Children now have a say in their lives, even in who adopts them

WELL, that was some wait, wasn’t it? Nearly 900 days ago, one million people in Ireland voted in a referendum on the rights of children. This weekend, after endless delays caused by a legal challenge, the Supreme Court has decided that your decision must stand. At last.

And so, what you decided then must now be enshrined in law. What’s more, it will influence law-makers into the future.

Above all else, it will ensure that in decisions affecting children, the rights of the child must matter most. Children must be heard and respected when their future is being decided.

Our Constitution now recognises children as individuals, with their own rights.

The Constitution had recognised children as part of a family. This resulted in different treatment of children depending on their parents’ marital status, for example in relation to eligibility for adoption.

DISCOVER MORE CONTENT LIKE THIS

While many judges regard it as important to listen to the views of children, that has always been left to their own discretion. Not any more.

The law will now require that — as a matter of right — children’s views, concerns and wishes will be heard about decisions that will affect them in the courts and administrative proceedings. There are ad hoc, unregulated systems in place now, and it will become urgent that they be replaced by something that every child can understand and trust.

The amendment will also allow for the adoption of children who have been in care for a substantial length of time, if it is in their best interests. Currently, up to 2,000 children who have been raised by foster parents will never be adopted, due to legal circumstances, but neither will they be returned to their birth family, due to practical circumstances. Adoption would be a second chance for those children to have a stable and secure family life. It will now be possible for at least some of them.

All in all, the people of Ireland did important work in that referendum 900 days ago, and your children and their children will thank you for it.

I well remember the campaign that led up to the passage of that referendum. It was divisive, fearful, and confusing. The divisiveness of the campaign kept many people away from the polls, although, thankfully, enough people took part to put the issues beyond doubt. And the Supreme Court judgement has cemented that message.

Even in the context of the current referendum, it’s important to remember that under our Constitution and laws, decisions affecting children must, in future, be made in the best interests of children.

For example, I listened with interest, on Sunday, to David Quinn, the head of the Iona Institute, outlining his reasons for voting ‘no’ in the equal-marriage referendum. Among other things, he said “supposing a future government, when it comes to things like adoption law, (wants to) seek to place a child, when it’s up for adoption, with a married man and woman, first, in recognition of the child’s right to a mother and a father.

“So that’s gone now, from our statute law. Our statute law now sees no difference between men and women, or two men or two women, when it comes to raising children… If we pass this referendum, and a future government decided they’re going to restore a situation where we try to place a child for adoption with a married man and woman first, over two married men, that would be struck down as unconstitutional”. (I’ve shortened the quotation slightly, for reasons of space, but haven’t distorted it in any way.)

There are two fundamental problems with this point of view. First, it is based on an incorrect reading of the law, as it stands and as it will stand, irrespective of what happens in May.

Adoption decisions must be made, and are made, having regard to one issue only — the welfare and best interests of the child. People are turned down for adoption all the time (and that can be cruel) because they don’t meet that single criterion — the best interests of the child.

It’s wrong to scare people on the basis of a skewed interpretation of an existing or proposed law. And so the second problem with that point of view is that it has made some people afraid.

I posted something on Facebook the other day in support of a ‘yes’ vote. One of the people who replied to my post said he was in favour of equality, but it was the raising of children that was a dilemma for him.

When I asked him to outline the dilemma, he replied “the caress of a mother, the fingers stroking a baby’s hair, holding a baby close to her bosom, the sound of a gentle, calming voice.”

I tried to provide reassurance, on the basis of the many (non-traditional) parents I’ve met who are brilliant.

But then, Colm O’Gorman, himself a gay parent, posted something that was far more moving than anything I could say.

Speaking directly to the man who had shared his dilemma with me, he said (and again I’ve shortened it slightly): “All I can tell you is that my family is very much like all the others I know. Our kids are loved... fiercely loved. There is no shortage of nurture, of hugs, of laughter, of joy... of love. We struggle and worry just like any other parents... we worry about their studies, about all the little day-to-day dramas and upsets of their teenage years... about their futures...

“We each bring different qualities as parents. For example, I am the one who gets up in the night, if they are ever sick, to take care of them and get them settled down again.

“I make their school lunches every morning, because I am especially passionate about nutrition and determined that they will eat good, fresh food. Paul is the one who is more spontaneous, who plans great days out and springs them on them. He feeds their minds, challenging and exciting them with new perspectives and experiences all the time.

“But we both love them equally fiercely and have put all we can, all we have, into being the best parents we can be.”

Colm said that the referendum was about allowing two people who loved each other to make a lifelong commitment to each other, on the same basis as anyone else. And he said that it was about ensuring that their children had the same protections as every child.

Here’s the thing. In passing the Children’s Rights referendum, we struck a blow for children’s equality — giving all children an equal right to be heard and respected. This next referendum is all about equality, too.

And, in the entire history of the world, equality has never threatened anyone. Especially not our children.

READ MORE FERGUS FINLAY: It’s time for Ireland to come of age with a young, uncynical President