Sir, – John Waters (Opinion, September 28th) yet again uses the forthcoming children’s referendum to attack the social work profession. He cites the Roscommon case, in particular, to support his assertions. While he is highly critical of the failure of social workers to intervene in the Roscommon case, he accuses the profession of being “wont to trample all over families on the basis of circumstances far less drastic than could be observed by the dogs on the road where the Roscommon family lived”. The sources for his information are “many people”, whoever they are and an anonymous “former social worker”, who he alleges has written to him.
There is an inherent contradiction in John Waters’s position. While calling for more intervention in bad cases that have come to light, he consistently argues against any State intervention in families generally. He cannot have it both ways. Social workers, in his view, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
As a social worker, I am fully aware of past failings in the child protection system, which have often been caused by staff shortages. However, there are positive outcomes for children continually, as a result of intervention by social workers.
Unfortunately, the only cases that emerge into the public domain are those where failings have occurred.
These consistent attacks on the social work profession are very demoralising and are likely to fuel antagonism against the very people who are trying to support families and protect children.
It is very surprising that The Irish Times is allowing the vilification of an entire profession on such flimsy, anecdotal and unaccountable evidence.– Yours, etc,
A chara, – Could I ask people to consider that this referendum is not just about either child protection or adoption?
The key point about this referendum is a balancing of rights, an acknowledgment that children have equal rights within our society and within our Constitution. It does not in any way give them greater rights than either their parents, or the family, but gives them equal standing as individuals. How can this be wrong? Who can argue against this basic premise?
As a family law solicitor I welcome the inclusion of the child’s opinion in proceedings concerning the child, as this has been long overdue. In considering the impact of the referendum, let’s not just think about childcare, or adoption, but think also about the huge benefit for children caught in private family law cases, where decisions are being made daily in our courts regarding access and custody matters – with the passing of this referendum their voices can be properly heard.
Currently, in my experience, it is only in a tiny fraction of cases that the child’s wishes or opinions are sought. Passing this referendum will, I believe, provide both the catalyst and accountability for legislative change, and has the potential to lead to a new framework for family law, which is child- focused and child-inclusive. I have seen many times, that when parents shift their focus in separation situations to the child’s perspective, the potential for agreement multiplies. This leads to more cases being settled outside courts in a non-confrontational and child- friendly manner.
Let’s also think about children with disabilities, and the potential that having individual rights would lend to their allocation of necessary services, both medical, and educational.
This is a platform for positive change. Let’s not lose the opportunity to support one of the most vulnerable groups within our society. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Maria Mhic Mheanmain is correct in stating that for the most part parents are champions of children’s rights. However, it is for cases where this has not been the case that the referendum is sorely needed and long overdue. – Yours, etc,