Reading the referendum booklet it seems to me our constitution, as is, has a lot to say about the rights of children- a pity it seems to have been mostly been ignored since the institution of the state.
Deleting a few words here and adding a few more there will not change a shambolic system one whit.
Trusting the courts, after the event, to really clarify the changes, is a big ask when state and courts once deemed industrial schools as the answer to poverty.
The idea that any child can be adopted if its parents are deemed to have failed them seems to be a pretty sweeping power.Who decides when, to whom and why?
With job losses and no end to the recession in sight 'providing ' for children looks like an uphill battle for an increasing number of people and shifting vulnerable children from A to B seems no solution.
The lack of real discussion is worrying.
Another 'vote yes and leave it to us- ignore the naysayers' referendum is worrying-
We've had members of the RCC named and shamed in relation to child abuse, with ongoing monitoring and exposure of any wrongdoing or foot-dragging, and rightly so. But how many state employees or groups have received similar treatment? When the Church's own monitoring body reports wrongdoing we hear members of government jumping on the bandwagon, while doing nothing themselves.
This referendum is being held as a token of action by the state, but it's not wasting an opportunity for a power-grab.
From what I can see the only difference this referendum makes to children is to allow for the adoption of children of married parents. The rest is to give the state extra powers over children while lessening those of parents.
And thanks to the secrecy of our Family Courts nobody outside of those directly affected will ever know how the reforms are implemented - a pig in a poke if ever there was one. "Trust the judges"- yeah right!
509Likes
