• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

How good parents will lose their children to adoption if the Referendum is passed


Grey Area

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
4,855
I provide an example of how this may occur.

Johnny & Mary meet fall in love and marry. They save up and buy a house. They decide to start a family. Mary becomes pregnant and gives up her job in preparation for the birth of the child. The child is born and Johnny & Mary are delighted. 3 months later Johhny announces that he has met someone else and leaves.

Mary now has no income, a mortgage to pay and a child to care and provide for. Mary makes an application for social welfare. Social Welfare advise her that SW payments are conditional on applicants being required to seek maintenance from the other parent. Mary asks Johnny and he declines. Mary is therefore obliged by SW to make an application to the court for maintenance. Johnny counters and makes an application for access (Johnny is offered access by Mary but he declines).

Maintenance - A person who claims One-Parent Family Payment is required to seek maintenance from her/his spouse /civil partner where civil partner is the parent of the child/ren or the other parent of the child. One Parent Family Payment » Operational Guidelines » Department of Social Protection
Johnny's application for access is the trigger for the child to be appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) normally a social worker. The GAL will be provided with full legal representation. The GAL will be legally obliged to seek to vindicate the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The GAL must do this in the absence of having the benefit of being able to converse with the child as the child is now only 6 months old. The GAL will be obliged to make recommendations to court in the absence of any presumption that the best interests of a child lies with its married or natural parents.

Removes any presumption that the best interests of a child lies with its married or natural parents in the context of adoption, guardianship, custody and access proceedings, and in this context having regard to the views of the child. Academia.edu | The 31st Amendment to the Constitution (Children) Bill | Oran Doyle
Therefore, the amendment introduces a new dimension to law in that it provides explicitly and for the first time that children’s rights are justiciable even when the family unit is intact and fully functioning.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109500011/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal
The GAL is required to meet with both parents. Johnny & Mary must disclose anything that is asked of them to the GAL. The GAL is entitled to obtain financial, medical and police records etc of both parties if deemed appropriate. Johnny advises the GAL that he is a new relationship and he wishes for the child to be adopted (thus divesting himself of his legal responsibilty to financially provide for his child for the next 18 years and potentially 23 years if the child remains in full time education). Johnny signs the consent to adopt form for his child.

42A 3. Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of
any child. The proposed change to the Constitution | Referendum 2012
"What happens, in terms of voluntary adoption, if one part consents but another refuses consent to place a child for adoption? What happens if the parents consent, but the child does not wish to be placed for adoption? Presumably the child’s view can be heard(according to Article 42A.4.1.ii) but how will this interact with the parents’ preference to place the child for adoption?" Legal Analysis of Children's Rights Ref Proposal
The court hearing date arrives. The Judge is presented with the case. Johnny (the father) has not had any access with the child for 4 months now. As a result he now wishes for child to be adopted. Mary (the mother) opposes.

The GAL submits that in the given circumstances from the childs perspective that the child would benefit from having two committed parents rather than one. That the child would benefit from living in a home free from social welfare dependency. The child would also benfit from the security of same. Therefore in the childs best interests the GAL recommends the adoption of the child as concurring with the childs best interests. The GAL can state that the Adoption Authority has a waiting list of over 1,000 would be parents who have been properly vetted and declared as being suitable persons to adopt. Most of whom are mature professionals, in longterm relationships, and are far better placed than Mary (the mother) a social welfare dependent single parent to provide for the childs overall welfare.

The Judge must consider the case having due regard to Artcle 42A and any subsequent legislation into account. The indicators are as follows:

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.
Having considered all of the above I suggest that the Judge will have no option but to allow for the child to be adopted.

The order of course will be subject to appeal to the higher courts which already have huge backlogs and therefore increase the likelyhood of the child being adopted against the express wishes of the natural mother.

On average 5,000 applications are made per year concerning custody, guardianship and access of/to children. If only 5% fall into this fairly average category it would mean 250 children could lose their natural mothers to adoption.

Is this progress?

EDIT

Background

Fifth Report of the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, A Report Submitted to the Oireachtas, Geoffrey Shannon, 2011 Report

In the ‘Baby Ann’ case, for example, MacMenamin J. applied the right of children to have decisions taken in their best interests when holding that custody of Ann would be granted to her prospective adopters, rather than her birth parents. However, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal, the superior court favouring the more traditional approach that the interests and welfare of children are best protected within the child’s constitutional (i.e. marital, birth) family. The inclusion of express reference to children’s rights and interests in Article 42, as proposed, will certainly temper this effect.

EDIT 2

A number of questions were raised as to the above that I think are fair to add in here. I was trying to keep the example as brief as possible but to help readers understand the issues a little better, as I see them, I answer the questions to hand posed by sondagefaux.

