The Definition of Family in the Constitution

phrase 41 of the Constitution espys the Family as the natural primary and fundamental whole conclave of Society, and as a moral institution possessing certain absolute and imprescriptible rights which be antecedent and superior to all tyrannical rightfulness. The sound out guarantees to harbor the Family in its institution and authority as the necessary rear end of social order and as indispensable to the welf ar of the Nation and the convey1. expression 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann contains the main provisions relating to the family. It is generally considered that expressions 41 and 42 were heavily influenced by Roman Catholic teaching.They were clearly drafted with unitary family in mind, namely the family dwellingd on wedding party. 2. Since 1937 when the constitution was drafted there has been major(ip) social changes such as, changing attitudes to sexual behaviour, contraceptive use, social bridal of pre marital relations, cohabitation and single p benthood, s ocial acceptance of divorce, conscionable to name a few. These social changes which would non confine readily existed in 1937 get non been adapted to in the Constitution in Article 41/42 concerning the family.Simply put the definition of family in the constitution is old fashioned. I am of the opinion that an amendment to The Family- namely Article 41 is required. I base my none on 3 main reasons 1) More types of family should be treasure, not just that of a marital family. 2) The definition of family should be changed to include denotative rights of a peasant incorporated into Article 41 and the rights of a tyke not just fall on a lower floor that of the family 3) The wording of the rights of the family to change to quit for more state intervention.Though the family is not defined in the constitution the Supreme judicial system held that the family is based on sexual union farming(Nicolaou) v An Bord Uchtala3 Walsh J the family referred to on Article 41. 3. 1 is the family which founded on the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded on the institution of marriage and, in the context of the Article, marriage means valid marriage under the laws for the time be in force in the state. Article 41. 3. 4 states The utter pledges itself to guard with particular care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect against attack . From this definition it appears that a non-marital family would not be protected by the State against attack. In my opinion this provision should be amended to align to the social change that I hurl previously mentioned as a family in catamenia times is no longer just a marital family. The law must, as far possible mirror contemporaneous civilization and as that changes so must the law.If the law becomes too unrelenting and inflexible, then there is always the danger that it will conflict with the call for of the people, with all the unfortunate consequences to which c onflict may switch off.. during the dynamic periods of narration .. for it becomes essential for the legal system to adjust itself to the novel conditions of social emotional state5 As a general rule most rights and obligations flowing from family law legislation are confined to families based on marriage.There are few contexts where non marital relationships are recognised such as municipal violence6 and wrongful death7. The European Court of Human Rights defend taken broader turn up then Ireland and has been deemed to protect inter alia the family life of non-marital parents and their children. It is likely that the failure to recognise the rights, and indeed the duties, of the members of non-marital families may instal a breach of Art.8 of the European Convention of Human rights, which requires that the State respect the family life of all psyches. iven that the shape is at a time part of domestic law it is only a thing of time before Irish Law is found to be in breach 8 The European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) broader approach to the definition of a family can be seen in Mouta v Portugal9. In this field of study the ECHR recognised a homosexual man and his child as a family which wouldnt be recognised under the Irish Constitution. Da Silva was previously get hitched with and had a daughter in this relationship and divorced 3 age later. .The applicant (Da Silva) sought an order giving him agnatic responsibility for the child.The capital of Portugal Family Affairs Court awarded Da Silva parental responsibility. His ex-wife appealed against the Family Affairs Courts shrewdness to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, which reversed the lower motor hotels judgment and awarding parental responsibility to the ex-wife, with contact to the applicant. It was held by the ECHR that the judgment of the Court of Appeal, in so far as it set aside the judgment of the lower court, represent an interference with the fathers right to respect for family life and attra cted the application of Art 8 of the Convention.Were this exercise to appear in an Irish Court De Souza would not have been awarded manacles due to the the rigidness of the courts to move from strictly interpreting family in the constitution . Secondly I will explore how 1)Article 41 acts as a rampart against state intervention against matters concerning the family and also 2)why I cipher the child should be given expressed rights in the constitution contained in the definition of family. In my opinion I think that Article 41 acts as a shield against state intervention.I think a shield is an effective way of describing the Article as a shield protects against attack but does not block all danger/damage, just like Article 41protects the family but does not provide complete immunity. This hold emphasises the rights of the family as a whole while not exploring individual rights such as the rights of the child. I think the words inalienable and imprescriptible/rights superior to p ositive