Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (Sarah’s Law)
The management of sex offenders in the community post-conviction/release is an important dimension to child protection and I believe that one measure that would enhance such management is the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Gardai and the Probation Service have some responsibility for monitoring known sex offenders who are living in the community but there is a limit to how much they can do to keep children safe and every effort must be made to deal with any risk that offenders pose. Approximately half of the sex offenders released this year, in Ireland, or due for release in the coming few years are or will be subject to Post Release Supervision Orders.
Electronic tagging of some offenders is another tool that the Gardai and the Probation Service should have at their disposal to enhance their management of known sex offenders. Restrictions on an offender’s right to consume alcohol is another, some offenders only act out on their desires having consumed alcohol. Random unannounced visits to an offender’s home would also be a useful way to monitor a known offender’s activities. Currently none of these options is available to Gardai or the Probation Service.
However in addition to giving statutory bodies more powers to help keep children safe I think the case can be made for giving parents, guardians and others access to another facility to assist in helping to keep children safe, and that is the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme was piloted to great effect in the Britain. The pilot scheme was started in 2008 and involved four police forces in Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland and Hampshire. The British Home Office said the pilot test was very successful because it had protected 60 children. Nearly 600 inquiries made to the four police forces involved led to 315 applications for information and 21 disclosures about registered child sex offenders. A further 43 cases led to other actions, including referrals to children's social care and 11 general disclosures were made regarding protection issues linked to violent offending.
As a result of this the Scheme is now being rolled out in all police forces in England and Wales.
So how does it work in?
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme means anyone can ask for a police check on someone they are worried about by simply calling or visiting their local police. To actually make an application, they will need to visit the local police station in person where they are asked to show produce some ID, tell the police what their relationship to the child is and explain why they want to have a particular person checked.
The scheme is for anyone who wants to find out if someone in contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences. They could be a family member, friend, neighbour or anyone that’s worried about a child.
The majority of child sexual offenders are known to their victims. They are often a friend of the victim’s family, a friend of the victim, or a member of the victim’s family.
If the check shows a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police may share this information. However, this information will only be shared with the people best placed to protect the child. This will usually be the child’s parent, carer or guardian. The information might not be shared with the person who made the enquiry.
I think the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in Ireland would be a serve as another very useful measure to help protect children.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Cloyne Report
In 1996 the Catholic Church in Ireland published its new guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (the 1996 Guidelines). It was widely reported at that time that all allegations of child sexual abuse against Catholic priests that were brought to the attention of any Diocese in the country would be reported to the civil authorities from that point on. I did my best to point out at that time that what the 1996 Guidelines actually said was that where it was known or suspected that a priest or religious had sexually abused a child the matter should be reported to civil authorities. I was concerned at the time that the qualification of knowing or suspecting that abuse of a child had actually taken place was a loophole that would be taken advantage of. On reading the Murphy Report some 14 years later I could see that my concerns were well founded.
In addition, more recently it was learned that only 1 year after the Guidelines were published, the Vatican let it be known to the bishops that if the Guidelines were applied the consequences could be highly embarrassing for them. That same correspondence also stated that the 1996 Guidelines were only a study document and that the procedures followed must instead be those in accordance with canon law.
At no time did Irish Catholic bishops move this information into the public domain, quite the opposite. Even after publication of the Murphy Report bishops continued to claim that their covering up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests ceased in 1996 on publication of the new Guidelines, even though the Murphy Report itself contained many examples of this being completely untrue.
Now we have publication of the Cloyne Report: a representative sample of allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Cloyne over the 13 year period 1996 - 2009. The Report found allegations against 33 priests.
So how did the Catholic Church in Cloyne handle these allegations? Were all allegations reported to civil authorities as people were led to believe in 1996?
No they were not. We learn in this Report that the response of the Diocese of Cloyne to complaints and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the period 1996 to 2008 was inadequate and inappropriate. The principal feature of this Report can be simply expressed. The Diocese of Cloyne accepted the Framework Document and promised to implement it. It did not do so. On the contrary, Bishop Magee appears to have taken little real interest in its implementation for 12 years. He allowed the authority of the diocese in this regard to be exercised for that period by others, in particular Monsignor O’Callaghan. Monsignor O’Callaghan acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of the Church. Bishop Magee told the Minister for Children that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being fully complied with. This was false. The same must be said of his assurances to the HSE given in 2007.
