Yet again, our children have managed to illustrate the annoying capacity not to do what we say, but to do what we do. The report on the state of the nation's children shows that our children provide us with faithful mirrors of our own failings. Just like adults, some of our young people are apparently deeply happy and at the same time, misusing alcohol and drugs at a record rate, writes Breda O'Brien
We know that there is something askew here, but finding solutions demands a degree of soul-searching that many of us balk at.
Our avowed commitment to children is not always translated into actions to improve their lives. Care needs to be taken that the proposed children's rights amendment does not fall into the category of worthy sentiment as a substitute for real action.
As far back as 1919, the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil affirmed that it was the first duty of the Republic "to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food or clothing or shelter, that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland". Of course, after 1919 children continued to leave school at 12 or 14.
Some blame the failure to translate rhetoric about the welfare of children into action on the sea-change between 1919 and the framing of the 1937 Constitution. In the Constitution, the emphasis seems to be less on individual rights of family members than on protecting the family from unwarranted interference by the State. Some, like Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness when writing about the Kilkenny incest investigation, suggested that the very high emphasis on the rights of the family may have been consciously or unconsciously interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights of parents than to the rights of children.
Yet is that true? Does the fault lie in the family-focused 1937 Constitution? After all, the preamble to the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is just as family focused: "The family as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community."
The fault lies more in a culture that does not truly value children. Article 42.5 allows the State to intervene in "exceptional cases" where the parents fail in their duty for "physical or moral reasons". This gave the State a mandate both in Kilkenny incest case and the McColgan case. How much more "exceptional" can you get than a nine-year-old girl with a broken nose sitting smiling in a hospital bed, because the injury had temporarily placed her beyond reach of her vicious and depraved father, and she thought she was now safe? Instead, Sophia McColgan was to be returned to the hell that she, her siblings and her mother inhabited. The review group that examined the failures in the McColgan case acknowledged that that the north western health board did have the legal means at its disposal to take action to protect the children. The problem was that the management had failed to co-ordinate its response to the evidence of abuse, did not marshal all the information and did not properly brief lawyers. In short, the mandate was there, but the will to enforce it was not.
We go on failing children. Certainly, things have improved, and no one could doubt the commitment and work ethic of Brian Lenihan as Minister of State with responsibility for children. However, glaring gaps remain. During the week, I attended a rally on suicide held by 3Ts (Turning The Tide of Suicide). A litany of broken promises regarding the provision of psychiatric beds for adolescents was recited. The last such promise was that four 20-bed units would be in operation by the end of 2007.
As Prof Kevin Malone said, 2010 is probably a better estimate of when they will be opened. Meanwhile, children continue to be inappropriately placed in adult wards.
One mother told a heartbreaking story of losing her 15-year-old son, an only child, to suicide. At one stage shortly before his death, he spent a week in a locked adult ward, and even after he moved to an open ward, he found hospital intolerable. Suicide is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon, and it would be facile to blame his death on this. However, it is not facile to state the obvious: that young people will fare better in units designed for their needs, and that the stigma attached to going into hospital for treatment for mental illness would be considerably reduced if such units existed.
The proposed changes to the Constitution fall loosely into two categories, that of child protection against abuse of various kinds, and the State's ability to intervene when a family fails a child or children. How will the proposed amendments help in situations where the State fails children? There are many, many situations where the family, far from being dysfunctional, is fighting fiercely to secure the rights of a child, and the State is resisting all the way. The fight to vindicate the rights of children with disabilities to an education springs to mind. Even in extreme cases, where families are unable to provide for children, sometimes it is as a result of prolonged failure by the State to resource support services for families. Will this amendment allow greater pressure to be placed on the State to provide adequate services?
Some campaigners for children's rights have very understandably expressed frustration at those who urge caution and greater debate. We have been looking for a referendum on children's rights since 1993, they say.
However, it is important that a laudable urge to secure children's rights does not stifle debate. It is easier to change a constitution than to change a culture.
As we have seen before, noble sentiments in a constitution do not always translate into action for the welfare of our children.