Ditch the proposed Childrens Rights Amendment.

SirHenryGrattan

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
552
It's time to ditch the proposed Childrens Rights Amendment to the Constitution which will allow unscrupulous social workers unfettered access to your children and the right to seize children on spurious grounds.

Here is a perfect example of what will happen.

It's time to bring family law to book - Telegraph

The more I learn about this scandal, the more I understand why, in April, an Appeal Court judge, Lord Aikens, savaged the actions of Devon county council social workers in a forced adoption case as having been "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the west of England". The council's lawyers were told to read a judgment by Lord Justice Wall, now head of the High Court's Family Division, which condemned Greenwich social workers as "enthusiastic removers of children".

There is an Irish dimension to one of the cases.

It emerged that the doctor they saw had reported her suspicion about the child's fracture to Coventry social workers. The couple were put on police bail, ordering them to surrender their passports, forbidding them to be unsupervised in the presence of anyone under 16, and only allowing them to sleep in one of two named houses (the other being the father's family home). But because no charges had been brought, the social workers allowed the baby into the care of its Irish grandmother, a respected primary school headmistress. To avoid the baby being seized, she took it to her family home in Dublin, where it has been supported by a band of relatives.

Determined not to be thwarted, Coventry's social workers then asked the Irish courts to rule – in a case to be heard this week – that the baby must be sent back to them in England. The hospital doctor has meanwhile contacted the Irish medical authorities demanding that in no way must they carry out specific medical tests on the baby which might account for its injury.​

Do you think the Irish Courts should refuse to return the baby and tell the Coventry social workers to get stuffed?
 


Mossy Heneberry

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
3,818
Totally agree with you SirHenry. look at the State's record when it comes to child care, in cahoots with the Roman Catholic church and then we have the latest scandals with the HSE.

This is a terrible amendment but I guess people don't see it that way. What they see is the government is doing something so therefore it's alright.

Of course it will be passed eventually.

Look at the Barnados poll, the question is: Do you believe in changing the Irish Constitution to finally stand up for children's rights?

What a loaded question a bit like have you stopped beating your wife yet?


Barnardos - Ireland's leading children's charity: Children's Rights in the Constitution

Also may I add since when are the courts and medical practioners of Ireland under British jurisdiction?
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,376
It's time to ditch the proposed Childrens Rights Amendment to the Constitution which will allow unscrupulous social workers unfettered access to your children and the right to seize children on spurious grounds.
There is something deeply troubling about the way this is being pushed. I get the whiff of busy body social engineering rather than genuine child welfare.

Here is a perfect example of what will happen.

Do you think the Irish Courts should refuse to return the baby and tell the Coventry social workers to get stuffed?
Absolutely so.
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
Irrespective of the facts involving the parents, which are to be determined, it should be a matter of concern that a child was taken from the UK, by her grandmother into whose care she was entrusted, while investigations are ongoing.

Given that she was put into her care and the first thing she does is remove her from the jurisdiction, the Irish courts should order her return to the UK immediately.

Removing a child from a jurisdiction to frustrate the course of law is a very dubious.
practice and may have Hague Convention implications.

What if the relatives in Dublin declined to return her to her parents a la Elian Gonzalez?

A recipe for disaster.
 

jpc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
4,252
It is another "look we are seen to be doing something decisive" waste of time.
There is plenty of law pertaining to child care.
Enforce it.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
It is another "look we are seen to be doing something decisive" waste of time.
There is plenty of law pertaining to child care.
Enforce it.
I think it's more a case of "we need an excuse for having done nothing".

When the HSE claims it was bullied by a little old lady from North Dublin then you just know it was running out of excuses.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
Adoptions prevented

It is another "look we are seen to be doing something decisive" waste of time.
There is plenty of law pertaining to child care.
Enforce it.
My understanding is that children from troubled homes who would be better off adopted remain in limbo for years in foster care homes because their parents,usually completely dysfunctional people, retain the right under Irish law to resume parenting and refuse to let go. The childrens' allowance money incentivises holding on to children for the money. As children get older,their chances for adoption are reduced and it becomes more difficult for them to bond with adopting parents.

In the UK,the main problems are the secrecy of children's courts which can conceal injustices, the incompetence of social workers many of whom aren't sufficiently educated there,and the excessive caseloads and lack of support for social workers in dealing with violent parents.

Court secrecy may be necessary. Very traumatic Solomon like judgments have to be made on splitting families,judgements that could feed tabloid frenzies. Inevitably,some judgements are mistaken but that shouldn't mean that the judges should be vilified in the tabloids.

That said,courts should be very slow to separate children from parents except in emergencies and unless the evidence of abuse is compelling.
 
Last edited:

CorkHurler

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
545
I'd support the Childrens' rights referendum if we have a parental responsibility amendment in tandem with it. Parents who let down their children should lose their entitlement to state benefits.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
While I don't doubt the SS find this referendum a mouth watering prospect I think the Irish Public should be alert to an even more potent threat:

Under the proposed wording as it stands the State will be obliged to put the interests of 'the children of the State' 1st in any legal considerations

Besides the fact that we would really have under our own Constition the principle established for the 1st time that indeed some are more equal than others

- this amendment if passed would see a huge increase in 'asylum seekers' landing here - who - quite rightly - when their claims are rejected

- will push forward their children and have a cast iron case in Law to be allowed to stay under the principle of their childrens rights

- as under the Constitution so amended they would be under the care of the State (ie 'of the State') and thus have their rights put first.