It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document, was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never properly implemented. Bishop Magee must take primary responsibility for the failure to implement the procedures.
During all of this time, Catholic bishops were hiding behind the 1996 Guidelines or their subsequent replacements. This has implications for child protection and safety today in the context of the Catholic Church. The Church’s current procedures Safeguarding Children are derived from and compliant with the State’s child protection guidelines Children First. But as today’s Report clearly shows, publishing guidelines is no proof that they are being implemented at local, diocesan or national level. Catholic bishops did set up the National Board for Safeguarding Children: a primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were appropriate. However we learned in May of this year from the National Board’s Annual Report that this process was stopped, after a review of only 3 Dioceses had taken place, because the bishops would not co-operate, citing data protection concerns. The Data Protection Commissioner however has confirmed that there is no data protection concern that hinders the bishops’ from co-operating with the National Board’s review.
It came as no surprise to me to read in the National Board’s Annual Report that as part of the agreement, which only now has apparently secured the bishops’ co-operation, the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only with the consent of the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops. Imagine HIQA being similarly constrained by the HSE. A genuine data protection concern would have been resolved with a genuine data protection solution, not one where bishops get to control a National Board while at the same time trying to pass it off as independent.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I have huge confidence in any review process set up by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was investigated by a Grand Jury Investigation and its Report, published in 2003, made very similar reading to the Murphy Report, with the same tactics employed there to conceal known child sexual abuse by catholic priests. Yet despite those revelations and the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States set up national and local review boards to appraise their child protection and reporting practices, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia still went on to leave a further 37 priests in ministry despite credible allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against them, and the review boards were completely unaware of this because this information had been successfully hidden from them.
Here in Ireland, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, it is proven yet again that the Catholic Church is not an organisation that can be trusted with the safety, welfare and protection of children. I have no doubt that at a local level there are people working hard to make sure that child protection practices are to a high standard within their parishes, but we don’t know how widespread good or bad practice is at parish level.
A second Grand Jury in Philadelphia, this year, made several recommendations but I want to draw your attention to their final recommendation:
Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities. The horrors inflicted … by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do – contact law enforcement authorities.
In some circumstances, introducing law enforcement into the equation might also help change the calculations both of sexual predators and those who would grant them revered positions with access to children.
With occasional exceptions, Catholic Bishops cannot be trusted with allegations of child sexual abuse.
Andrew Madden
Author Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse
twitter.com/andrewmmadden
facebook.com/andrewmarkmadden
In addition, more recently it was learned that only 1 year after the Guidelines were published, the Vatican let it be known to the bishops that if the Guidelines were applied the consequences could be highly embarrassing for them. That same correspondence also stated that the 1996 Guidelines were only a study document and that the procedures followed must instead be those in accordance with canon law.
At no time did Irish Catholic bishops move this information into the public domain, quite the opposite. Even after publication of the Murphy Report bishops continued to claim that their covering up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests ceased in 1996 on publication of the new Guidelines, even though the Murphy Report itself contained many examples of this being completely untrue.
Now we have publication of the Cloyne Report: a representative sample of allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Cloyne over the 13 year period 1996 - 2009. The Report found allegations against 33 priests.
So how did the Catholic Church in Cloyne handle these allegations? Were all allegations reported to civil authorities as people were led to believe in 1996?
No they were not. We learn in this Report that the response of the Diocese of Cloyne to complaints and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the period 1996 to 2008 was inadequate and inappropriate. The principal feature of this Report can be simply expressed. The Diocese of Cloyne accepted the Framework Document and promised to implement it. It did not do so. On the contrary, Bishop Magee appears to have taken little real interest in its implementation for 12 years. He allowed the authority of the diocese in this regard to be exercised for that period by others, in particular Monsignor O’Callaghan. Monsignor O’Callaghan acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of the Church. Bishop Magee told the Minister for Children that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being fully complied with. This was false. The same must be said of his assurances to the HSE given in 2007.
It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document, was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never properly implemented. Bishop Magee must take primary responsibility for the failure to implement the procedures.