Your scenario makes an awful lot of assumptions, none of which seem realistic to me.

Why does the request for access trigger a GAL appointment?

The father makes an ex parte application for access as he claims access to the child is being denied to him. He is distressed at this and may seek to have the child adopted if access is not promptly restored. He requests the court to order a Section 20 report.

"the court may, of its own motion or on the application of any person, adjourn the proceedings and direct the health board for the area in which the child resides or is for the time being to undertake an investigation of the child's circumstances."

the health board concerned shall undertake an investigation of the child's circumstances and shall consider whether it should—


(a) apply for a care order or for a supervision order with respect to the child,


(b) provide services or assistance for the child or his family, or


(c) take any other action with respect to the child."


The Health Board (HSE) must now work on the basis that the presumption that the best interests of a child lies with its married or natural parents has been removed. They must act accordingly.

This all happens at District Court level.

Section 20, Child Care Act 1991
Why does the GAL attempt to push adoption?

Removes any presumption that the best interests of a child lies with its married or natural parents in the context of adoption, guardianship, custody and access proceedings, and in this context having regard to the views of the child. Academia.edu | The 31st Amendment to the Constitution (Children) Bill | Oran Doyle
The child would benefit from having two committed parents rather than one. That the child would benefit from living in a home free from social welfare dependency. The child would also benfit from the security of same. Therefore in the childs best interests the GAL recommends the adoption of the child as concurring with the childs best interests.

Why does the court rule that having married adoptive parents is in the best interests of the child?

The natural father has consented to the adoption of the child and the Adoption Authority has a waiting list of over 1,000 would be parents who have been properly vetted and declared as being suitable persons to adopt. Most of whom are mature professionals, in longterm relationships, and are far better placed than Mary (the natural mother) a social welfare dependent single parent to provide for the childs overall welfare.

What are the 'exceptional' circumstances in this case? How does being a welfare dependent single mother meet the constitutional test of 'exceptional cases'?

In a voluntary adoption situation, remember the father has consented to the adoption, no exceptional circumstances are required to be met.

42A 3. Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of
any child.The proposed change to the Constitution | Referendum 2012
Is such a status exceptional or pretty commonplace?

5,000 applications for custody, guardianship and access are made every year.

What evidence is there that Mary has failed in her parental duties to such an extent that the safety of her child is likely to be prejudicially affected?


The amendment states;
"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,
http://www.referendum2012.ie/proposed-article/
As you can see 'prejudicially affected' only applies to cases brought by the State.

In this case the natural father brought the case not the State.

If one parent voluntarily consents to the adoption of the child no evidence of parental failure is required to allow for the adoption of the child to proceed.

"What happens, in terms of voluntary adoption, if one part consents but another refuses consent to place a child for adoption? What happens if the parents consent, but the child does not wish to be placed for adoption? Presumably the child’s view can be heard(according to Article 42A.4.1.ii) but how will this interact with the parents’ preference to place the child for adoption?" Legal Analysis of Children's Rights Ref Proposal
As pointed out above this is unchartered territory no restrictions are proposed as to what courts may decide on these type of applications. That being the case the first port of call will be the District Court, an appeal of a decision of the District Court to the Circuit Court takes on average 5 months to get a hearing. An appeal of a decision of the Circuit Court to the High Court takes on average 8 months to get a hearing. Finally an appeal of a decision to Supreme Court takes any amount time you can guess.

At this stage the child could be separated from it's natural mother for a minimum of 13/14 months. Thus making it harder for the child to be returned to the natural mothers care as the case could now fall into the 'exceptional' circumstances scenario.

If you think safeguards in the proposed legislation exist read it and then explain where they are and what exactly does this section allow for?

Head 5: Children who may be adopted.

(1)(c) has been in the care of the applicants for the prescribed period (if any).

(2) The Authority, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, may make an adoption order notwithstanding that the child has not been in the care of the applicants for the prescribed period
under subsection (1)(c).”.
Realistic? It will become a reality now but you and I will never hear of it as all this will take place behind closed courtroom doors i.e. in camera with no reporting.
 
Last edited:

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,721
You left out an important part -

The general populace will be totally unaware of everything that takes place, since everybody associated with the Family Courts is bound to silence.

Having voted in favour of the referendum the people will be able to honestly say - "don't know and can't care".
As in the UK, the burgeoning child welfare industry will have the one thing that every business craves - unaccountability.
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
I provide an example of how this may occur.

Johnny & Mary meet fall in love and marry. They save up and buy a house. They decide to start a family. Mary becomes pregnant and gives up her job in preparation for the birth of the child. The child is born and Johnny & Mary are delighted. 3 months later Johhny announces that he has met someone else and leaves.

