Independent Senator, Ronan Mullen, has questioned aspects of the proposed children’s rights amendment, especially its reference to ‘children of the State’ and a child’s ‘best interests’.

He was speaking yesterday in the Seanad debate on the proposed amendment.

Senator Mullen said that the Constitution as it presently stood was already able to deal with abuse cases. The fact that thousands of children were taken into the care of the State each year was evidence of this, he said.

In response, the junior Minister for Children, Barry Andrews, said that he respected the concerns of Senator Mullen, adding that they were “widely held throughout this country, if not in this House, so one must consider them very carefully”.

Quoting constitutional expert, Dr Gerard Hogan of Trinity College Dublin, Senator Mullen said the belief that the current Constitution had not worked well in this context represented a “grotesque misstatement and misunderstanding of the constitutional provisions”.

Senator Mullen added that he had concerns about the inclusion of the phrase “children of the State” in the amendment, as it suggested the concept of the State as parent.

“I am not sure that is the appropriate way to look at its role, even if, on occasion, it must be required to take the place of the parent, which is a different idea,” he said.

He also expressed concern about the proposal to include the phrase “best interests of the child” in the amendment. The issue in this context, he said, was who would decide what these best interests are and who would vindicate them.

Senator Mullen also suggested that, given the weight of social science data showing that children thrived best within a low-conflict marital lifelong relationship between the natural parents, whether the State, in the best interests of the child, should not acknowledge this.

Fine Gael Senator, Ciaran Cannon, rejected concerns that the wording might give too much power to the State as against parents.

In particular, he accused Irish Times columnist John Waters of being sensational in raising such fears.

He said that such concerns were met by the proposed wording, and that State intervention would be “‘by proportionate means, as shall be regulated by law’”.

The emphasis, Senator Cannon argued, was on “supporting families in their responsibilities to their children, and the removal of children from their parents will be a last resort”.

Senator David Norris said that in Irish society children had not been “regarded as significant or as having any right to a voice”.

He also deplored the idea that there were concerns at the lowering of the threshold at which the State could intervene in the family, and those who expressed those concerns.