BishopAccountability.org
	The Best Place to Put All Those Tiny Shoes Is in a Constitutional Locker By Fergus Finlay Irish Examiner June 16, 2009 http://www.irishexaminer.com/story.aspx?id=94163&m=5.3.2.0&h=the-best-place-to-put-all-those-tiny-shoes-is-in-a-constitutional-locker WHY is there suddenly all this talk about changing the constitution where children are concerned? The leader of the Green party announced last week that the time had come for a change, and he wasn't alone. More or less every member of the Government has indicated support for change even if, up to now, none of them seemed to be in too much of a hurry. The thing that has introduced the sense of urgency is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse. That report revealed to us all that the abuse of children was wholesale throughout most of the history of the state. Children were abused by people who had taken sacred vows, and that abuse was known about and effectively tolerated by a subservient state. We have all been shamed by what has been revealed about the past and determined that the future will be different. In my office, as I write this, there are thousands of tiny shoes. Many have little messages written on them and all were donated on last week's march as a gesture of solidarity with people who had suffered so much in the past. They are not, of course, the shoes of children who had been in institutions, but their symbolism is overwhelming (The reason they are in my office for safekeeping is because the survivors want to ensure they will represent some kind of symbol of the past and the future, and that they will serve as a permanent reminder. We're still trying to figure out what might be the best way to give expression to that wish). There is no doubt in my mind that the people who marched last Wednesday, and who left behind those tiny symbols of childhood, want only one thing for the future. They want us to be sure that in so far as is humanly possible, no child will ever be abused again. Of course, human nature being what it is, it is almost impossible to guard against abuse of a child. But a society which doesn't even try would be bound to repeat the shame of the past. And if we're going to be serious, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. Right now, today, as you're reading this, where are more children abused than anywhere else? Where do more children live in fear than anywhere else? Where are they more likely to be hungry, cold, lonely than anywhere else? Where are they more likely to witness drug or alcohol addiction, and be affected by it, that anywhere else? Where are they more likely to be caught up in the usually dreadful repercussions of domestic violence? The answer to all those questions is the same. At home. Because of the terrible things that happened in the past – and because of the things that will be revealed when the Dublin diocesan report is published in a few weeks – we have come to regard all abuse as clerical abuse. But for every child abused by a priest, a brother or a nun, perhaps 30 children are abused by people they know very well. A parent. An uncle or aunt. A close neighbour. A family friend. Someone who is trusted. These are the people who are actually, and typically, the biggest threat to children. And that's just in the area of sexual abuse. The other forms of abuse and neglect that can damage children for the entire duration of their lives all too often happen where children live, in their families. Now, of course it's the case that most children will find their best chance of growth and development – and happiness – by being part of a loving and nurturing family. In fact for most children, indeed for most of us, the most important relationship in our lives – because of the life-long effect it has – is the relationship between us and our parents. But here's the rub. What our constitution says about families and children is this, in a nutshell. A family is only a family in the eyes of the law if it's based on marriage. The family is the most important unit of society and it has rights that are superior to "all positive law". The family is also the primary educator of its children – and that has been interpreted to mean the family is primarily responsible for the care and upbringing of children. And the state can only intervene in a family if the parents of that family fail, – "for physical or moral reasons"– in their duty towards their children. Now that description of the position of families and children would be fine if it weren't for a couple of things. First of all, we know there are thousands of families in Ireland – loving, caring families – that aren't based on marriage at all. And secondly, there's an assumption underpinning the description that if you leave families alone, the children will be all right. Because of the way the constitution is written, it is immensely difficult for the state to intervene in what is happening in families unless there is a complete breakdown of parenting that exposes the children to real and immediate risk – and unless the state can prove that is the case. And what that means is this – and there is no point in beating about the bush here – the constitution makes meaningful child protection impossible. Because of the way it is written, those people who have statutory responsibility for child protection work with one hand tied behind their backs. I'm not arguing that it should be easy for the state to intervene in families. It is absolutely true that the best place for the vast majority of children is in their families. And it is equally true that taking a child away from his or her family involves risk for the child. But there are times when the only way to protect a child from neglect or abuse is to intervene. YES, such intervention should be proportionate and appropriate to the situation, and, yes, it should be undertaken with great care. But there are times when it is necessary, and times when our constitution gets in the way. There are other issues that arise for children because of the way our constitution is written and interpreted. A child who has lived in foster care for years, for instance, can never be adopted if he or she comes from a married family. But we need to come to terms with the main issue. There are those who believe that any change at all will weaken the family and enable the state to ride roughshod over the wishes of parents. But change there must be if we are truly to protect children. We turned a blind eye for generations to the abuse that happened in institutions. We can't ignore the fact now that if we really want to give child protection the priority it needs, we have to start with the fundamental law. There are other issues too – resourcing and managing our child protection systems, and building appropriate levels of child support are key ones – but we have to begin by putting children in the constitution. http://www.irishexaminer.com/story.aspx?id=94163&m=5.3.2.0&h=the-best-place-to-put-all-those-tiny-shoes-is-in-a-constitutional-locker#ixzz0IayIovSV&D
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.