Children's referendum, have decided to vote, No

T

thedaras

Registered User
Messages
812
My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html

He said he and other family members had been in touch with social services.

On one occasion, he said, the meeting in Naas ended towards 5pm and social workers "couldn't wait to get out the door" because they were finished for the week.

However, he said he had contacted social services about the welfare of his children a number of times a few months before the accident but nothing was done.
 
Last edited:
thedaras said:
My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html

On one occasion, he said, the meeting in Naas ended towards 5pm and social workers "couldn't wait to get out the door" because they were finished for the week.
Click to expand...

Buts its just him saying this...there is no objective person who can corroborate his view of whether or not the social workers had this attitude.

Also where was his responsibility as a father? Do we know if he looked for custody ? How involved was he in his children's life ?
 
The turnout for this will be very low,I have voted at every referendum/election local and National and not to sure I will bother with this,I find it wasteful in the extreme that they couldn't have held on a fitted a few other issues to be decided on and done them at the same time,the abolition if the Senate etc.

How many "millins" (sic) will this cost us?
 
If you're going to use one case to help you make up your mind it should be this one, the horrific story from Roscommon! [broken link removed]

In this case the state wanted to rescue those children from their abusive parents but the law was on the parent's side when it came to custody. THIS is why the law needs to be changed, too many stories like this. Also bear in mind that one of the massive supporters and financiers of the abusers (parents) in this case is a key figure in the No campaign (and Youth Defence reportedly). More than enough reason to vote, and vote yes.
 
thedaras said:
My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html

He said he and other family members had been in touch with social services.

On one occasion, he said, the meeting in Naas ended towards 5pm and social workers "couldn't wait to get out the door" because they were finished for the week.

However, he said he had contacted social services about the welfare of his children a number of times a few months before the accident but nothing was done.
Click to expand...

Hearsay of the highest order , perhaps it might be better to await the judicial decision before casting your vote ?
 
I have read in full :[broken link removed]
And :
It appears to me that a No vote is in order.
In general the Inquiry Team believes that staff did not exercise their statutory authority under the Child Care Act 1991 to protect these children at the earliest possible point.
Click to expand...
4.18.1 The Inquiry Team is satisfied that that there were sufficient risk
indicators in this case to warrant an application being made for a Supervision
Order at a much earlier point. The lack of co-operation from Mr and Mrs A
was apparent as early as December 1996 (see 3.3.2) .
Click to expand...
On a separate note,I am not happy to give any more powers to those who are unable/unwilling/untrained, and/or do not exercise what is already available to them!!
 
thedaras said:
My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html

He said he and other family members had been in touch with social services.

On one occasion, he said, the meeting in Naas ended towards 5pm and social workers "couldn't wait to get out the door" because they were finished for the week.

However, he said he had contacted social services about the welfare of his children a number of times a few months before the accident but nothing was done.
Click to expand...


So you are happy to leave other children that currently need help to be dealt with under the current system?

The proposed changes in the referendum can only improve a system which all too often can fail and no doubt legislation afterwards will need many changes to get things right but its a step in the right direction.

I too am usually unhappy to give those in power any more of it than absolutely necessary but at the moment the HSE can only step in when situations deteriorate to way past what most could consider unacceptable. There will always be staff in any organisation that are ineffective and don't care enough about their responsibilities but thats no reason to vote against changes that are attempting to help those who cannot help themselves. I speak from personal experience of children who are in care and first hand knowledge of their circumstances, and I don't work for the HSE.

I would ask you to reconsider your opinion and vote Yes, and encourage everyone who is apathetic to go and vote, even if its a No. The referendum is taking place anyway so make yourself heard.
 
Your logic is incredibly flawed. The very reason this amendment is required is because of the difficulties the constitution is at it is now presents to social workers and garda to take children away from a dangerous situation because of the "sanctity" of the family.

If you're going to use 2 examples of questionable behaviour from social workers, I'll give you an example of a good one by my sister, a community child care worker.

A client of hers had attempted suicide (out of the blue) a couple of weeks ago, she failed but broke both her ankles. My sister called into the hospital to check on her and upon arrival discovered her trying to hang herself behind the curtains around the bed, she was able to save her life.

She wasn't required to have visited her, but she did because she cares like so many social and community child care workers. I couldn't do their job for the world, you are dealing with children from very disfunctional backgrounds, mostly by the time you deal with them the damage has been done.

