The ‘Children’s referendum’ proposes a 31st Amendment of the Constitution which will mean inserting a new Article 42A and deleting (‘repealing’) article 42.5. The Referendum takes place on Saturday, November 10th, 2012.

The proposed Amendment seeks to enshrine in the constitution the rights of children in particular. The only rights clearly specified are a child’s right to have their views taken into account and for their best interests to be paramount when decisions about their welfare are being taken in any care proceedings (eg child protection, adoption and family law cases). This would include children being able to be adopted irrespective of their parents’ marital status and by the parents’ voluntary request. Further specific legislation must be put in place to provide for this.

However, the proposed Amendment does not recommend legislation to support childrens’ best interests in any other decisions made about their lives. Children’s best interests will not necessarily be supported by law in decisions taken in areas of Government policy like child poverty, school support services, disability services, asylum-seekers’ accommodation etc.

Also, the proposed Amendment only refers to the rights of children as their ‘natural and imprescriptable rights’ but doesn’t say specifically what these rights actually are. The rights of the child are outlined by the United Nations in the ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’ adopted by every country in the world except the United States, Somalia and South Sudan. The proposed amendment does not directly refer to this convention.

Should we vote yes or no to these changes?

The changes in the law regarding marital status and adoption were always discriminatory and should be changed. With regard to all the other children’s rights we should vote yes while campaigning to expand the principle of children’s best interests into all areas of government policy and for the resources to ensure these needs are met. The very reason given for these changes is the inherently vulnerable and dependent nature of children. Children depend on adults to have their needs met. The adults involved in caring for a child is their ‘family’. If the child’s family is affected by poverty or ill-health then the child will suffer. This means that early support for the child’s family access to a decent income as well as health and welfare services is the most important factor in caring for and protecting children.

Will this change in the Constitution mean children at risk are better cared for?

Not without extra funding, staff and facilities. Child Protection Services try to respond where a child’s need for care is not being met (‘Welfare concern’ or ‘Neglect’) and/or where the child is being mistreated physically, emotionally or sexually (‘Abuse’). Assessing the situation and intervening where necessary with family supports requires Social Workers, Child Care Workers, Family Support Workers, Psychotherapists and a variety of other staff and available care settings such as after-school, overnight respite and short-term fostering to give early intensive support to struggling families. They also depend on support from other Welfare, Education and Health services for problems with, for example, poverty, learning difficulties and developmental problems like Autism or health (including mental health) problems in parents and/or children. This means that if a child-at-risks’ ‘Best Interests’ are to be paramount, then the funding of Child Protection, Welfare, Education and Health/Disability Services will be a vital test.

How does ‘Child Protection’ work?

If despite early intervention a child’s family is unable to care for them in one setting, another ‘placement’ can be arranged. There are about a million children under 18 in Ireland. Roughly 30,000 children are referred to Child Protection Services each year, the vast majority due to families struggling with poverty, financial stress, housing problems and ill health. Of these less than 2,000 cases will result in formal ‘care proceedings’ and just 500 of these new cases will need full-time care outside the home; the vast majority with foster families. There is a total of about 6,000 children in care at any one time of whom about 5,500 are with foster families and about 500 are in residential care homes staffed by Child Care Workers.

Lack of resources to intervene early means more children not less tend to end up needing formal care proceedings and even full-time care. Lack of resources too often means a lack of support for carers and frequent changes of carer which is very damaging for the child’s emotional security in relationships. There is still no emergency out-of-hours child protection service and children are routinely brought to Garda stations or hospitals for help because there is nowhere else to go. Vital aftercare services are also poorly developed. Lack of staff to care for children means children often spend longer in residential care than is necessary. Privatisation of care services means there is a danger of returning to the old situation where private institutions had a vested interest in increasing the number of children in the ‘care’ system. This must not be allowed to happen again.

Why should we not trust Fine Gael and Labour with Child Protection?

If resources for children improve children will do better, but if there are cuts then children will suffer. Cuts and Privatisation of services is a central plank of Fine Gael-Labour policy. Children depend for their care and welfare on the income of their family and the availability of services to their family. The Fine Gael Labour Government have consistently supported wage cuts and increased taxes for lower and middle-income earners and cut welfare payments and services that children and families depend on. Child Poverty and Child Welfare/Protection problems are rising as a result.

Universal services based on progressive taxation is internationally recognised as the best and fairest way to meet children’s needs while getting the rich to pay. Fine Gael-Labour are cutting universal services and introducing means-testing while keeping tax rates for the rich very low by international standards. For this government it is the ‘Rich 1st’ rather than ‘Children 1st’.