Sir, – Yet again the people of Ireland are being forced to vote on a constitutional amendment that will hand over more power to the State/EU. When you remove the veil of this referendum the EU and UN are standing there. In line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, proposed amendment 42A isolates the child from the family and appoints the State/EU (politicians, social workers, the courts) as the ultimate protector of our children.
Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman recently stated that Ireland’s Constitution already provides for “the wholly exceptional situation” where parents fail in their duty towards their child and it allows the State to intervene, “always with the due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child”. He also states that it’s “quite untrue” to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second. The preference the Constitution gives is that: “It prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights”.
A former Supreme Court judge has also stated that any new provisions, such as extension of adoptions, can be dealt with through legislation.
Strong family units have been and still remain the backbone of our nation.
Worldwide, our Constitution’s definition of the family based on marriage is recognised as the foundation stone of a stable society and “best practice” for rearing children.
The State can better provide for the rights of our children by removing the severe EU austerity measures resulting in 30 per cent of Irish children living in poverty; by protecting families being evicted from their homes by banks; by ensuring the ongoing funding of HSE treatment for sick children and appropriate care for those with special needs and especially by upholding the rights of Irish parents to protect their children, as currently enshrined in our Constitution.
As a parent and grandparent, in the best interest of our children I will be voting No to proposed constitutional amendment 42A. Our children are our present and our future and if parents lose their right to be the first defender and protector of their children, it will not be easily regained.
I urge you if you’re a “don’t know” please vote No. There’s too much to be lost. – Yours, etc,
Sir, John Byrne (Opinion, October 31st), writing of children in State care, stated that in 20 years he had never met a parent who did not love their child.
As someone who has also worked with children in State care, I have to concur.
However, and this is why we need a Yes vote on Saturday, neither Mr Byrne nor myself would have met parents who actually did not love their children for the simple reason that such parents would have made no contact whatsoever with their children in care. This, despite, in as many cases as possible, being requested to do by different State agencies acting in the child’s interest.
Social care workers would be well aware of the sacrifices made by parents whose children are in care, and whom they love, to demonstrate that love in the best possible way and at times against all the odds.
Sadly and unfortunately, however, there are some parents who not only do not love their children but, for whatever reason, maltreat them in a manner that ticks all the boxes for abuse. Levels and categories of such abuse has featured in the many reports of which we are aware where adults (parents in some cases and those employed by the State to care in others) have criminally maltreated children and so betrayed the trust that should characterise all that is best in the adult-child relationship, ie, love.
The proposed amendment, while not solving every problem, will strengthen and enhance the possibilities toward ensuring that appropriate intervention is taken when vulnerable children are clearly at risk. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Today (November 7th) I saw my first No poster. Is this a record? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Prof Ursula Kilkelly (Opinion, November 7th) states that the No side has been giving misinformation without providing any evidence of this.
Yet she herself begins her article with misinformation stating “On Saturday voters will decide whether children’s rights are to be inserted into the Constitution”. As professor, she well knows children’s rights are already inserted in our Constitution and are specifically acknowledged in Article 42.5, which is to be removed, and no additional rights are being acknowledged.
This same misinformation is being peddled by all those in favour of the referendum including the supposedly “neutral” referendum commission.
Under article 42.5 of our Constitution the State can supply the place of parents only where the parents fail in their duty and the State’s actions are limited as, the State must always act with due regard to the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
The question voters must ask is, “Why does the Government, which has failed to uphold the current constitutional provisions with regard to children, want to remove Article 42.5, a very powerful article which both protects the rights of children and the rights of families to safeguard their own children?”
The answer was given by Justice Adrian Hardiman in the Baby Ann case, when, in interpreting our current Constitution, he stated, “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.”
Our Government now seeks to change this by declaring in the proposed new Article 42A.1 that it is the State which is preferred by our Constitution and not parents when it comes to defending children’s rights and Prof Kilkelly notes this in her article when she makes the astounding statement “that upholding those rights (of children) is the State’s responsibility, rather than something that falls within the private confines of the family.”
