The parents said
‘we want help’ the state responded ‘we want your children’
By Hermann
Kelly, reporter
|
Major articles by journalist Hermann Kelly have also been printed in The Sunday Business Post and Magill Magazine.
|
What is
the difference between a Rottweiler and a social worker?
Sometimes
you get your children back from a Rottweiler.
Quite a
good joke, but Pat and Mary O’Hara from Kells in Co Meath weren’t laughing last
year when they asked the local health board for help in their endeavours to
care for and educate their five children. Four of their boys are autistic,
while the eldest, Fionn, suffers from dyslexia. The O’Haras both gave up work
to look after the kids full-time, but go nowhere in their quest for more help
from the State. As a last-ditch effort, they approached the media to go public
on their lack of support.
What was
the considered response of the HSE?
Basically,
when the parents said ‘we want your help’, the State said ‘we want your
children’.
Just 48
hours after going to the media, the HSE moved to take the children from the
parents and into the ‘care’ of the State through an interim court order. A van
load of gardai led by social workers, banged on the front door of their family
home.
Explaining
their difficult situation, Mary O’Hara remarked in passing, “we can’t cope”.
The HSE
saw an opening and the O’Hara children were taken away, some to a B&B in Drogheda
and others to an institution in Navan. A week later, the family were able to
make a court hearing in Trim where the HSE application for a care order was
thrown out by the judge after an eight-hour battle.
Imagine
the thoughts and emotions of these two parents and the upset to the children.
Every parent’s nightmare taking place in an Irish town. And it could happen
again, but with an even worse outcome.
The
Government recently proposed to change the constitution by inserting some, as
yet undefined, clause about children’s rights. It sounds reasonable and
well-intentioned – but wait. What rights are we talking about here? Are
children going to be allowed to vote in elections? No. Well, perhaps they’ll
have a right to a guaranteed place in a college arts course? No.
From what
has been shown by Government actions in recent years, you can be assured the
only ones to gain more rights from this referendum will be the institutions and
employees of the State. It is they who will be given rights to decide on behalf
of the children.
And the
people who’ll be losing their rights will be the parents who brought their
children into this world, who care for and look after them. People like the
O’Haras.
Nine years
ago this month, the parents of a 14-year-old girl, who was raped and pregnant,
were prevented by the Eastern Health Board from having any contact with their
daughter after this State body had taken her into its ‘care’. In what became
know as the ‘C’ case, the then attorney general, Michael McDowell, representing
the health board, sought permission from the court to take the girl to Britain
for an abortion, going directly against the wishes of her parents. The end
result was that a developing child was aborted in Britain and the father, who
had been frustrated in his right to protect his own daughter, later committed
suicide. Virtually every major organ of the State collaborated to deny the
rights of the girl’s parents to protect their vulnerable child. The State
always knows better than parents? I don’t think so.
I believe
this debate is unlikely to become one of those liberal versus conservative
melees that occasionally break out in Ireland. This is because children are
best off in the care of their natural and married parents in a stable
household; and if the welfare of the child is made paramount over all other
rights, then it could mean (as an unforeseen consequence) that divorce and
adoption by homosexual couples would be outlawed.
Surely,
this is the logical outcome and practical consequence of this laudable axiom.
Somehow I don’t think the Government and courts will look on it like that.
However,
this debate will really be about the rights of the parents in contest with the
State over who has care of the children.
Launching
his campaign on Friday, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern spoke as if the rights of
children were not already protected under the constitution. He was wrong.
Innumerable studies have shown children are safest and happiest in the care of
their natural and married parents in a stable household.
The
constitution recognises this fact, and Article 41.1 protects the family where
the child is most secure.
It states:
“The State recognises the family as the natural, primary and fundamental unit
group of society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and
imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
This right
and duty of the family to provide for the good and security of the children
within it is, however, qualified in rare instances where the welfare of the child
requires the State to intervene and help the parents in their duties.
Article
42.5 allows that: “In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or
moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State, as guardian
of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of
the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible
rights of the child.”
Article
42.5 already assures constitutional protection to vulnerable children, so why change
it? Is change necessary? It certainly hasn’t been shown that this is the case.
Can the
law be improved to protect children better? Recent trials relating to the
statutory rape of minors have shown the legislation can surely be improved. I
believe this is what the political parties should concentrate on at present.
Last
month, the Taoiseach floated a kite that we needed a referendum on the St
Andrews Agreement, and it came to nought. Then he announced this new referendum
idea out of the blue last Friday. The constitution recognises the rights of
citizens and provides the stable framework for the functioning of the State. It
should not be kicked around as a toe-rag for electoral gain just a few months
before a general election.
My
esteemed fellow columnist, Fergus Finlay, wrote here on Tuesday: “There’s no
reason to delay this referendum, and no reason to agonise for months about what
we should be putting in the constitution.”
Well,
we’ll have to differ on this one. Let’s wait and see what comes out, and then
carefully weigh up what is presented. Let’s ensure the rights of parents to
care for their children are not over-ridden by the desire of the State to
control all it can. Ask whether this referendum is really necessary and just
who is benefiting from the changes that are suggested. Then decide.
|
contact info@prefectpress.com Journalist
Hermann Kelly for the first time tells the real action behind controversial
bestseller, 'Kathy's Story / Don’t Ever Tell' by Kathy O’Beirne and show
conclusively that truth is stranger than her fiction. In this rollicking
read, Kelly uncovers the link between the state scheme of compensation and
harrowing cases of false allegation against totally innocent people. Kathy's
Real Story is a compelling and heartbreaking read which begins with shame and
ends with the triumph of an Irish family over false allegations of abuse. This
book is the ultimate anti-dote against 'miserable literature' and a hammer
blow to those who have hurt people by making false allegations. |
Sinister
agenda behind children’s rights proposal
By Patrick McGinnity
Back to Articles