509LikesHopefully, even if this amendment is not passed, the HSE react properly if abusive married parents are ever granted an ex parte injunction.Originally Posted by Didimus
Hopefully, even if this amendment is not passed, the HSE react properly if abusive married parents are ever granted an ex parte injunction.
Insofar such brake is not duress to your benefit to stay in ireland otherwise vicarious disqualification might carry the day on that, I tell yah.
The issue is that if it is possible to take such an injunction, it is also possible that the court would rule in favour of the parents based on the constitution as it now is.
The current legal situation has a degree of uncertainty to it and the amendment does away with this uncertainty in a measured way.
Those who oppose it have been less than clear as to what dangers it may bring.
Well Hardiman J does not agree with you. As he pointed out in the Baby Ann case:
1. There are certain misapprehensions on which repeated and unchallenged public airings have conferred undeserved currency.
2. One of these relates to the position of children in the Constitution. It would be quite untrue to say that the Constitution puts the rights of parents first and those of children second.
3. It fully acknowledges the “natural and imprescriptible rights” and the human dignity, of children, but equally recognises the inescapable fact that a young child cannot exercise his or her own rights.
4. The Constitution does not prefer parents to children.
5. The preference the Constitution gives is this: it prefers parents to third parties, official or private, priest or social worker, as the enablers and guardians of the child’s rights.
6. This preference has its limitations: parents cannot, for example, ignore the responsibility of educating their child.
7. More fundamentally, the Constitution provides for the wholly exceptional situation where, for physical or moral reasons, parents fail in their duty towards their child. Then, indeed, the State must intervene and endeavour to supply the place of the parents, always with due regard to the rights of the child.
The way we swipe kid we might aswell swipe wife for the use of others, and we can all face court judge in defiance to natural justice especially a low sperm counter, haha.
Judge Hardiman may well be right but his opinion does not form a binding Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
Again I asked you to point out my dissimulation?
The position that Hardiman outlines will only be reinforced by the amendment so what is the problem?
As an undecided here's where I'm at at the moment:
Case for voting yes: Some children need to be taken from their parents. Perhaps had some of those who terrorised me some years ago with anti-social behaviour been taken from negligent parents probably more interested in partying than parenting then I would not have had to put up with it.
Case for voting no: - The leftist ideology of public-servants may result in parents who try to control anti social behaviour by their children losing their children if they use corporal punishment to that end.
- The State was at least half to blame for child abuse in the industrial schools by confining them there. An empowered bureaucracy of judges and social workers could open the floodgates to secular child-abuse.
- The "imprescriptible" rights of children in the first paragraph are not defined therein. Too much of a risk to parent's rights - in particular to discipline unruly children. Something of a risk of more asylum-interference by judges.
Last edited by Dame_Enda; 30th September 2012 at 06:54 PM.
You are trying to create the false impression that the exparte hearing (strategy occasionally used as a temporary staying measue) was a full hearing of both sides to the case. The case was not decided at the exparte hearing. Because of the in camera restriction noboby knows what went on or the basis for the judge putting a stay on District Court proceedings.
That is opinion, not a fact. The amendment, in my opinion, has 3 elements:The position that Hardiman outlines will only be reinforced by the amendment so what is the problem?
- Welfare
Adoption
Voice of the child
Welfare is adequately catered for by the Constitution as is - the has been pointed out by Hugh O'Flaherty, as well as Hardiman J.
There is no restriction on our courts at present to listen to children in family law cases, and the courts regularly do. The Constitution allows for it, as does the Sahin v Germany Grand Chamber judgement of the European Court of Human Rights.
These two issues above are but a smokescreen in order to use the adoption issue as a 'Trojan horse' in order to break the link between children and their biological parents, as a result of Catherine McGuinness not getting her way in the Baby Ann case. In this case there was a choice between 2 sets of good parents. Rightly Judges Murray, Hardiman, Fennelly and Geoghegan agreed that it was in the best interests of Baby Ann that she be restored to her parents.
While agreeing with the restoration of Baby Ann to her parents, McGuinness did so because of tha fact that the natural parents were married, and because of that she stated that the decision was 'no longer about what was in the best interests of the child'.
It is for this reason that McGuinness is leading the charge to break the link (which Fennelly, Murray, Hardiman and Geoghegan all agreed that this was a very important factor) between the child and her natural parents.
McGuinness' position is an ideological one for which there is no empirical support. The judges right implied that there was no grounds for invoking Art. 42.5 .
You seem to be leaning towards the No vote.
I only stated the basis on which the application was made and said nothing about the case apart from that.
The relevant adoption part of the text says
That is opinion, not a fact. The amendment, in my opinion, has 3 elements:
- Welfare
Adoption
Voice of the child
Welfare is adequately catered for by the Constitution as is - the has been pointed out by Hugh O'Flaherty, as well as Hardiman J.
There is no restriction on our courts at present to listen to children in family law cases, and the courts regularly do. The Constitution allows for it, as does the Sahin v Germany Grand Chamber judgement of the European Court of Human Rights.
These two issues above are but a smokescreen in order to use the adoption issue as a 'Trojan horse' in order to break the link between children and their biological parents, as a result of Catherine McGuinness not getting her way in the Baby Ann case. In this case there was a choice between 2 sets of good parents. Rightly Judges Murray, Hardiman, Fennelly and Geoghegan agreed that it was in the best interests of Baby Ann that she be restored to her parents.
While agreeing with the restoration of Baby Ann to her parents, McGuinness did so because of tha fact that the natural parents were married, and because of that she stated that the decision was 'no longer about what was in the best interests of the child'.
It is for this reason that McGuinness is leading the charge to break the link (which Fennelly, Murray, Hardiman and Geoghegan all agreed that this was a very important factor) between the child and her natural parents.
McGuinness' position is an ideological one for which there is no empirical support. The judges right implied that there was no grounds for invoking Art. 42.5 .
"
2 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."
The best interest criterion is linked to parental failure, which itself is described in section 2.1 in these terms:
" 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, "
Don't know why you are so snippy in your argumentative style?