What exactly does Prof Kilkelly believe that the family is for if not for looking after the best interests of children?
In fact, the best interests of children can only be taken care of within the family and in cases where the family fails the State seeks to provide the next best option.
Does anyone seriously trust this failing State with the competence to look after children? I wouldn’t trust them to boil an egg for any of my children! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – John Waters may not have been privy to the fact that the fostering allowance is also paid in respect of young people even after they reach their 18th birthday (Report on Frontline debate, Home News, November 7th), provided that they are in full time education. This fact explodes Mr Waters’s suggestion that foster parents purposely leave applications to adopt foster children until financial support is about to cease.
Lest anyone be of the opinion that foster parents are “paid”, the fostering allowance for each child allows foster parents/carers to meet the requirements laid down by the National Standards in Foster Care and Hiqa’s recently released standards document. What wage would adequately provide for 24/7 nurturing, love help and support, sometimes against great odds for 18 years?
Unfortunately, there will probably always be a need for alternative homes for some children, but the alternative of residential or institutional, as opposed to family placements, would cost the State €250,000 a year per child, if we were to be so crass as to only refer to matters financial.
Finally, if this were such a financial bonanza, surely there would be a queue of thousands of potential foster carers? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Treoir strongly believes that children’s right to identity and to relationships with both their parents are contained in the unenumerated “natural and imprescriptible rights” of all children stated in the wording of the forthcoming referendum on children. This is especially relevant to children of unmarried parents.
Currently children of unmarried parents do not have an automatic right to have their father’s name on their birth certificate or to have their father as their guardians.
This referendum, if passed, has the possibility of strengthening children’s rights and, by extension, the rights of unmarried parents, especially fathers. It will enable unmarried fathers to claim the rights of their children to identity and relationships and, by inference, their own rights. Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald has already stated this.
Forty-four per cent of first births are outside marriage. Treoir believe that it is untenable that these children are not treated equally with children born within marriage.
This amendment will not address all inequities that exist between children of unmarried and married families, but it is a first step in the right direction. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am still not convinced to vote Yes on Saturday. This Government, like many previous governments, has failed to put adequate resources into the care of children. There is nothing in the referendum to indicate that it will. This State has also failed in its protection of children by its (the State’s) abuse of children down through many generations. I don’t expect it to change overnight and therefore I will vote No.
This State has many different laws to protect children and many different laws to criminalise those who don’t look after children – it has failed to use them. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Could I make an appeal to those planning on voting Yes? If the referendum passes, please take a few minutes to get in touch with your local TDs and the Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald, seeking an amendment to the forthcoming Adoption Information Tracing Bill.
The Bill as currently worded does not give adopted people access to their birth certs, and the “information” we will get is of the useless, “non-identifying” type. Which is all well and good, I suppose, but it’s what every adopted person has always been able to get. So this Bill is the same as the ones already proposed by several ministers over the years, and rejected by adopted people and their natural families.
With the passing of the referendum which claims to put children’s interests first, the Minister will surely stop proposing to introduce retrograde legislation and will instead do what all of the professionals recommend – not to mention what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child calls for – and she will introduce a law that gives adopted people their birth certs and all of the information in their files. One can hope.
She might also think about introducing a law that allows for open adoptions. Because otherwise every adoption flowing from this referendum must be of the closed, secret 1952 Adoption Act type, and I don’t think that cutting off all contact with the family of origin can be in the best interests of the child in all cases.
Incidentally, some No campaigners claim this referendum will allow for forced vaccinations. Their fears are misplaced. Infants, prior to adoption, have already been used in vaccine trials – without the need for any referendum. The courts have decided that the Laffoy Commission could not investigate. Perhaps the Adoption Information Bill might allow those now-adult children to be told what happened to them? Again, one can hope. – Yours, etc,