Mary now has no income, a mortgage to pay and a child to care and provide for. Mary makes an application for social welfare. Social Welfare advise her that SW payments are conditional on applicants being required to seek maintenance from from the other parent. Mary asks Johnny and he declines. Mary is therefore obliged by SW to make an application to the court for maintenance. Johnny counters and makes an application for access (Johnny is offered access by Mary but he declines).



Johnny's application for access is the trigger for the child to be appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) normally a social worker.

The GAL will be provided with full legal representation. The GAL will be legally obliged to seek to vindicate the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The GAL must do this in the absence of having the benefit of being able to converse with the child as the child is now only 6 months old. The GAL will be obliged to make recommendations to court in the absence of any presumption that the best interests of a child lies with its married or natural parents.



The GAL is required to meet with both parents. Johnny & Mary must disclose anything that is asked of them to the GAL. The GAL is entitled to obtain financial, medical and police records etc of both parties if deemed appropriate. Johnny advises the GAL that he is a new relationship and he wishes for the child to be adopted (thus divesting himself of his legal responsibilty to financially provide for his child for the next 18 years and potentially 23 years if the child remaines in full time education). Johnny signs the consent to adopt form for his child.





The court hearing date arrives. The Judge is presented with the case that Johnny (the father) has not had any access with the child for 4 months now. As a result he now wishes for child to be adopted. The mother opposes.

The GAL submits that in the given circumstances from the childs perspective that child would benefit from having two committed parents rather than one. That the child would benefit from living in a home free from social welfare dependency. The child would also benfit from the security of same. Therefore in the childs best interests the GAL recommends the adoption of the child as concurring with the childs best interests. The GAL can state that the Adoption Authority has a waiting list of over 1,000 would be parents who have been properly vetted and declared as being suitable persons to adopt. Most of whom are mature professionals, in longterm relationships and are far better placed than Mary (the mother) a social welfare dependent single parent to provide for the childs overall welfare.

The Judge must consider the case having due regard to Artcle 42A and any subsequent legislation into account. The indicators are as follows:







Having considered all of the above I suggest that the Judge will have no option but to allow for the child to be adopted.

The order will of course be subject to appeal to the higher courts which already have huge backlogs and therefore increase the likelyhood of the child being adopted against the express wishes of the natural mother.

On average 5,000 applications are made per year concerning custody, guardianship and access of/to children. If only 5% fall into this fairly average category it would mean 250 natural mothers could lose their children to adoption.

Is this progress?
What's the problem with that?
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,721

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,094

slippy wicket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
4,560
Judging by the outright liars, spoofers, lunatics and John waters on the no side, every sane person could do nothing else but vote for the amendment.

Some of the muck and confusion being thrown about by the no side has been disturbing to say the least
 

newport2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
485
Gray Area said:
How good parents will lose their children to adoption if the Referendum is passed
Johnny doesn't sound like a very good parent to me
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,908
It's just a Pavlovian response from the statists around here. You could have created an allegory about Johnny & Mary having to sacrifice their first born at the shrine of the state for the good of the state and to maintain the Plato-Hobbes-Hegelian diabolical paradigm and you would have received the same smug patronising short response.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,721
Because the best interests of the child are being promoted above the interests of the parents.
What of the interests of the family?

Do you also long for the day when children will denounce their parents to the authorities?
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,908
What of the interests of the family?

Do you also long for the day when children will denounce their parents to the authorities?
Indeed. Like "The Spies" from Orwell's 1984

"On the walls were scarlet banners of the Youth League and the Spies, and a full-sized poster of Big Brother. There was the usual boiled-cabbage smell, common to the whole building, but it was shot through by a sharper reek of sweat, which-one knew this at the first sniff, though it was hard to say how was the sweat of some person not present at the moment. In another room someone with a comb and a piece of toilet paper was trying to keep tune with the military music which was still issuing from the telescreen.

'It's the children,' said Mrs Parsons, casting a half-apprehensive glance at the door. 'They haven't been out today. And of course-'

She had a habit of breaking off her sentences in the middle. The kitchen sink was full nearly to the brim with filthy greenish water which smelt worse than ever of cabbage. Winston knelt down and examined the angle-joint of the pipe. He hated using his hands, and he hated bending down, which was always liable to start him coughing. Mrs Parsons looked on helplessly.

'Of course if Tom was home he'd put it right in a moment,' she said. 'He loves anything like that. He's ever so good with his hands, Tom is.'

Parsons was Winston's fellow-employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralysing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms -- one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended. At thirty-five he had just been unwillingly evicted from the Youth League, and before graduating into the Youth League he had managed to stay on in the Spies for a year beyond the statutory age. At the Ministry he was employed in some subordinate post for which intelligence was not required, but on the other hand he was a leading figure on the Sports Committee and all the other committees engaged in organizing community hikes, spontaneous demonstrations, savings campaigns, and voluntary activities generally. He would inform you with quiet pride, between whiffs of his pipe, that he had put in an appearance at the Community Centre every evening for the past four years. An overpowering smell of sweat, a sort of unconscious testimony to the strenuousness of his life, followed him about wherever he went, and even remained behind him after he had gone.

