THEY call it 'old block syndrome'. It applies to the young, first-time homebuyer, who won't even look at a property that is more than a decade old. Estate agents are fascinated by this aversion. The young dudes want something modern, sophisticated, plenty of glass and brick, a reflection of their self-image. The older apartments or flats might be a better deal, but they don't conform to the slick, sleek image driving New Ireland forward.

The look is all, and it must scream out that we have arrived.

Old block syndrome raised its head in a different form last week. Two judgements from the courts told a tale of a country at odds with the image now projected to the world at large.

Both highlight how, as the country has moved forward through prosperity, there remain aspects to society that are rooted in a darker age.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled on the 'baby Ann' case involving a 'tug-of-love' over a little girl between her natural and adoptive parents. Even some of the supporting details to this case speak of a bygone age.

Two university students coupled and a pregnancy resulted. Neither the young man nor woman wanted to tell their parents. They decided that she would have the baby and give it up for adoption. She is understood to have given birth in 2004 without her parents' knowledge. Even her siblings were left out of the loop. Where does this scenario fit into the image of a progressive society, with its cappuccino culture and instant communication?

Baby Ann was given up, but, according to the case, it soon became obvious that the biological mother was uneasy about her choice. By the time she was required to give final consent, six months later, she wanted the right to visit her child, in an open adoption arrangement.

There was a problem with social workers, who would only agree a visit by the biological parents if accompanied by social workers. There is no legal provision for open adoption in this country, so her only alternative was to attempt to regain custody of the child.

On legal advice, the couple married in order to provide the kind of family that has exalted status in the constitution. While love for their child was the impetus for their action, it was a union that harked back to the days of arranged marriages. A lawyer, rather than Cupid, propelled them to legalise their union. Thus, at a time when onethird of all children are born outside of wedlock, those who are part of the constitutional definition of the family retain greater rights.

When the case came before the High Court, Justice John MacMenamin interpreted the law as the moral arbiter of society as it is supposed to be.

The welfare of baby Ann was uppermost in his mind when he ruled that the breaking of the bonds formed over two years would be an unfair imposition on her.

The Supreme Court had no choice in overturning that ruling. As the ultimate interpreters of the constitution, they had to give precedence to it, a document written in 1937, when, in relation to social mores, everybody lived on a different planet.

The other case that resonated with old block syndrome was the High Court ruling in the embryo case. Judge Brian McGovern ruled that three frozen embryos should not be implanted in the womb of a woman whose estranged husband does not want to be the father of any more children.

There are countries where there is little legislation relating to fertility treatment, but most of them are in the developing world. Ireland, with its multicultural veneer and soaraway economy, is also one.

There are no laws governing the storage or release of frozen embryos. There are absolutely no laws governing anything about fertility treatment, which was first successfully undertaken in this country 19 years ago.

The main issue that the judge had to decide in the case was whether or not the frozen embryo constituted an unborn life, and as such have a right to life. This issue has its origins in a referendum of 23 years ago, when the attitude was to change the constitution to protect the unborn and let somebody else worry about the technicalities.

Those technicalities are still dogging the body politic, and causing pain and hardship to the individuals caught up in a legal no-man's land.

When the referendum was passed in 1983, it was already known that assisted human reproduction would be arriving in the country, as the first testtube baby was born in Britain five years previously.

As might be expected, a report was commissioned. The resulting Commission of Assisted Human Reproduction undertook an exhaustive exercise of hearings before publishing a final report in May last year. Instead of legislating on the basis of that report, it was sent to an Oireachtas committee, which set up another committee to examine the commissioner's report and draw up its own. That has yet to be published, but the odds are that when it is, another report will be required to report on that. Every avenue will be explored to find a way not to legislate and thereby upset somebody.

Against this background, Bertie Ahern wants to have a referendum on the rights of children. If matters such as reproductive rights or adoption can lead to political paralysis, then Ahern is just the man to turn it around to his own political advantage.

The plan was announced on the eve of the recent ardfheis, thus putting flesh to the bones of a half-assed shindig that was itself a warm-up for next year's conference.

It sounded like the business.

Who could be against children?

With a poll a few months before the election, it would put the government on the side of angels and relegate the opposition to the role of also-rans. There could be plenty of posters with Fianna Fail's greatest asset smiling down from every poll with a cuddly smile in a terrific dummy run for the real thing. Normal political fare would be, at least partially, suspended.

However, following the baby Ann case in particular, it may not be all plain sailing. For some liberals, the case made more explicit the requirement to insert children's rights into the constitution. But for conservative elements, it illustrated the dangers of reducing in relative terms the role of parents in the constitution.

And thus, the debate is already sliding down the deep walls of a well of divide, the very place the government didn't want it to end up. Without some form of general consensus, the campaign for a referendum could mean the government would be on a loser.

But so what? A few months before the last election, liberal and conservative elements in the abortion debate both joined up to defeat the last referendum in that long-running saga. The defeat had no effect on the election.

Some say it might even have helped the government in returning to power. So despite choppy waters ahead, it looks like Ahern is going to plough on, standing tall to bring enhanced rights to children.