing carer more authority, more control, and more responsibility over children? If in doubt, vote No! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Miriam Hederman O’Brien (Opinion, November 5th) makes cogent and convincing points about the need for scepticism about constitutional reform in the area of child protection and children’s rights. She is correct in pointing to the fact that resources and detailed legislation are more important than inserting good intentions into the text of the Constitution.
But she is wrong in not conceding that deficiencies in the text of the 1937 Constitution have contributed, consciously or unconsciously, to failures on the part of those other than parents charged with legal responsibilities in the area of child protection.
More importantly, it does not follow from her well-founded scepticism about the value of constitutional reform that voters should vote No next Saturday. Voting No might just as easily be interpreted as approval for overstated and tendentious arguments made by others against children’s rights. It might also be seen as an endorsement of the position that seems to require people to be anti-State to be authentically pro-family.
The 31st amendment to the Constitution could have gone further, but it does add value and clarifies – at the level of fundamental law – the State’s duties towards vulnerable children in circumstances of parental failure. There is every reason to be “uneasy” about this being presented as a comprehensive solution to the problem of child neglect, but voting No may not be the most effective way of expressing that unease. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The national campaign being run by Barnardos, Children’s Rights Alliance, ISPCC and Campaign for Children is elaborate and no doubt expensive.
Is it appropriate to ask who is footing the bill for this campaign? And probably more to the point, should these charities be using such money for what is fast becoming a divisive political issue rather than using it to relieve the very obvious hardships that many children are now living with thanks to the repeated attacks on the supports they and their families rely on by the very sponsors of this so-called “children’s amendment”? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – There are those who have argued that this referendum is not needed, that there are adequate provisions in place for the protection of children in this State already. History tells us otherwise. As a country which has failed to protect its children in the past; whether from abuse in the family home or in State care, this referendum must be viewed for what it is. It is a positive step; it represents unprecedented recognition of children’s rights in Ireland, giving children independent legal standing and protection in our Constitution. It marks a point where our society has the confidence to recognise the legal status of children, creating a new culture of respect for the rights of the child, to be recognised by the most basic provision of law in our land.
In all the reports involving failings towards children, the recurring message has been that the views and voices of children were not taken into account in issues that involved them, a Yes vote will change this. This is not a referendum to “snatch children” or force vaccinations, nor is there a conspiracy to transfer parental authority to the State. To vote Yes would protect the most vulnerable children in the State, to ensure the failures of the past are not repeated. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – So Tom Moran (November 3rd) wants us to show the children of Ireland how they are cherished by voting Yes in the referendum. It might have been better for them if we had shown it over the past few generations by using the laws that were there to protect them. If it is the case, and it seems so at this point, that the State was not prevented by anything in the Constitution from intervening effectively in the many cases of child abuse and neglect over the years, then this referendum has more to do with assuaging the State’s and our collective guilt over this history of failure than with improving the lot of our children. Fixing a Constitution that is not broken, rather than fixing a care system that is, might serve to make us feel good about ourselves, but it does not address the problem of the neglect and abuse of children. And given this history of neglect and abuse it would appear foolhardy to provide a stronger role for the State in the lives our children when it has failed them so comprehensively in the past.
I am inclined at the moment to vote No. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In 2005 a Disability Act was passed to ensure that special needs children were not to be waiting any longer than a period of six months to be assessed. In reality, even before the economic bust, that failed to materialise.
As a parent of a special needs child and in my experience meeting other parents in my situation, it has always being a tug-of-war between caring parents and the HSE for our children to receive resources that the State is obliged to provide.
In the upcoming children’s rights referendum we are expected to hand more power to a failing State which is diminishing its responsibility in relation to the welfare of children.
If caring parents cannot receive basic services for their children there is no hope for children in State care. I’m voting No. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Enoch Burke’s (November 1st) central claim is that the State is effectively abolishing parental rights with the referendum. This is hysterical nonsense. The State is merely ensuring that it can intervene in a proportionate manner in exceptional cases with the safeguards of the court system.
Furthermore, his argument that the State will intervene where there is only a “likely” chance of harm to the child as part of some massive overreach is undermined by his citation of of Mr Justice Hugh O’Flaherty’s comments that “all – or nearly all – all of the objectives of the amendment are to be found in our existing Constitution, in ordinary legislation, or in court judgments.”
The State already intervenes in “likely harm” cases under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. As much of the referendum restates existing law implicit within the constitutional scheme opponents are left making utterly bizarre contentions; one hopes that the result will be a victory for common sense. – Yours, etc,