ROSCOMMON CASE A REASON TO VOTE YES TO THE CHILDREN'S REFERENDUM

Posted on September 27, 2012 2:31 PM   |   Permanent Link   

As I said in this House last week when speaking on the Bill on Vetting legislation, this amendment to the Constitution will enshrine the rights of the children into our Constitution for the first time, and it will afford protection to adopted children, which does not exist currently.

The amendment gives children constitutional rights that are robust, but robust in a way that does not undermine the rights of parents unless they have failed in their duty towards the child. I wholeheartedly welcome both the amendment, and the wording of it. I would like to pay tribute to Minister Frances Fitzgerald and also to Geoffrey Shannon, the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, for the concentrated work that they have done. It would be remiss also if tribute was not paid to previous Oireachtas Committees on their work in the past. I would also like to praise the excellent decision by Government to hold this Referendum on a Saturday - this ensures a greater opportunity to vote for those who may be too busy to do so if the Referendum was to be held during the week. I would very much hope that future polls are conducted on Saturdays.

There is much that I would differ with Senator Rónán Mullen on, but he, a leading conservative commentator, is supporting the wording of the amendment and he says that the balance of the wording is right. If those of differing social outlooks are able to agree that this amendment should be supported, that tells me that those coming from the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum and who are opposed to this referendum are on very weak ground indeed when they argue against the amendment.

I would ask those few people who are against it to seriously re-consider their viewpoint on the referendum and look again at the wording. I would like to draw attention to the views expressed by the former MEP Kathy Sinnott, and explain why I believe that they are misguided. Ms. Sinnott suggests that the amendment, if passed, will give the State preference over the parent when deciding what is in a child's best interests. She is concerned that the provisions might give the State too much power. I really think that this argument misses the point. This amendment will force the State to consider the rights of the child above all else, but in a proportional way.

This will ensure that the State will not run roughshod over the rights of parents - the State will not be permitted, under the terms of the amended Constitution to do that. It must consider the rights of child to ensure the wellbeing of that child - and this would mean the right of the child to be with its parent or parents would have to be considered seriously and not ignored.

I am concerned that those in agreement with Ms. Sinnott are ignoring the role the State has played in the abuse and profound mistreatment of children since its foundation. Do those who are against this amendment not see that the reason the State did nothing to protect children was because children had no rights, thereby allowing the State to do as little as it pleased?

Do those opposed to this amendment not realise that the wording acts to curb excessive control by the State by stating in Article 42A that it is "exceptional cases" where the state becomes involved. Again in that same proposed new Article what is referenced is "by proportionate means as provided by law" - this means that the State must exercise reason, not lack of it. The State must provide legislation in order for it to act. That means that we in this House, who represent the people, will be charged with deciding what the State can or cannot do. I cannot foresee a situation where legislators, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they are on, will allow the State to do as it pleases.

I want to also draw attention to the absolutely horrific case in 2009, of incest and sexual abuse where a mother of six children in Roscommon was convicted on ten counts of incest, sexual abuse and neglect of her children. The six children, aged between six and fifteen, were not fed properly, suffered from head lice and were beaten and abused on regular occasions.

Circuit Court Judge Miriam Reynolds who heard the case said at the time that there was room for future legislation to be drawn up to deal with the actions of the woman, and on reading the amendment wording, it is crystal clear that legislation will be required if the amendment is passed. This case is further evidence to me that this amendment and the legislation that will have to follow is required, as Judge Reynolds stated when she passed sentence in this case, that she was working within legislation dating back to 1908.

One of the barristers involved in the Roscommon case asked Judge Reynolds to take into consideration that the wider community must have known of the abuse that was going on. He also said that it must have been obvious when the children attended school that they were badly dressed and badly cared for. The lives of these children have been destroyed by the actions of their mother. It is difficult to understand how these children could have been let live in the family home for so long. They should have been removed from the family home - they needed, for their own safety to be removed from it.

This is a rare type of case in terms of the extreme behaviour and cruelty that occured, but it is a clear example of why this referendum is needed. Even the most ardent opponent of this amendment to the Constitution must surely agree that this case is where intervention by the State is required in order to protect children.

I am in no doubt at all that there are other cases and also circumstances that never make it to the Courts, where the behaviour of parents, although less extreme, is still absolutely criminal and cruel and warrants the protection of children, without recourse to parental rights.

This amendment will give children clear rights under the Constitution. I am very firmly of the view that it will not be a case of the State intervening on a whim, but it will allow the State to intervene in order to protect them in their own right and not in the context of their parents rights.

I commend this amendment to the House, and I urge a yes vote in the Referendum on November 10th.