'Have you got a spanner? -said Winston, fiddling with the nut on the angle-joint.

'A spanner,' said Mrs Parsons, immediately becoming invertebrate. 'I don't know, I'm sure. Perhaps the children -'

There was a trampling of boots and another blast on the comb as the children charged into the living-room. Mrs Parsons brought the spanner. Winston let out the water and disgustedly removed the clot of human hair that had blocked up the pipe. He cleaned his fingers as best he could in the cold water from the tap and went back into the other room.

'Up with your hands!' yelled a savage voice.

A handsome, tough-looking boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing him with a toy automatic pistol, while his small sister, about two years younger, made the same gesture with a fragment of wood. Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies. Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy's demeanour, that it was not altogether a game.

'You're a traitor!' yelled the boy. 'You're a thought-criminal! You're a Eurasian spy! I'll shoot you, I'll vaporize you, I'll send you to the salt mines!'

Suddenly they were both leaping round him, shouting 'Traitor!' and 'Thought-criminal!' the little girl imitating her brother in every movement. It was somehow slightly frightening, like the gambolling of tiger cubs which will soon grow up into man-eaters. There was a sort of calculating ferocity in the boy's eye, a quite evident desire to hit or kick Winston and a consciousness of being very nearly big enough to do so. It was a good job it was not a real pistol he was holding, Winston thought.

Mrs Parsons' eyes flitted nervously from Winston to the children, and back again. In the better light of the living-room he noticed with interest that there actually was dust in the creases of her face.

'They do get so noisy,' she said. 'They're disappointed because they couldn't go to see the hanging, that's what it is. I'm too busy to take them. and Tom won't be back from work in time.'

'Why can't we go and see the hanging?' roared the boy in his huge voice.

'Want to see the hanging! Want to see the hanging!' chanted the little girl, still capering round.

Some Eurasian prisoners, guilty of war crimes, were to be hanged in the Park that evening, Winston remembered. This happened about once a month, and was a popular spectacle. Children always clamoured to be taken to see it. He took his leave of Mrs Parsons and made for the door. But he had not gone six steps down the passage when something hit the back of his neck an agonizingly painful blow. It was as though a red-hot wire had been jabbed into him. He spun round just in time to see Mrs Parsons dragging her son back into the doorway while the boy pocketed a catapult.

'Goldstein!' bellowed the boy as the door closed on him. But what most struck Winston was the look of helpless fright on the woman's greyish face.

Back in the flat he stepped quickly past the telescreen and sat down at the table again, still rubbing his neck. The music from the telescreen had stopped. Instead, a clipped military voice was reading out, with a sort of brutal relish, a description of the armaments of the new Floating Fortress which had just been anchored between lceland and the Faroe lslands.

With those children, he thought, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy. Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother -- it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak -- 'child hero' was the phrase generally used -- had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police. "
 

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,741
You left out an important part -

The general populace will be totally unaware of everything that takes place, since everybody associated with the Family Courts is bound to silence.

Having voted in favour of the referendum the people will be able to honestly say - "don't know and can't care".
As in the UK, the burgeoning child welfare industry will have the one thing that every business craves - unaccountability.
You are Bang on the money, the social worker on Drivetime today is voting NO - he explained about one of the children that he was looking after died , he alerted his superiors to possible drug use and nothing happened, she was found dead 3 months later and nobody got fired or reprimanded. This is a scandal of a referendum and the same sickening propaganda as used by the pro-abortion crowd is being deployed. Namely falsely cloaking themselves as the compassionate side when clearly they want to obliterate any family rights regarding children. (or just obliterate unborn children in the case of the abortion shower)

If that girls parents were married surely they could take a case against the state for the death of their child ? irrespective of any waiver they signed as this waiver may be repugnant to the constitution and its protection of the family.

Where was the accountability for all the dreadful failings in Roscommon, Kilkenny ? nowhere, voting yes just gives them total immunity to do what ever the hell they want.
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,469
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

Gerald Ford
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
It's just a Pavlovian response from the statists around here. You could have created an allegory about Johnny & Mary having to sacrifice their first born at the shrine of the state for the good of the state and to maintain the Plato-Hobbes-Hegelian diabolical paradigm and you would have received the same smug patronising short response.
How ironic.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
What of the interests of the family?

Do you also long for the day when children will denounce their parents to the authorities?
We should care more about the interests of individual actual people than the interests of concepts. The interests of the family are important only to the extent that they further the interests of the members of the family.
 
Top