Up to now, if you've tried to take children into care you could have certain Catholic groups defending the sanctity of the family as evidenced in the Roscommon case - do we really want to see that again?

I'm voting YES and I urge everyone else to do so too.
 
dereko1969 said:
Up to now, if you've tried to take children into care you could have certain Catholic groups defending the sanctity of the family as evidenced in the Roscommon case - do we really want to see that again?
Click to expand...

How will the proposed amendment change this?

Will grandparents, aunts, uncles, or older siblings now be powerless to challenge a social services' decision to place a child into 'care'? (Btw, what an oxymoron)
 
thedaras said:
My mind is made up,its a definite NO.. see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1023/mary-carberry-thomas-varden.html
Click to expand...

Hi thedaras,

Voting NO because the current systems in place (to deal with what will happen if a YES vote is carried) are not upto your standard is not, IMO, a valid reason for voting NO. It is assumed that resources will be increased and standards/processes, like most things, will improve over time. The flip side is to leave things as is, which, as a parent, I find difficult to dwell on.

Firefly.
 
Hi firefly,in the Roscommon it was found by the inquiry team that there were in fact enough resources:
2.3.4 Thus it can be seen that over a four year period the County was allocated an additional £1,302.6m, or € 1.653m, resulting in almost 14
additional posts as well as some non-pay developments. Successive first-line managers described service planning processes where needs were identified and bids were made for additional funding to meet those needs, but there remained a sense among staff that Roscommon did not fare as well as
Galway and Mayo.

2.3.5 Regardless of what discrepancies might apply to the distribution of
resources and the overall capacity of the child care service to meet the
population as a whole, the Inquiry Team is satisfied that, in this particular
case, resources, per se, were not an issue. In fact, as is elaborated upon
later, a plethora of services were involved in this family over a period of years.
One caveat is, however, the difficulty in recruiting staff which did have an
impact at critical points in the lifetime of this case. In addition, the Inquiry
Team was advised that on two occasions known to the Inquiry, that is in 2000
and in late 2002, there were other serious child protection concerns in areas
of Roscommon that required a good deal of attention from social workers. At
both of those times there were staff shortages.
Click to expand...
 
Bean Uí Chribín was involved in a High Court injunction in 2000, which stopped the HSE taking a Roscommon woman’s six children into care.

She supported the woman in court. The mother was later jailed for seven years for neglect. The incident came to be known as the ''Roscommon House of Horrors'' case.

The abuse was allowed to continue for a further four years until the children were finally taken into care in 2004.
Click to expand...
If a majority of people voted NO an the ammendment failed would it still be possible for people with similar views to Bean Uí Chribín repeating the 2000 High Court Injunction in similar circumstances?
 
The WHB were involved with that family from 1989..yet 11 years later there was a High Court injunction in 2000..
 
anything that gives the state 'the enemy of the people' more power over parents is a bad thing, i will be voting no.
 
It's not about giving the state more power over parents. It's about redressing the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. There are too many children being left in abusive or neglectful situations or being dragged in and out of temporary foster care for their entire childhood, or slipping through cracks in the system, because the rights of their inadequate, dysfunctional or violent parents supercede the right of those children to a safe and secure childhood in the care of responsible and loving guardians.
 
yes if they were indeed placed in the care of responsible and loving gaurdians, but look at the amount of children that have died in the states care over the years!
 
blueband said:
yes if they were indeed placed in the care of responsible and loving gaurdians, but look at the amount of children that have died in the states care over the years!
Click to expand...

Yes, but one of the reasons why children spend so much time being shuttled in and out of state care and temporary fostering situations is because at the moment the rights of parents to retain their parental status no matter how dysfunctional they are means that children cannot be transferred to more permanent and secure long term homes regardless of whether that would be in their best interests or not.
 
liaconn said:
It's not about giving the state more power over parents. It's about redressing the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. There are too many children being left in abusive or neglectful situations or being dragged in and out of temporary foster care for their entire childhood, or slipping through cracks in the system, because the rights of their inadequate, dysfunctional or violent parents supercede the right of those children to a safe and secure childhood in the care of responsible and loving guardians.
Click to expand...

That is how I see it and that is why I will be voting yes...
When I see a few fundimental Catholic groups coming out with No Manifestos then I know I have to vote Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top