During all of this time, Catholic bishops were hiding behind the 1996 Guidelines or their subsequent replacements. This has implications for child protection and safety today in the context of the Catholic Church. The Church’s current procedures Safeguarding Children are derived from and compliant with the State’s child protection guidelines Children First. But as today’s Report clearly shows, publishing guidelines is no proof that they are being implemented at local, diocesan or national level. Catholic bishops did set up the National Board for Safeguarding Children: a primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were appropriate. However we learned in May of this year from the National Board’s Annual Report that this process was stopped, after a review of only 3 Dioceses had taken place, because the bishops would not co-operate, citing data protection concerns. The Data Protection Commissioner however has confirmed that there is no data protection concern that hinders the bishops’ from co-operating with the National Board’s review.
It came as no surprise to me to read in the National Board’s Annual Report that as part of the agreement, which only now has apparently secured the bishops’ co-operation, the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only with the consent of the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops. Imagine HIQA being similarly constrained by the HSE. A genuine data protection concern would have been resolved with a genuine data protection solution, not one where bishops get to control a National Board while at the same time trying to pass it off as independent.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I have huge confidence in any review process set up by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was investigated by a Grand Jury Investigation and its Report, published in 2003, made very similar reading to the Murphy Report, with the same tactics employed there to conceal known child sexual abuse by catholic priests. Yet despite those revelations and the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States set up national and local review boards to appraise their child protection and reporting practices, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia still went on to leave a further 37 priests in ministry despite credible allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against them, and the review boards were completely unaware of this because this information had been successfully hidden from them.
Here in Ireland, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, it is proven yet again that the Catholic Church is not an organisation that can be trusted with the safety, welfare and protection of children. I have no doubt that at a local level there are people working hard to make sure that child protection practices are to a high standard within their parishes, but we don’t know how widespread good or bad practice is at parish level.
A second Grand Jury in Philadelphia, this year, made several recommendations but I want to draw your attention to their final recommendation:
Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities. The horrors inflicted … by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do – contact law enforcement authorities.
In some circumstances, introducing law enforcement into the equation might also help change the calculations both of sexual predators and those who would grant them revered positions with access to children.
With occasional exceptions, Catholic Bishops cannot be trusted with allegations of child sexual abuse.
Andrew Madden
Author Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse
twitter.com/andrewmmadden
facebook.com/andrewmarkmadden
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
NBSC Annual Report 2010
The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church today published its Annual Report for 2010.
A primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were properly handled. It is with considerable concern that I read in today’s Report that this process was stopped after a review of only 3 Dioceses because the Bishops’ Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union (the Sponsoring Bodies) apparently received legal advice to the effect that they should not co-operate with this review, despite the fact that those same organisations were responsible for setting it up in the first place. This non-cooperation has impaired the work of the Board in respect of this review for almost a year and has only now been resolved.
It is shocking to read in today’s Report that as part of the agreement which secured the Sponsoring Bodies co-operation the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese or other Church authority: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only the consent of the head of the Diocese or authority. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops.
It is also of great concern to read that the National Board’s ability to track the national picture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church was adversely affected throughout the year by reporting deficits by the Dioceses and other Church authorities.
In response to today’s revelations I urge the Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency. This should be speedily followed by the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
End 11/05/2011
A primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were properly handled. It is with considerable concern that I read in today’s Report that this process was stopped after a review of only 3 Dioceses because the Bishops’ Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union (the Sponsoring Bodies) apparently received legal advice to the effect that they should not co-operate with this review, despite the fact that those same organisations were responsible for setting it up in the first place. This non-cooperation has impaired the work of the Board in respect of this review for almost a year and has only now been resolved.
It is shocking to read in today’s Report that as part of the agreement which secured the Sponsoring Bodies co-operation the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese or other Church authority: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only the consent of the head of the Diocese or authority. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops.
It is also of great concern to read that the National Board’s ability to track the national picture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church was adversely affected throughout the year by reporting deficits by the Dioceses and other Church authorities.
In response to today’s revelations I urge the Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency. This should be speedily followed by the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
End 11/05/2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Archdiocese of Dublin – Safeguarding Children
Archdiocese of Dublin – Safeguarding Children
I welcome today’s publication of Child Safeguarding and Protection - Policy and Procedures by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. Preventing any child from coming to harm is just as important as doing the right thing once a concern about a child, or someone who may be a danger to children, has been raised. In this regard I welcome the commitment to create and maintain safe environments for children who are involved with Church activities by providing relevant training to all Diocesan staff and volunteers, developing materials to assist parishes and Diocesan agencies and carrying out audits of parishes and agencies to ensure they are compliant with best practice.
