Rights must not come before responsibility
Related Articles
By her own admission, it was a house of horrors. With bells on it. It is hard to contemplate the full extent of the terror waged against six children by their mother, who has pleaded guilty to incest, sexual assault and wilful neglect.
The fact that the woman admitted forcing her teenage son to have sex with her makes this harrowing tale of abuse unprecedented: until yesterday, no mother has ever been convicted in an Irish court of sexually abusing her child.
Surprisingly, incest only attracts a fine and a prison term not exceeding three years. The remaining offences attract similar penalties, prompting calls by Geoffrey Shannon, the State's child protection tsar, for a complete overhaul of the law.
The fact that our Constitution near bullet-proofs the rights of married parents even when the family home is the most dangerous place on earth for a child, makes you wonder whether our child protection laws are worth the paper they are written on.
When you read of the horrific abuse her children suffered at her hands over a period of six years, the burning question, surely, is how did this woman manage to retain custody of her children for so long?
The children (aged between six and 15 when the offences took place) lived in appalling conditions. They were not fed properly, suffered from head lice and were beaten regularly.
Their mum left them alone and went drinking every day, leaving her offspring to fight it out amongst themselves as they struggled to survive.
Such was her dominion over her children that despite the fact that a local doctor had reported his concerns to the Western Health Board, and despite the fact that social workers visited her home twice a week, the devastating truth only emerged when her children were placed into foster care.
Questions, inevitably, will be asked about whether health officials or others could have prevented this spiral of abuse.
Various interventions, including home help and the support of social workers, were afforded to the family, who eventually agreed in 2000 -- on a voluntary basis -- to place the children into the care of their maternal aunt and uncle.
But after the plan was agreed the woman, who was not legally represented, sought -- and was granted on a one-sided basis only -- a High Court injunction restraining the board from removing the children from her care. The children were finally taken into care at the end of 2004.
Why was drastic action not taken sooner?
The State has ample laws at its disposal to remove children from danger. Not only are health boards empowered but they are obliged to apply to the courts for a variety of orders -- including the temporary and permanent removal of children from the care of parents, if a child is at risk.
Health boards are obliged to identify children who are not receiving adequate care.
They are obliged to have regard for the rights (and duties) of parents under the Constitution, but the welfare of the child must be their first and paramount consideration.
There are two types of orders that the courts can grant. A supervision order allows a child to stay at their home in the custody of their parents, visited regularly by health board officials, including social workers.
Care orders, which remove a child from its family, are in theory granted where a judge has reasonable cause to believe that a child has been assaulted, neglected, sexually abused or otherwise ill-treated.
It is these orders that the courts are loathe to impose lest they offend the "very special position" of the marital family.
The Constitution places enormous barriers in the way of health boards removing children from dangerous situations in their family home.
The now-shelved children's rights referendum sought to allow the State to intervene earlier when children are suffering abuse at the hands of their parents and care-givers.
Family life must be respected, but not at the cost of children who can not give a voice to their suffering.
- Dearbhail MacDonald
