Sir, – The Christian Solidarity Party has noted that the media and political party consensus on the proposed wording for the children’s referendum seems to indicate that they are unaware of the widespread concern of the vast majority of legally married parents on the downgrading of their existing rights under the 1937 Constitution.
This concern is there because there is no provision in the proposed wording for parents, whether legally married or not, to vindicate the rights of their child if those rights are abused by the State. Have the media and political parties forgotten that more than 200 children died during the period when the media focused the nation on the abuse of children by a small minority of Catholic religious and its disgraceful cover-up by the bishops? Indeed some of those children were murdered while in State care less than 40 years ago.
If there is no attempt to rectify this massive lacunae in the wording then we as a political party will oppose this bill and explore means by which it can be legally challenged in the courts. A former Supreme Court judge is on record as stating that children’s rights are adequately protected in the Constitution and by statute laws. One has to ask is there a hidden agenda under the guise of concern for children’s welfare to extend the power of the State. One has to ask how the State can find €3 million to hold this referendum when vulnerable children are being denied SNAs in some of the most deprived areas in the country and money is being denied to projects that help disturbed children in State care. –
Sir, – John Waters (Opinion, September 21st) expresses misgivings about the children’s rights amendment due to a potential “reallocation of existing family rights so as to give the State enhanced powers to interfere in family life”. He also expresses concern over a perceived bias in the coverage in the media so far, towards the Yes side and rightly, I believe, calls for a balanced debate on this issue.
However, not for the first time he accuses social workers of being “vindictive”, and of “abusing family rights”.
As a social worker, working in the area of child welfare and protection, I would like to share a few facts. Social workers in Ireland work under the aegis of the Child Care Act 1991, which states at Section 3 (1) “It shall be a function of every health board (HSE) to promote the welfare of children in its area who are not receiving adequate care and protection”.
Social work departments respond to referrals from members of the public, GPs, nurses, gardaí, teachers or anyone who has a concern for the welfare of a child. They are the people who request the intervention of the State. The job of the social worker is to assess the concern that has been raised, and offer any support to the family that they may require. In my own experience I have never come across social workers who are vindictive or who wish to abuse family rights. If that happened, families have the right to make a complaint through the HSE, the Ombudsman for Children, or through the courts.
A social worker may apply to a district court to have a child placed in care if “there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of a child” (Child Care Act 1991 Section 13 (1) (a).) In those circumstances the decision lies with the court. Families are always afforded the opportunity to obtain legal representation.
Far from having social workers’ actions “rubber-stamped by courts following the minimum of scrutiny” as alleged by John Waters, these cases are dealt with in great detail and social workers are scrutinised and questioned at length about the application before the court. Other professionals and family members may also be requested to give evidence. Such decisions are not taken lightly, and social workers consider an application for a care order only if all other options have been exhausted.
The last thing social workers wish is for is a child to be taken from its family, but the child’s health, welfare and safety are paramount. If a court grants a care order, the social worker will attempt to work with the family so that the child may be returned to its care, if and when it is safe to do so. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I have never used the word imprescriptible. I have never heard anyone else use it. I have never seen it written down in any book. Why then should the people of Ireland be confronted by it in a referendum? Was there no more ordinary word or phrase that could have been used? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Only days after the proposed amendment is published the battle lines are drawn; the fact that various commentators argue that this referendum is a battle between the rights of parents and the rights of the State betrays the primary reason the referendum should be passed; it is about neither. It is about the rights of our children and it is their voices that finally need to be heard.
From our inception as a State we have failed our children. We, the State, the church, families; we, the people of Ireland. This referendum should not focus on apportioning blame for this legacy of failures; there is more than enough blame to go round. Nor is this referendum a panacea to cure all ills; it is only a first step; a statement of future intent. That there are many other substantive steps that we will need to take makes this first step no less significant.
This amendment enshrines in our Constitution some basic principles that should have been self evident. 1. The State should only intervene in “exceptional circumstances” and by “proportionate means” to remove children from their parents’ care. 2. In cases of adoption, all children should be equal before the law. 3. In all cases regarding adoption, guardianship, custody and access, the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. 4. That in such cases, where possible, the voice of that child should be heard. The sad truth that the institutions of this State have failed, and continue to fail, our children is not, and must not be, a reason to reject this amendment.
If passed, the referendum will recognise the natural and imprescriptible rights of every child. It will make a real and practical difference in the lives our nation’s children.
Childhood is temporal; our children have already waited, voiceless, for far too long, they cannot wait any longer. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – John Waters is opposed to the children’s rights amendment on the grounds that a new set of constitutional rights for children might clash with the existing rights of parents under Article 41.1. He asks “What will legislators do? What will judges decide?” (Opinion, September 21st). Both of his questions have already been answered.
This potential collision of constitutional rights will not be a legal first, since it is inherently the case that the constitutional rights of one individual may clash with those of another. For example, one citizen’s right to free speech may impinge on another citizen’s right to a reputation, and in exercising their right to strike, teachers may impinge on a child’s right to an education. Many such conflicts have come before the courts in recent decades, so the judiciary will not have to reinvent the wheel as a result of this amendment.
In resolving these conflicts, the courts have always sought to defer to the will of the Oireachtas in cases where it has chosen to express this through legislation. In this instance, the Government has clearly indicated that it intends to regulate the implementation of this amendment through measures contained in the Adoption Bill which it published alongside the amendment last week. The courts will then be bound by precedent to interpret the new sections of the constitution in line with the provisions of the Bill once it is passed into law. Even in the absence of this legislation, however, the courts have made it clear that the rights of one individual cannot be summarily denied or unjustly attacked, as John Waters suggests could occur under the new constitutional arrangement.
Waters also suggests that the references in the amendment to the “exceptional cases”, where the parents “fail in their duty towards their children” are all ill-defined and open to a wide interpretation.
In fact, the new section 54 of the Adoption Act as proposed under the Bill would require a complete abandonment by the parents of their constitutional duties to the child for a period of three years before the State could intervene. Far from being ill-defined, this is a very specific requirement and would seem to set a very high threshold.
The time that it has taken to progress this issue was clearly well spent, since the wording of the amendment is exceptionally clear and legally watertight. While I appreciate that John Waters has admirable and strongly held views in respect of the rights of unmarried fathers in particular, his fears for the rights of parents as a result of this amendment are completely unjustified. – Yours, etc,