I also welcome the commitment within the Dublin Archdiocese to ensure that all Child Protection Policies and Practices are compliant with the State’s Children First Guidelines, this indeed is a requirement of Children First.
I note that it is practice in the Dublin Archdiocese to report ‘all child protection concerns to the HSE and An Garda Siochana’ – nothing short of this standard is acceptable from any Diocese in the country, and it would be of some use if each Catholic Diocese in Ireland could confirm that this standard is shared.
It is worth pointing out that the State’s Child Protection Guidelines, Children First are still only guidelines, there is no legal requirement on anyone to follow them and this is a situation which has to change. In this regard I welcome the commitment of Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis and to introduce Certification in Children First. I would also welcome the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
END - 14/04/2011
I welcome today’s publication of Child Safeguarding and Protection - Policy and Procedures by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. Preventing any child from coming to harm is just as important as doing the right thing once a concern about a child, or someone who may be a danger to children, has been raised. In this regard I welcome the commitment to create and maintain safe environments for children who are involved with Church activities by providing relevant training to all Diocesan staff and volunteers, developing materials to assist parishes and Diocesan agencies and carrying out audits of parishes and agencies to ensure they are compliant with best practice.
I also welcome the commitment within the Dublin Archdiocese to ensure that all Child Protection Policies and Practices are compliant with the State’s Children First Guidelines, this indeed is a requirement of Children First.
I note that it is practice in the Dublin Archdiocese to report ‘all child protection concerns to the HSE and An Garda Siochana’ – nothing short of this standard is acceptable from any Diocese in the country, and it would be of some use if each Catholic Diocese in Ireland could confirm that this standard is shared.
It is worth pointing out that the State’s Child Protection Guidelines, Children First are still only guidelines, there is no legal requirement on anyone to follow them and this is a situation which has to change. In this regard I welcome the commitment of Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis and to introduce Certification in Children First. I would also welcome the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
END - 14/04/2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA)
I very much welcome today’s announcement by Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald TD that a body dedicated to the protection and safety of our children is being set up and that such responsibilities are to be removed from the HSE.
In a speech I gave in March 2010, published here, I said:
.... the HSE..... its inability to work in its current structure is plain for all to see..........the safety, welfare and protection of children must no longer be left in the hands of an organisation so obviously unfit for purpose. A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system.
I am so pleased to see that the new Government has moved so speedily to establish the Department for Children and that work to create a new dedicated agency (Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA)) whose exclusive function will be to deliver child welfare and protection services is underway.
In a speech I gave in March 2010, published here, I said:
.... the HSE..... its inability to work in its current structure is plain for all to see..........the safety, welfare and protection of children must no longer be left in the hands of an organisation so obviously unfit for purpose. A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system.
I am so pleased to see that the new Government has moved so speedily to establish the Department for Children and that work to create a new dedicated agency (Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA)) whose exclusive function will be to deliver child welfare and protection services is underway.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Irish Catholic Bishops
STATEMENT - Andrew Madden
Irish Catholic Bishops – Towards Healing and Renewal
I wish to take the opportunity to respond to the document published today by the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference to mark the first anniversary of the publication of the Pastoral Letter of Pope Benedict to the Catholics of Ireland last year.
It is disappointing but by no means surprising that there is not a single reference to the role the Catholic Bishops played in causing the sexual abuse of so many children by covering up for the priests carrying out that abuse. Instead the role of Bishops is once again glossed over with such terms as ‘The inadequate response by some Church leaders’ and ‘so many in leadership failed to give priority to the love and care of children in their response to such heinous crimes’.
Last year I was one of those survivors who asked that any bishops who had played any part in the cover up of child sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests resign their positions. To me that was an important early step I had hoped for from the Catholic Church in the response, not only to the publication of the Murphy Report, but to the Bishops’ own statement in December 2009, that they recognised that the culture of cover up as revealed in the Murphy Report indicated a culture that was widespread in the Catholic Church.
Some time ago Pope Benedict used the term ‘the filth in the Catholic Church’ to describe priests who had sexually abused children - I don’t think it is too much to ask of a Church that looks to rebuild confidence and trust in itself and its current child protection measures that it at least put forward a leadership free of the filth that is those who covered it up.