Huge more numbers would arrive here trying it on if this goes through.

Forewarned is Forearmed.
 
Last edited:

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
Language proposed in the all-party report on a children's rights referendum

Article 42
1. 1° The State shall cherish all the children of the State equally.

2° The State recognises and acknowledges the natural and imprescriptible
rights of all children including their right to have their welfare
regarded as a primary consideration and shall, as far as practicable,
protect and vindicate those rights.

3° In the resolution of all disputes concerning the guardianship, adoption,
custody, care or upbringing of a child, the welfare and best interests of
the child shall be the first and paramount consideration.

2. The State guarantees in its laws to recognise and vindicate the rights of
all children as individuals including:
i the right of the child to such protection and care as is necessary
for his or her safety and welfare;
ii the right of the child to an education;

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in
view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum
education, moral, intellectual and social.

3° Parents shall be free to provide education in their homes or in private
schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

8. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour
to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate
educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide
other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however,
for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral
formation.

http://www.barnardos.ie/assets/files/policies_and_campaigns/constitutional-amendment-report.pdf
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
I don't see anything sinister in this and I certainly think its a stretch to suggest it will be used to bolster illegal immigration.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
I don't see anything sinister in this and I certainly think its a stretch to suggest it will be used to bolster illegal immigration.
I never said it would be.

It will be used as a lever to allow Asylum Seekers to argue quite legally that they be allowed to stay on the basis of their childrens right coming 1st

- and under the proposed wording they would be 100% right to make that point B4 the Courts.
 
Last edited:

irish_bob

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
7,542
There is something deeply troubling about the way this is being pushed. I get the whiff of busy body social engineering rather than genuine child welfare.

Here is a perfect example of what will happen.



Absolutely so.
its nothing but a vanity project for smug PC wooly liberal do-gooders , that fergus finlay is leading the charge should be proof enough of the kind of thing were talking about

eilis o hanlon wrote an excellent article in the sindo today regarding the issue , thier is nothing presentley in the constitution which prevents social workers or guards from dealing with children who are suffering in the home , perhaps if we had less proffesional hand wringers amongst the ranks of our social workers , thier would be less storys about two hundred kids dieing in state care this past two decades , changing a few lines in Bunreacht na hÉireann wont reverse this
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
I don't think this is being rushed. It was being discussed by children's rights groups over 15 years ago.

It will prevent the enactment of legislation/administrative regulations which downgrade the welfare of the children and ensure that when legislation is being drafted, the rights of the child are not neglected or downgraded.

It will also allow judges dealing with difficult situations, to ensure that the rights of the child are foremost in judicial matters. Too often, children are used as bargaining chips in family law. This would compel judges to prioritize their interests when the parents do not.

I see no relevance to the asylum debate. It confers no additional rights in respect of people here illegally.

As I said, I think that position is a real stretch.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
I don't think this is being rushed. It was being discussed by children's rights groups over 15 years ago.

It will prevent the enactment of legislation/administrative regulations which downgrade the welfare of the children and ensure that when legislation is being drafted, the rights of the child are not neglected or downgraded.

It will also allow judges dealing with difficult situations, to ensure that the rights of the child are foremost in judicial matters. Too often, children are used as bargaining chips in family law. This would compel judges to prioritize their interests when the parents do not.

I see no relevance to the asylum debate. It confers no additional rights in respect of people here illegally.

As I said, I think that position is a real stretch.
Asylum Seekers technically speaking are not here illegally - but if their claims are rejected (as 85% are) then using their kids as legal bargaining chips under this Amendment will work a treat.

The People pushing for this are quite well aware of this BTW

- they are not Simpletons.
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
Catalpa

If their claims are rejected, they have no legal basis for arguing that the welfare of their children demands that they stay. The law on asylum remains the same.

The law on children legally here will be affected. It confers no additional rights on people whose applications have been determined negatively.

Unless you are aware of some novel legal mechanism that I have missed or you are on intimate terms with a Supreme Court judge, I fail to see how you can posit such a conspiratorial interpretation with such impressive certainty.

Do share...
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,196
While I don't doubt the SS find this referendum a mouth watering prospect I think the Irish Public should be alert to an even more potent threat:

Under the proposed wording as it stands the State will be obliged to put the interests of 'the children of the State' 1st in any legal considerations

Besides the fact that we would really have under our own Constition the principle established for the 1st time that indeed some are more equal than others

- this amendment if passed would see a huge increase in 'asylum seekers' landing here - who - quite rightly - when their claims are rejected

- will push forward their children and have a cast iron case in Law to be allowed to stay under the principle of their childrens rights

- as under the Constitution they would be under the care of the State (ie 'of the State') and thus have their rights put first.

Huge more numbers would arrive here trying it on if this goes through.

Forewarned is Forearmed.
Paranoid, xenophobic and ignorant.
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,168
Children's rights is an economic issue???
 

SirHenryGrattan

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
552
What about abortion? Could this proposal be used to justify abortion on demand for minors on the basis that pregnancy would be detrimental to teenage girls and the rights of the child(or minors in this case) supersede all other legal provisions derived from the constitution.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top