law are too strong as it gives the State special(a) opportunity to intervene with matters concerning the family.When can the state intervene?. Murphy J gave his view on this question where conduct of parents are such to constitute a virtual abdication of their responsibility or alternatively, the disastrous consequences of a particular parental finality are so immediate and fatal as to demand intervention and perhaps call into question each the basic competence or devotion of the parents A State intervention must be proportionate -breach of Article 41 must have justifiable circumstances. As I previously mentioned Article 41 does not provide complete protection.This can be seen in People v T10 where a father had been convicted of sexual offenses against his daughter. Casey made the point that while Article 41 established that the family as a unit had its own special rights, other provisions make it clear that each member of that unit had his/her own essentially-guarantee d personal rights.. It follows from this that the common law rule can have no application in cases where one member of a family is supposed to have committed an offense against another11.I have already given my opinion that i think the words inalienable and imprescriptible and supra positive law are too strong and limit the courts powers in intervening. One case where I think this is prevalent is is N v Health Service Executives12 aka the baby Ann case. At the time of As nascency in July 2004 the applicants were unmarried and they decided to place A for adoption. The applicants married in Northern Ireland in January 2006, strengthening their legal position as they now formed a family under the constitution.The High Court held that the child was in the lawful custody of Mr and Mrs D(the Adoptive parents) and that, accordingly, a conditional order for the interrogation under art 40 had to be discharged. The purpose of the High Court was based on his conclusion that the applicants had failed in their duty towards their daughter and delinquent her and that there were compelling reasons why the child should not be returned to their custody. The decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.I feel that the decision by the Supreme Court was inappropriate, it did not take into account the welfare of the child, Article 41 restricted the courts ability to award custody of the child to the foster parents, as the maternal parents and Baby Ann has formed a family under the constitution. If the State had more powers to intervene and supersede Article 41 then the custody would probably have been given to the adoptive parents (which would have been the right decision from my point of view).John Walters gave his view on the Supreme Courts decision its detainment tied by outmoded provisions of the Constitution, was prevented from doing the decent thing leave baby Ann with her prospective adoptive parents13. Judge Catherine McGuiness, closing remarks in the case were inte resting. She voiced condemnation regarding the rights of the child in the constitution and also how she was antipathetical to come to the decision to support the maternal parents claims. It would be disingenuous not to admit that I am one of the quarters who have voiced criticism of the position of the child in the Constitution.I did so publicly in the report on the Kilkenny Incest Inquiry in 1993. The present case must, however, be decided under the Constitution and the law as it now stands. With the wavering and some regret I would allow this appeal. 14. I think that the argument to give the child expressed rights under the constitution is intertwined with giving the State more scope on intervening in family cases. As it stands childrens rights are thought as secondary to the parents and this can be see in Crowley. 15 I think that there should be a change from the paternal approach, whereby the adults know topper.Were there to be an express provision outlining the right of th e child there would gave been an alternative decision in the PKU test case16. The court acknowledged the right of the parents to refuse a both standard and great test for a new born child while ignoring the best interests of the child. The Council of Europe Recommendation 1289 (1996) point 8(i) on a European dodging for children advised that there should be guarantees that childrens rights should be explicitly incorporated into constitutional text. 17To summarise I think Article 41 concerning the definition of family should be changed. It is outdated basing a family on marriage as in current times there are more then just marriage based families, there are a variety of situations which the normal person would regard as a family. The Constitutional Review Group declared that there is a multiplicity of differing units which may be capable of organism considered family. 18 I think there should be an exhaustive list including the instances higher up where a member of the public would regard the situation as being a family.Alternatively you could leave the definition of family open and state that family is not confined to that of just a family based on marriage. This would leave the workbench to determine a family on a case by case basis which is similar to the ECHR approach. This would result in a large gist of uncertainty. I would favor the first option even though it would arise its own problems such as would being forced to become a legal family under the constitution infringe on personal rights?And also how would you determine the length of time a family is together to qualify as co-habitant?. Either way I think the implied definition of family needs to be changed. To highlight the constant increase of different types of families and the need for reform, I have taken statistics from the last 3 census of the number of units formed by cohabiting couples (which are one family I think should be recognised) and formed a table, this what is more indicates the need to incorporate the change in society into the constitution.