END 19/03/2011
Irish Catholic Bishops – Towards Healing and Renewal
I wish to take the opportunity to respond to the document published today by the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference to mark the first anniversary of the publication of the Pastoral Letter of Pope Benedict to the Catholics of Ireland last year.
It is disappointing but by no means surprising that there is not a single reference to the role the Catholic Bishops played in causing the sexual abuse of so many children by covering up for the priests carrying out that abuse. Instead the role of Bishops is once again glossed over with such terms as ‘The inadequate response by some Church leaders’ and ‘so many in leadership failed to give priority to the love and care of children in their response to such heinous crimes’.
Last year I was one of those survivors who asked that any bishops who had played any part in the cover up of child sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests resign their positions. To me that was an important early step I had hoped for from the Catholic Church in the response, not only to the publication of the Murphy Report, but to the Bishops’ own statement in December 2009, that they recognised that the culture of cover up as revealed in the Murphy Report indicated a culture that was widespread in the Catholic Church.
Some time ago Pope Benedict used the term ‘the filth in the Catholic Church’ to describe priests who had sexually abused children - I don’t think it is too much to ask of a Church that looks to rebuild confidence and trust in itself and its current child protection measures that it at least put forward a leadership free of the filth that is those who covered it up.
END 19/03/2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Diarmuid Martin - Children's Rights - Government
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said in a speech at the Mater Dei Institute for Education earlier this week that giving the state greater responsibility for children will not automatically ensure improved child protection and increased childrens’ rights. He went on to say that it is not the state’s job to bring up children: it is the job of parents and that the measures needed to address the challenges of improving child protection will require huge effort and go way beyond the creation, simply, of new structures.
I can’t help wondering who these comments were meant to be aimed at. Everyone I know who has a genuine interest in advancing the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children already knows that no one single measure will move that agenda of work along effectively and efficiently.
The wording that will be presented to the Irish people to vote on in a referendum on Children’s Rights is unlikely to have anything to do making it the State’s job to bring up children, far more likely to be about ensuring that where the parents of any child fail in their responsibility towards such child, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means, as shall be regulated by law, endeavour to supply or supplement the place of the parents, regardless of their marital status – quite different to bringing up all the children of the State.
Apart from a referendum on Children’s Rights, there is of course a huge amount of work to be done and it is refreshing, to say the least, to have a government in place that not only recognises this fact but has committed to doing much of that work and has started well. The appointment of a Minister for Children with full cabinet status is a very welcome start. The commitment to divest the HSE of all responsibility for the child protection system and put that work directly under the responsibility of the Minister and Department for Children is also very welcome. Placing Children First on a statutory basis and introducing a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First is another necessary step the Government has agreed to. Sarah’s Law is Fine Gael policy, another important child protection measure as is ensuring proper implementation of the StaySafe/SPHE programmes in all schools.
The Children’s Rights Referendum is not a panacea for advancing the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children, but most people who are genuinely interested in that agenda already know that.
END 16/03/2011
I can’t help wondering who these comments were meant to be aimed at. Everyone I know who has a genuine interest in advancing the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children already knows that no one single measure will move that agenda of work along effectively and efficiently.
The wording that will be presented to the Irish people to vote on in a referendum on Children’s Rights is unlikely to have anything to do making it the State’s job to bring up children, far more likely to be about ensuring that where the parents of any child fail in their responsibility towards such child, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means, as shall be regulated by law, endeavour to supply or supplement the place of the parents, regardless of their marital status – quite different to bringing up all the children of the State.
Apart from a referendum on Children’s Rights, there is of course a huge amount of work to be done and it is refreshing, to say the least, to have a government in place that not only recognises this fact but has committed to doing much of that work and has started well. The appointment of a Minister for Children with full cabinet status is a very welcome start. The commitment to divest the HSE of all responsibility for the child protection system and put that work directly under the responsibility of the Minister and Department for Children is also very welcome. Placing Children First on a statutory basis and introducing a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First is another necessary step the Government has agreed to. Sarah’s Law is Fine Gael policy, another important child protection measure as is ensuring proper implementation of the StaySafe/SPHE programmes in all schools.
The Children’s Rights Referendum is not a panacea for advancing the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children, but most people who are genuinely interested in that agenda already know that.
END 16/03/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)