So I've been reading lots of articles and arguements for and against this constitutional change and I have become increasingly frustrated. From what I can see it is pretty straight forward. This is my understanding of some of the key issues:

In 1999 Children First Guidelines were created in response to a number of serious cases of child abuse. The purpose of these guidelines was to give anyone working with children a policy to work from in order to recognise and respond appropriately to child abuse and neglect. This was very badly needed! In 2011, in response to other very serious child abuse cases the Children First Guidelines were added to and updated. Yes this policy could be better but it is an important policy. The biggest problem with these guidelines are that they are only guidelines. It does not have any footing in law. This constitutional change that we have been asked to vote on is required in order to make these guidelines into law.

Yes the HSE on behalf of the state already intervenes where there is a concern about the welfare or protection of a child. The word "intervene" does not mean "take children"!!! The new wording in the constitution will give rise to new laws with regards child protection. This will be the next step and can not happen if these changes do not go ahead. Child protection already happens so this referendum is simply allowing the contitution and the law a chance to "catch up". These things need to happen so that there is less scope for serious cases of child abuse to slip through the cracks.

I have heard people from the "no" camp claiming that the state will take children from safe happy homes under the new wording. THIS IS NOT TRUE!! And this kind of scaremongering is not helpful.

Also from the "no" camp it has been pointed out that 196 children died while in the care of the state and as yet nobody has been disciplined in relation to any of these deaths. Perhaps nobody has been disciplined because nobody was at fault?? I would also ask the question "how many children would have died if they had remained in an unsafe home?" I suspect the number would have been significantly higher. Perhaps the system is not perfect but it is better than leaving a child in an unsafe home.

Even if the changes happen the Consitiution will still acknowledge
"that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents"
The state will only intervene if parents fail in their duty. Again "intervene" does not mean "take children"! The proposed new Article means that the state’s intervention must be proportionate and this must be set out in law.

I will be voting yes today and I urge everyone else to do the same.