Three out of four voters approve of an amendment to incorporate children's rights in the Constitution, but the debate may raise major issues of the modern definition of the family.
That is the view of speakers at a one-day conference on Children's Rights and the Constitution, held in Dublin yesterday by the children's charity, Barnardos, and addressed by Minister of State for children Brian Lenihan.
Presenting independent research which suggested there was widespread support for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the rights and protection of children, Barnardos chief executive Fergus Finlay said support could be as high as 80 per cent.
High levels of support were found across all income groups, all ages and all regions.
However, Mr Finlay warned of concerns about the amendment, particularly in relation to the balance of rights between parents and children.
There were, he said, essentially three articles in the Constitution which would affect the protection of children.
Article 40 generally dealt with personal rights and it was proposed to amend it to include personal rights for children.
Article 41 dealt with family rights and Barnardos did not propose to alter this in any way. The charity worked with the family unit, to strengthen it, and was not interested in amendments which would bring it into conflict with the family.
Article 42 was the one that Barnardos felt was the most in need of change. Mr Finlay said it made it extremely difficult for the State to intervene between a parent and child without the parents' consent. "We believe we should change that to allow the State to intervene in exceptional cases."
Barnardos had proposed to use yesterday's conference to launch its campaign for children's rights to be included in the Constitution, but Taoiseach Bertie Ahern announced on Saturday that the Government proposed an amendment. Mr Finlay said he though the Barnardos campaign might have influenced the Taoiseach.
Mr Finlay was asked at the conference about the constitutional definition of the family, particularly in relation to Article 41, which appeared to see the family as a unit where the parents were married in a traditional, religious ceremony.
Mr Finlay said the article was complex and he believed the debate would bring in discussion on the nature of the modern family, including same-sex unions and families where parents were not married.
How these issues would be addressed would be for Mr Lenihan and the Government to work out, he suggested.
Mr Lenihan, who said the amendment may be put to a vote before the general election, said issues relating to the definition of the family simply underlined the need to look at all three articles, 40, 41 and 42.
Mr Lenihan said it would be a mistake to underestimate the task facing those who seek to strengthen the protection of children in the Constitution. He was also keen to rule the current controversy known as the C case out of the debate on amendment.
"These matters are under consideration by the Oireachtas Committee on Child Protection. The Government does not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of the committee."
WHAT BARNARDOS WANTS: proposed wording
Barnardos has proposed amending two Articles in the Constitution which it believes can be combined in a single Act. The wording is as follows:
Article 40.3.4:
"The State recognises the unique and vulnerable nature of children and promises to guard with special care their welfare. It shall by its laws and its actions protect and vindicate the welfare of children and such welfare shall be the paramount consideration in any decision made by the State, or its authorities, in relation to children."
Article 42.5
"In exceptional cases, where parents fail to protect the welfare of their children, the State shall take such action as is necessary to ensure such protection."
