Irish parents giving away their rights

[brownie]

http://onenewsnow.com//culture/2012/11/09/irish-parents-giving-away-wrong-rights

[Parrothead]

Looks like it passed.

 

ETA: Here is more info and a link to the actual language.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Parrothead

[justLisa]

This is freaky

[sthompson]

That's disgusting.

 

Stephanie

[melissad2]

NM. I need to read it more closely before I form an opinion.

Edited November 13, 2012 by melissad2

[Slartibartfast]

Herm.

 

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child involves laws about selling children, child prostitution and child pornography.

 

It also strengthens child abuse laws. Ireland revisited this because the Irish Constitution didn't allow children to be removed from abusive situations except in extreme measures.

 

I support bans on child pornography, child prostitution, selling of children and child abuse.

 

What are the reasons for objecting to this treaty?

[Spy Car]

The linked article is—schocking I know—a complete distortion of the truth by the usual suspects. Please don't turn this forum into part of the right-wing ((((echo chamber)))) of lies and distortions.

 

The Irish law protects children from abuse. It is a good thing (unless one approves of abusing children).

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

[celticmom]

:ack2:

[LucyStoner]

A different information source:

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/11/09/3653962/ireland-to-vote-on-expanding-rights.html

 

Some letters on both sides in an Irish paper:

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/1109/1224326365020.html

 

A couple of the main things appear to be requiring the court to hear a child's testimony in a custody matter (presently the rights of the mother, not the best interest of the child are enshrined in their constitution) and also making it easier for foster children to be legally adopted which is now nearly impossible, leaving kids in legal limbo. It also makes it a crime to conceal abuse or shield an abuser, something that apparently dioceses could not be held liable or responsible for even in the most egregious cases.

Edited November 13, 2012 by kijipt

[stripe]

Most countries don't have the staff or the facilities to take children away from their parents and house them elsewhere unless there is genuine cause.

 

Didn't we just have a conversation about this UN treaty?

 

Maybe it's just where I live, but in the past five years at least, every few months I've seen parents sent to jail for child abuse of shocking proportions, including an international ring of parents swapping videos of their own children being sexually abused, 18 month olds being raped, children killed during potty training, and a mother attempting to pimp out her 12 year old daughter (luckily to an undercover cop). So I don't believes parents always know best.

[~*Beatrix*~]

There is ready something that could result in this in the US called the child's bill of rights. If it passes, it is more like, "The state's bill of rights to do whatever with your kids."

[Spy Car]

There is ready something that could result in this in the US called the child's bill of rights. If it passes, it is more like, "The state's bill of rights to do whatever with your kids."

 

Ugh, no it is not. The laws protect children from abuse. Most people think that's a good idea.

 

Bill

[katilac]

People might want to read what is actually in the referendum before freaking out. You might agree or disagree, but read the actual text, not what is stated in the OP's link, which, imo, is both intentionally confusing and downright wrong.

 

For instance, the link makes it sound as though the government can take children away on a whim, without proving unfitness. The actual referendum explicitly references the "safety or welfare" of the child. And, yes, it references the possibility of terminating parental rights. How is this so different from most child protection laws, including the ones in the US? There will still be standards, processes, time periods, and so on; these specific laws simply must be written in accordance with the (quite short) referendum.

 

I imagine the changes that are causing the most anxiety attacks are:

 

1) the child's best interests will be the primary consideration (not keeping the family together, as is so often stated as the primary goal)

2) the child's opinion and preferences will be considered, taking into account their age and maturity

 

Personally, I think the child's best interest SHOULD be of paramount concern, and their opinions and preferences SHOULD be considered.

 

The text can be read here.

Edited November 13, 2012 by katilac
wording

[justLisa]

I get really sick of all the laws made to protect every other mammal on the planet from living a horrible, abusive, and degrading life. What about kids?

 

And statements like "Oh now they will be able to do whatever they want with your kids...." just makes the opposition look ridiculous.

 

I just think SOMEONE and SOMETHING needs to be done. Do you actually know how next to impossible it is right now to get intervention in a horrible home situation? I know of one. The parents should have lost ages ago but no, their kid, their rights. Barf.

[Spy Car]

People might want to read what is actually in the referendum before freaking out. You might agree or disagree, but read the actual text, not what is stated in the OP's link, which, imo, is both intentionally confusing and downright wrong.

 

For instance, the link makes it sound as though the government can take children away on a whim, without proving unfitness. The actual referendum explicitly references the "safety or welfare" of the child. And, yes, it references the possibility of terminating parental rights. How is this so different from most child protection laws, including the ones in the US? There will still be standards, processes, time periods, and so on; these specific laws simply must be written in accordance with the (quite short) referendum.

 

I imagine the changes that are causing the most anxiety attacks are:

 

1) the child's best interests will be the primary consideration (not keeping the family together, as is so often stated as the primary goal)

2) the child's opinion and preferences will be considered, taking into account their age and maturity

 

Personally, I think the child's best interest SHOULD be of paramount concern, and their opinions and preferences SHOULD be considered.

 

The text can be read here.

 

:iagree:

 

The linked article in the OP is a outright distortion of the truth.

 

Does no one get tired of the lies and manipulation of outrage disreputable outfits like this engage in?

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I get really sick of all the laws made to protect every other mammal on the planet from living a horrible, abusive, and degrading life. What about kids?

 

And statements like "Oh now they will be able to do whatever they want with your kids...." just makes the opposition look ridiculous.

 

I just think SOMEONE and SOMETHING needs to be done. Do you actually know how next to impossible it is right now to get intervention in a horrible home situation? I know of one. The parents should have lost ages ago but no, their kid, their rights. Barf.

 

I guess some folks think parents should have the right to sexually abuse their children or to beat them with impunity in the name of "parental rights." I'm glad the Irish think otherwise.

 

Bill

[stripe]

I get really sick of all the laws made to protect every other mammal on the planet from living a horrible, abusive, and degrading life. What about kids?

 

Indeed.

 

Seriously, the ASPCA represented Mary Ellen Wilson (a human child) in 1874 because she was severely abused by her foster parents.

[justLisa]

I guess some folks think parents should have the right to sexually abuse their children or to beat them with impunity in the name of "parental rights." I'm glad the Irish think otherwise.

 

Bill

 

Well I think some people take something being done to protect from horribly extreme cases to "great, now the government can do whatever they want with my kids."